Support NeoGAF

[sangreal]

So (again) who are the people who wouldn't rather go back to the Clinton era, or whatever it was Obama said?

How about the lower income families that Clinton promised wouldn't see tax increases but they did?

Or people that are truly against our policy to intervene in internal foreign matters (not Obama)?

Or people that believe the President needs to be a role model to all Americans?

I've always been an admirer of Bill Clinton (granted, I was very young during his presidency), but there are plenty of reasons to not want to go back to those days, budget surplus aside.

 

[Mandark]

I wasn't too surprised at Scalia. He has a political philosophy and a judicial philosophy. If a case doesn't impact the first, he goes by the second. If it does, then all bets are off.

Most constructionist judges will be politically conservative. No school of thought exists in a vacuum, and the context for that one is the New Deal expansion of the commerce clause and the civil rights rulings in the 50's and 60's.

All the high-minded talk of judges who go by the letter of the law and leave their politics at home is just that. Talk. Even Saint Bork thought an organic constitution was a fine thing, when looking at the scope of the executive branch.

 

[Cheebs]

I would much prefer to not head back to the 90's which is why I am for Obama. But if I am given the choice of 90's Clintons with Hillary or more of the same of this decade of Bush-style with McCain.....

I'd run back to the 90's in a heart beat.

 

[Cooter]

If I hear someone talk about how great the 90's were again and use that as proof as to why we should now vote for Hillary I'm going to puke. Clinton resided over a huge technology boom and the beginning of the commercial internet. Give me a break.

 

[topsyturvy]

As a Hillary supporter, how do you reconcile her claims to white house experience with her claim that she voted for the Iraq war because of misinformation from George Bush. There were only 3 years between her tenure in the White House and the invasion, so shouldn't she have known the real deal?

What YOU think she voted for isn't what she voted for. She also mention this like 32 times last night.

Also, here's an interesting link you and the obama followers should now, its from 2005 but i'm sure you'll find something unlikable.

linky

While saying she took full responsibility for her error, Clinton repeatedly insisted that she had been misled by "false" intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction presented by the Bush administration. Citing "assurances they gave that they would first seek to resolve the issue of weapons of mass destruction peacefully through United Nations sponsored inspections," Clinton lamented: "Their assurances turned out to be empty ones."

 

[Cheebs]

If I hear someone talk about how great the 90's were again and use that as proof as to why we should now vote for Hillary I'm going to puke. Clinton resided over a huge technology boom and the beginning of the commercial internet. Give me a break.

The average american does not realize this or understand this. It is too complicated for them. "Clinton made the economy good" is the simplier, but wrong, understanding.

That is not to take away from Bill's economic policies. He had solid economic policies but they did not bring about the boom. But still, Alan Greenspan a REPUBLICAN who served under many presidents said Bill Clinton had the greatest understanding of the economy than any president he has worked with.

 

[Zeed]

What YOU think she voted for isn't what she voted for. She also mention this like 32 times last night.

Elaborate.

Also, here's an interesting link you and the obama followers should now, its from 2005 but i'm sure you'll find something unlikable.

linky

So basically she was naive and trusting of the Bush Administration. I think Wolf Blitzer said something to that effect last night, didn't he?

Either way I'm not sure what you were trying to prove with your link, as it only reflects poorly on the judgment of your apparent candidate of choice.

 

[topsyturvy]

Elaborate.


So basically she was naive and trusting of the Bush Administration. I think Wolf Blitzer said something to that effect last night, didn't he?

Either way I'm not sure what you were trying to prove with your link, as it only reflects poorly on the judgment of your apparent candidate of choice.

What you don't understand is what she stated numerous times, either you guys are ignoring it or you people just doesn't know the facts. The resolution she signed transfers the responsibility, the authority, and the power of the Congress to the President so he can declare war when it is necessary. But going to war was intended for the last case scenario. Hillary, john kerry and other senators stated that bush didn't even indicate that he wants to go to war or has to go to war; but he will make the full decision, not the Congress, not the people through the Congress of this country in that manner. The fact of the matter is that congress never voted to even go to war. :/

heres another link to back that up, but again, im sure you'll find something to find against her.
linky

 

[Zeed]

What you don't understand is what she stated numerous times, either you guys are ignoring it or you people just doesn't know the facts. The resolution she signed transfers the responsibility, the authority, and the power of the Congress to the President so he can declare war when and if he wants to.

What makes you think we don't understand that? I already addressed that poor cop-out of an excuse and explained why it doesn't change anything. Claiming that I don't understand an argument that I've already shredded makes you look like a stuttering fool.

Having swallowed Hillary's campaign talking points whole, are you unable to actually digest them?

heres another link to back that up, But again, im sure you'll find something to find against her.
linky

You keep throwing links that reiterate the same single point over and over, despite having already been rebutted.

I thought I was being clear enough before, but I'll go the extra mile and spell this out for you:

Hillary voted to give Bush the power to go to war. Either she did so for what she believed would be political advantage, or she did so based on poor judgment and naive faith in Bush. Neither possibility casts her in a good light.

By the way, in case you couldn't tell, the question in my last post was rhetorical. When you get called out on an excuse by fucking Wolf Blitzer, who probably has the least testicles of any journalist on TV, you know that your bullshit must really stink. Her excuse, the very one you keep parroting all over this thread, does not fly with anyone capable of critical thinking.

 

[topsyturvy]

What makes you think we don't understand that? I already addressed that poor cop-out of an excuse and explained why it doesn't change anything. Claiming that I don't understand an argument that I've already shredded makes you look like a stuttering fool.

Having swallowed Hillary's campaign talking points whole, are you unable to actually digest them?


You keep throwing links that reiterate the same single point over and over, despite having already been rebutted.

I thought I was being clear enough before, but I'll go the extra mile and spell this out for you:

Hillary voted to give Bush the power to go to war. Either she did so for what she believed would be political advantage, or she did so based on poor judgment and naive faith in Bush. Neither option casts her in a good light.

When you get called out on an excuse by fucking Wolf Blitzer, who probably has the least testicles of any journalist on TV, you know that your bullshit must really stink.

going to war was suppose to be the last case scenario out of a lot of shit in that vote she casted, thats what i only pointed out. I could careless about what you think to be honest.

 

[Zeed]

going to war was suppose to be the last case scenario, that what i only pointed out. I could careless about what you think to be honest.

:lol You're a joke.

If you're going to back down from an argument at least be a man about it. Covering your ears and crying that you don't care about "what I think" makes you look like a pussy.

 

[topsyturvy]

:lol You're a joke.

If you're going to back down from an argument at least be a man about it. Covering your ears and crying that you don't care about "what I think" makes you look like a pussy.

so you want to bicker about something that we won't agree on? Ok, tell me, what don't you understand about the vote? it wasn't really about going to war afterall, You do realize that it was only to get inspectors in iraq right? But you said you know that? So what are we arguing about?

 

[Cooter]

going to war was suppose to be the last case scenario out of a lot of shit in that vote she casted, thats what i only pointed out. I could careless about what you think to be honest.

That is a load of BS. I don't know if you were at an age where you remember the day to day events back in 2002 but everyone and their mother knew what that vote stood for.

so you want to bicker about something that we won't agree on? Ok, tell me, what don't you understand about the vote? it wasn't really about going to war afterall, You do realize that it was only to get inspectors in iraq right? But you said you know that? So what are we arguing about?

:lol I'm sorry. It was a vote to get the inspectors in? Is that your final answer? Unbelievable.

 

[Zeed]

so you want to bicker about something that we won't agree on?

No, your arguments are retarded, and I'm calling you out. Either you're going to call it quits, or you're going to continue to expose the depths of your ignorance. I'm perfectly fine with both.

Ok, tell me, what don't you understand about the vote?

Nothing. I think you're the one who lacks understanding here.

it wasn't really about going to war afterall, You do realize that it was only to get inspectors in iraq right?

Again, this is bullshit, and even if we accept it as truth, Hillary comes off as looking like an incompetent fool. Lose-lose, what are you trying to prove?

 

[CoolTrick]

Obama can preach about being against the war from the start as much as he'd like, but it's a lot easier to take a stand on an issue when you aren't in the Senate. Obama's voted for the Patriot Act and constant war funding since, proving that when you're in the Senate you sometimes have to cast votes that might not be entirely what you stand for.

 

[topsyturvy]

That is a loan of BS. I don't know if you were at an age where you remember the day to day events back in 2002 but everyone and their mother knew what that vote stood for.

omg, again, the resolution they voted for was to go to war only if it was necessary.

It was a vote to get the inspectors in?

yes, even republicans stated this. edwards, kerry and hillary all echoes the same sentiment. There was more then just going to war in that resolution you know. :/

 

[Cooter]

Obama can preach about being against the war from the start as much as he'd like, but it's a lot easier to take a stand on an issue when you aren't in the Senate. Obama's voted for the Patriot Act and constant war funding since, proving that when you're in the Senate you sometimes have to cast votes that might not be entirely what you stand for.

Is this what the Hillary defense has come down to? Strong.

omg, again, the resolution they voted for was to go to war only if it was necessary. and it was in 2003, not 02.

What does that even mean? Who considers it necessary after the bill pases?

 

[Zeed]

omg, again

This is the fifth time you've made the same exact statement, and it is not any truer now than it was five years ago. Yes, the vote was technically only for giving the president authority.

Did the public, the media, and congress believe that authority would be used to put inspectors back into Iraq? Don't make me laugh.

But again, even if we accept Hillary's bullshit as truth, it fails to make her look any more competent. And regardless, she bears the responsibility for authorizing the war. Claiming to be ignorant of Bush's intentions is a total cop-out that also makes her look naive. So again, you're defending a losing position against another losing position. Give it up.

 

[topsyturvy]

But again, even if we accept Hillary's bullshit as truth, it fails to make her look any more competent. And regardless, she bears the responsibility for authorizing the war. Claiming to be ignorant of Bush's intentions is a total cop-out that also makes her look naive. So again, you're defending a losing position against another losing position. Give it up.

how about agree to disagree. I fail to see how hillary looks naive even when she have a 98% voting record compared to the mistake-free obama.

What does that even mean? Who considers it necessary after the bill pases?

That was obviously a typo. :/

 

[Jonm1010]

This is the fifth time you've made the same exact statement, and it is not any truer now than it was five years ago. Yes, the vote was technically only for giving the president authority.

Did the public, the media, and congress believe that authority would be used to put inspectors back into Iraq? Don't make me laugh.

But again, even if we accept Hillary's bullshit as truth, it fails to make her look any more competent. And regardless, she bears the responsibility for authorizing the war. Claiming to be ignorant of Bush's intentions is a total cop-out that also makes her look naive. So again, you're defending a losing position against another losing position. Give it up.

Not to mention if that was the case and she was thinking it was more or less to try and get inspectors and such in, why wasnt she shouting at the rooftops when Hans Blix was asking for more time and that he didnt really think anything was there? Why wasn't she yelling at Bush when he told The inspectors to pack up even though they had unrestricted access? She made no statement in that time period that would lead any logical person to any other conclusion than that her vote was with the intention to agreeing to invasion.

 

[Cooter]

how about agree to disagree.

How about you agree he's right? There is no conceivable way that she looks good here. You sound like a nice guy and it is not my intention to come down hard on you but some intellectual honesty would be nice from you and all the Hillary supporters. Whenever this subject gets brought up she looks like a lying politician.

 

[topsyturvy]

How about you agree he's right? There is no conceivable way that she looks good here. You sound like a nice guy and it is not my intention to come down hard on you but some intellectual honesty would be nice from you and all the Hillary supporters. Whenever this subject gets brought up she looks like a lying politician.

i know it looks bad for her, but she really did believe that the US wasn't going to war. in her speech to the senate she echoes the same things she are saying to day like she wanted to avoid war and she wanted to have inspectors take their time.

I'm gonna link the speech because its too long to quote and it pisses zeed off.

seriously, its a good read and this is really why i'm standing by what i'm saying.

linky

 

[Mandark]

The resolution gave Bush carte blanche to invade Iraq. Bush doesn't get off the hook for lying about how he wanted to avoid war, but Democrats don't get off the hook for acting as if they believed him.

If it was not clear to Clinton at the time what his intentions were, then it had to become clear at some point between the November vote and the March invasion. Did she speak out against the war at any point in those intervening months?

 

[topsyturvy]

The resolution gave Bush carte blanche to invade Iraq. Bush doesn't get off the hook for lying about how he wanted to avoid war, but Democrats don't get off the hook for acting as if they believed him.

If it was not clear to Clinton at the time what his intentions were, then it had to become clear at some point between the November vote and the March invasion. Did she speak out against the war at any point in those intervening months?

i don't think she did sadly

She should just come out and admit that she voted wrong but at the same time tell us why she voted for it from quotes from her speech. This really gonna hurt her if she make it to the general election.

 

[CoolTrick]

Why exactly would it hurt Clinton in the general election, if the alternative is someone who would stay in Iraq "for the next 100 years"?

 

[Zeed]

but she really did believe that the US wasn't going to war.

I'm not sure if you're naive or just willfully ignorant, but Hillary is a veteran politician, lying is what she does. You are trying to use Hillary's own claims as evidence to support...her own claims. That is retarded.

"She really did believe the US wasn't going to war!"
"What makes you think that?"
"Cause she said so in the debate like 32 times!"

If you can't see the problem here, I can't help you. It's sad though, that this kind of blind devotion is characteristic of Hillary supporters.

 

[CoolTrick]

I don't see the big deal about this.

Many leading Democrats at the time supported the war.

There was over 12 years of intelligence about Saddam Hussein, and falsified intelligence reports suggesting he might have WMDs.

How is it necessarily a positive thing that Obama didn't support the war? I don't want someone to be Commander in Chief who's going to ignore such evidence. False intelligence reports aren't Hillary Clinton's fault, and what if there HAD been something there? It was up to Bush to have the support of Congress in order to have as many cards possible to try playing.

 

[JCreasy]

I found out today that three dudes I already had a lot of respect for are supporting Obama, just like I am:

1. Edward Norton
2. George Clooney
3. David Jaffe

That's just wild. It's just a trip to realize that these guys must think like I do, to some extent. It's just all the more clear as to why they have my respect.

EDIT: WOW, look what I found: www.yeswecansong.com

 

[StoOgE]

clinton still gave the president a blank check to go to war, and she dif it b/c the entire democratic party turned into spineless shills that were terrified of looking weak on national defence. hell, the party in 2002-2003 was trying to snuggle up to the president and his popularity ratings.

 

[scorcho]

Obama can preach about being against the war from the start as much as he'd like, but it's a lot easier to take a stand on an issue when you aren't in the Senate. Obama's voted for the Patriot Act and constant war funding since, proving that when you're in the Senate you sometimes have to cast votes that might not be entirely what you stand for.

maybe that's because his father's Muslim.

 

[Cheebs]

When Obama gave that speech everyone knew he was planning to run for the senate. And many said that anti-war speech of his may have killed his chances at getting the senate seat when he gave it in 2002.

So it wasn't a easy random speech for him to give.

 

[elostyle]

What you don't understand is what she stated numerous times, either you guys are ignoring it or you people just doesn't know the facts. The resolution she signed transfers the responsibility, the authority, and the power of the Congress to the President so he can declare war when it is necessary.

Why would anyone anywhere ever sign something like that. Especially one that calls herself a democrat.

If you give someone the liberty to go to war whenever he pleases, then you have to live with when he does.

 

[APF]

many said that anti-war speech of his may have killed his chances at getting the senate seat when he gave it in 2002.

Who said that?

And re Iraq resolutions: How would someone in 2002 have supported the idea of increased inspections in Iraq w/o having those inspections backed by the possibility of military force? And re the question of reconciling intelligence reports in the Clinton era with the reality of no interim WMD development: the fact of the matter is, intelligence gathering in Iraq became increasingly spotty and unreliable, especially when inspectors weren't in country, and even during the latter Clinton years. When presented with new evidence, combined with old evidence and the general feeling of Hussein's intentions based on his record, it was hardly a stretch to at the very least be concerned about the state of his weapons programs, to the extent that you'd take seriously the necessity of renewing inspections, especially post-9/11; note that Obama's speech was more about the consequences / aftermath of the war, and was predicated on the idea that inspections would be ongoing. Oh, and that the war was a Karl Rove trick to distract the country from the market going through a bad month, because that apparently was the President's fault and apparently Rove is a fucking modern-era Nostradamus except when it comes to Iraq.

 

[StoOgE]

Who said that?

this war was once extremely popular.

 

[Cheebs]

Who said that?

actually I don't know. I am going by what chris matthews said once earlier this year lol

 

[APF]

Ugh, don't listen to Chris Matthews.

 

[Cheebs]

Ugh, don't listen to Chris Matthews.

I know, I know. Its all meaningless though I still hold Hillary is going to win feb 5th.

 

[KidGalactus]

There was over 12 years of intelligence about Saddam Hussein, and falsified intelligence reports suggesting he might have WMDs.

How is it necessarily a positive thing that Obama didn't support the war? I don't want someone to be Commander in Chief who's going to ignore such evidence. False intelligence reports aren't Hillary Clinton's fault, and what if there HAD been something there

What exactly are you smoking?

 

[Cheebs]

I do not hold Hillary's vote against her. It would be highly hypocritical since I fell for the WMD hype in 2003. It is understandable imo.

 

[scorcho]

What exactly are you smoking?

he's spun his way around so much that he's dizzy. the main point is that Hillary has no Muslim/Islamic ties, which seems to make her the most ideal candidate to go get those bad terrrrsts.

 

[Particle Physicist]

What you don't understand is what she stated numerous times, either you guys are ignoring it or you people just doesn't know the facts. The resolution she signed transfers the responsibility, the authority, and the power of the Congress to the President so he can declare war when it is necessary. But going to war was intended for the last case scenario. Hillary, john kerry and other senators stated that bush didn't even indicate that he wants to go to war or has to go to war; but he will make the full decision, not the Congress, not the people through the Congress of this country in that manner. The fact of the matter is that congress never voted to even go to war. :/

heres another link to back that up, but again, im sure you'll find something to find against her.
linky

everyone in the freaken world knew that the resolution meant the US was most likely going to go to war. we even had a huge thread on GAF about it.

so GAF > Hillary?

 

[Particle Physicist]

I found out today that three dudes I already had a lot of respect for are supporting Obama, just like I am:

1. Edward Norton
2. George Clooney
3. David Jaffe

That's just wild. It's just a trip to realize that these guys must think like I do, to some extent. It's just all the more clear as to why they have my respect.

EDIT: WOW, look what I found: www.yeswecansong.com

im personally waiting to see who snoop dog decides to support before making my decision:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...etween-obama-clinton/?eref=ib_politicalticker

 

[Guileless]

She definitely is more culpable than someone like you Cheebs. Not only was she a senator with access to more of the intelligence than the public, she could really pick the brain of the former president who ordered the bombing after the ejection of inspectors in '98, the sanctions, and no-fly zones to get even more of an understanding of the situation. And as she was a lawyer for the committee overseeing the Watergate hearings, you would also think she would have a highly developed sense of executive chicanery.

 

[scorcho]

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2318785.stm

the Senate effectively rolled over on its back and granted Bush what he wanted - a blank check into Iraq. Senate Democrats who approved the act deserve the opprobrium they're getting because they just passed the buck and refused to take a stand either for their principles or for the institution of government they represent.

 

[whytemyke]

Not actually true in real life.

Don't forget to point out the last paragraph in which the author frames his entire piece as saying that it's hard to tell who was acting conservatively and who was liberal.

 

[harSon]

Obama can preach about being against the war from the start as much as he'd like, but it's a lot easier to take a stand on an issue when you aren't in the Senate. Obama's voted for the Patriot Act and constant war funding since, proving that when you're in the Senate you sometimes have to cast votes that might not be entirely what you stand for.

There is a clear difference between voting for an invasion and voting to make sure that the troops already deployed have everything needed to make their deployment as safe as possible.

Edit: Uhhh I remember some of that 'intelligence' including "A greenhouse next to a factory typically means chemical weapons are being built". :lol

 

[Lefty42o]

I don't see the big deal about this.

Many leading Democrats at the time supported the war.

There was over 12 years of intelligence about Saddam Hussein, and falsified intelligence reports suggesting he might have WMDs.

How is it necessarily a positive thing that Obama didn't support the war? I don't want someone to be Commander in Chief who's going to ignore such evidence. False intelligence reports aren't Hillary Clinton's fault, and what if there HAD been something there? It was up to Bush to have the support of Congress in order to have as many cards possible to try playing.

i was against the war back in 2002-2003. we had inspectors in iraq and they had yet to find any evidence. The inspectors were saying they don't think there are any wmds, hey guess what they were right

war and force should always be the last straw. We don;t just go invade a muslim country for no reason. Life is suppose to be more sacred.

Now theres a big difference in restraint and being weak. If we had exhausted every avenue to peace with iraq and they were still be defiant than yes you look towards some force.

This is what obama was saying in 2002. Let the inspectors do their jobs. so here we are billions wasted, thousands dead, many more civilians and no wmd's. every one who voted for this war, that in the end was for nothing. not 1 wmd was found, should be held responsible. And yes its a reason to not elect some one commander in chief of our military.


trying to spin it or what ever is a joke. i am still waiting for a damn WMD. REMEMBER THATS WHY WE INVADED.

its our vietnam. and any one who voted to give the power is at fault. and we want to give them more power? fuck no

 

[Mandark]

scorcho: Remember the how the Biden-Lugar resolution, which essentially required the president to say "I've decided to go to war" before going to war, was deemed too restrictive? Good looking out, Gephardt!

If we've learned anything from Iraq, let it be this: When someone says "I need the official go-ahead to invade and occupy a country, for the purpose of doing something other than occupying and invading that country", TELL THEM NO. Or at least don't feign surprise when they do just what you authorized them to do.

Had the war gone great, Hillary would be running as a hawkish centrist and crowing about her unflagging support from the beginning. She made a bet and lost. Too bad for her, but a lot of people have greater claim on my sympathy based on what the war's cost them.


whytemyke: That's the point! Actual constructionist judges don't reliably rule the same way the Platonic ideal form of a constructionist judge would, especially in cases where it would clash with their political conservatism. Same deal with the activists.

You have to take political biases into account. At the very least, there are cases like Ledbetter where the justices can just dick someone over with statutory interpretation.

 

[APF]

The point is that in Obama's speech, the only prescient thing is the same prescience displayed by Dick Cheney in his explanations why Bush I didn't continue the war in Iraq in the first place, backed by the same reservations that were mainstream in the Democratic party at the time--including those voiced by Clinton, Kerry, etc--namely that the timing of the war was suspect, that inspections were the best course of action at the time but they needed to be backed by a credible deterrent, and that military action shouldn't proceed without a clear multilateral coalition. Note that Obama does not question Hussein's pursuit of banned weapons in that speech, only the idea that he's an imminent threat to the US.

 

[harSon]

Obama can do right in APF's eyes.