“[...] she was grossly misinformed on a very serious topic such as war, but then I find it very ironic to run around claiming that you *know* what you are doing.”

Obama had access to information that convinced him that his duty lay in voting against the war, while she with all her political savviness and top staff failed abysmally to see through Bush tactics. Her “experience” does not seem like a good argument to vote for her.

And she should have apologized, I totally agree with Ebonmuse on this one. Personal experience tells me that people who are not able to apologize are usually unwilling to learn from their mistakes and make changes. I also see this as a refual to take responsibility for one’s actions.

And I see, Curiosis, is confirming my belief/prejudice that libertarians are actually right-wingers, most at least.

She claims that George W. Bush is the worst president we’ve ever had. Yet in her entire time in the Senate she has never led one successful fight against him. She has either lost every legislative battle on Iraq, or worse yet, been complicit. The vote to authorize the war was one thing, but how about all of the votes to continue and support Bush’s war for all of the remaining years? Let alone every other issue on which Bush got exactly what he wanted, up to and including this year, when the Democrats and Senator Clinton were theoretically in charge.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/the-real-case-against-hil_b_81248.html

The attempt to use Hillary and her outspoken tendencies to cripple her campaign while leaving the men untouched might be seen as typical male sexism used against women for failing to guide men correctly.

Hillary has no responsibility to set men straight on the issue of homosexuality, and no obligation to do so. The Constitution guides such choices via the courts. Any attempt to make Hillary into the Pope with his duties is unfair as it would be for any candidate. Presidents, nor Presidential candidates make moral policy in America.

Not that I’m defending this kind of politicking, but it is a fact of life in America. They all do it. It’s not fair to pick on one.

You’ve got to be kidding. Has historical knowledge fallen so low? Ebonmuse points out quite rightly that Germany declared war ON US in support of Japan’s delcaration of war. But even before that, in January of 1941 Roosevelt annoucned his lend-lease policy and we began sending supplies to England. American ships were then targeted, attacked, and SUNK by German submarines. That, I would say, is an attack.

“I wouldn’t necessarily consider a WMD development program to be “minding its own business.” And how was Iraq “keeping Al Qaida at bay?” Wasn’t Saddam harboring several well-known terrorists?”

The WMD program had been dead–apparently due to the fact that sanctions had starved Saddam’s ability to fund it. What seems to have been going on–and here one can quibble with foreign policy a bit–was that after Guld War I, we had rendered Iraq vulnerable to attack from other enemies–namely Iran, but certainly Syria could be counted in that, and of course there was the ongoing Kurdish separatist movement. Hussein–and this was acknowledge even by the Clintons–carried on a campaign of deception to pretend to have a WMD program. I recall a few years back even Hillary commented in an interview “well, it certainly looked like he was hiding something.” He bluffed. And lost, ironically because the bluff was so convincing we–or some of us–believed he had a program that, had Blix and company had another month, we would have proved he didn’t.

As for terrorists, not all terrorists are from the same ideology. Hussein loathed Bin Laden and was a staunch enemy of Al Quida. He didn’t make a habit of harboring terrorists because most of them were in one way or another fundamentalist Islamisists, which he couldn’t stand.

“I’m fairly certain that the invasion of Iraq and fall of Saddam were completed around 4 years ago. Could that, perhaps, be the mission to which they were referring? Did people celebrate VJ day? How could they have done that when Japan still needed to be occupied and brought under control? Those crazy kids.”

There is no valid comparison between WWII and this mess. The fall of Hussein was minor compared to the task Bush took on when he pulled this stunt. It was no contest from the outset. But he has so badly mismanaged every other aspect of it–mostly on the advice of Rumsfeld, who rejected sound military advice all along the way–that the fall of Saddam can now be characterized as the only high point in the whole damn thing. We in fact are not “occupying” Iraq in any thing like the way we occupied Japan. We have a military presence in the midst of a civil war. There was no civil war in Japan, and we have a damn sight no troops there, and a very clear mission. These bozos had no clear mission. What they had was a fervant hope that aLL THE Iraqis would be so glad to be rid of Hussein that they would just fall in love with us for getting rid of him.

That’s not a policy.

But before you shoot your mouth off again about how this situation compares with other situations–like post WWII–read some history. No, read a LOT of history.

Underlying your assertions seems to be an implicit idea that Bush is somehow the equal to Roosevelt and Truman. Get over that.

And I want to stick up for her! Or, I did, before she dropped the cannon ball on her own foot. This was a fantastic moment to stand for something, to stand up for someone, and to show people that she’s more than just a woman with plans - that she’s a woman with ideals. So much for that. When someone calls homosexuality immoral, that’s a no brainer. Would she sidestep the issue if the General had said that it’s unclean for races to share drinking fountains? Would she defer if he said that it’s unnatural for women to work? Until American politicians talk about homophobia as what it is, deeply ignorant and blatantly sanctimonious hatred, this will still be a country where our citizens will be the scourge of society because of who they love.

The kicker is I’m sure that she doesn’t think that homosexuality is immoral, or wrong, or that it’s a sin. But what’s the use of any of those convictions if she doesn’t’ stand by them? If you don’t stand up for anyone, how on earth can you stand for anything?

For the full post of E. A. Hanks at Huffington, click here.

Actually it gets complicated here because the circumstances were different, and included radiation deaths, and propaganda-based death toll reporting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

No, actually, we attacked Germany because they declared war on us on December 11, 1941, four days after the attack on Pearl Harbor. For truth’s sake, do you know anything about history at all?

“I’m glad that you were able to trust the promises of Saddam Hussein.”

Absolutely no one ever advocated “trusting” Saddam Hussein. That’s why we enforced a no-fly zone on him and required him to submit to periodic visits by U.N. weapons inspectors. And like it or not, the U.N. inspections were working. They achieved the goal of preventing Saddam from reconstituting his WMD program, which is why Iraq was found to have no WMDs after the invasion.

“Did people celebrate VJ day? How could they have done that when Japan still needed to be occupied and brought under control?”

How many Americans died during the occupation and reconstruction of Japan, compared to how many have died and are still dying during the occupation of Iraq?