Good question Bill Maher

She wasn't fooled. She was terrified.

She looked at polls, saw that the vote was being framed around patriotism, thought about her '08 run & how it would likely be based on national security, and did the most politically expedient but morally bankrupt thing possible.
 
Cypress said:
I love it!

this is Barak Obama's strongest card. If Bush couldn't fool him, how did Hillary get fooled? lol
Click to expand...
I would bet all my money that had Obama been a senator in 2002, he would be right there in the same quotes about Iraq and WMD as Edwards, Hillary, Kerry, Pelosi et al.
 
TheDanold said:
I would bet all my money that had Obama been a senator in 2002, he would be right there in the same quotes about Iraq and WMD as Edwards, Hillary, Kerry, Pelosi et al.
Click to expand...


You've got nothing to back that up, which is to be expected.

Contrary to the propoganda you try to spread, there actually WERE Democrats who were wary of Bush, were against the war & who voted against the resolution....
 
Onceler said:
You've got nothing to back that up, which is to be expected.

Contrary to the propoganda you try to spread, there actually WERE Democrats who were wary of Bush, were against the war & who voted against the resolution....
Click to expand...

Of course he can't back it up because Obama wasn't in the Senate at the time, that's a given. But nor can you claim how Obama would have voted in '02. Sure Obama claims now he wouldn't have voted for the measure in 2002 but we don't know if that's true or not. So basically it is conjecture all the way around because he was not in the position at the time and forced to vote one way or the other.
 
Onceler said:
You've got nothing to back that up, which is to be expected.

Contrary to the propoganda you try to spread, there actually WERE Democrats who were wary of Bush, were against the war & who voted against the resolution....
Click to expand...

Except that Obama seems to playing both sides of it and many of his votes on Iraq seem calculated (i.e., waiting until late to see where a vote goes before casting his, etc.).
 
cawacko said:
Of course he can't back it up because Obama wasn't in the Senate at the time, that's a given. But nor can you claim how Obama would have voted in '02. Sure Obama claims now he wouldn't have voted for the measure in 2002 but we don't know if that's true or not. So basically it is conjecture all the way around because he was not in the position at the time and forced to vote one way or the other.
Click to expand...


There's just an eensy bit of difference in that I take him on his word, and those who say he would have voted for it if he were in the Senate are basically calling him a liar.

The onus of proof is on that kind of implied slander, imo.

Besides, Obama isn't afraid to be a leftie in general, and is from a leftie state...
 
Onceler said:
There's just an eensy bit of difference in that I take him on his word, and those who say he would have voted for it if he were in the Senate are basically calling him a liar.

The onus of proof is on that kind of implied slander, imo.

Besides, Obama isn't afraid to be a leftie in general, and is from a leftie state...
Click to expand...

Well Pelosi is a bigtime leftie from the leftiest of areas in San Fran, yet she still has the same quotes with WMD and Iraq.
 
TheDanold said:
I would bet all my money that had Obama been a senator in 2002, he would be right there in the same quotes about Iraq and WMD as Edwards, Hillary, Kerry, Pelosi et al.
Click to expand...

Complete speculation on your part.

Besides, Illinois is a very blue state. Illinois' other senator Dick Durbin, voted against the war resolution (as I recall, check me on that). If Durbin did, I can EASILY see Obama voting against it.
 
TheDanold said:
Well Pelosi is a bigtime leftie from the leftiest of areas in San Fran, yet she still has the same quotes with WMD and Iraq.
Click to expand...

You're confused.

There is a huge difference between talking about Saddam having WMD's, and voting to give Bush authorization to use whatever kind of force he wants.

That's kind of what is being discussed here...
 
Onceler said:
There's just an eensy bit of difference in that I take him on his word, and those who say he would have voted for it if he were in the Senate are basically calling him a liar.

The onus of proof is on that kind of implied slander, imo.

Besides, Obama isn't afraid to be a leftie in general, and is from a leftie state...
Click to expand...

Dano said he would wager, which is little different than my note about being skeptical. Clearly, are expressed as hunches. There is no burden of proof for such a statement since it is clearly implied that it is not a certainty. To call it slander is ridculous as well.
 
I base my guess on profiling who supported and who didn't. Most of the better known Dems were in favor of Iraq action and most of the lesser known ones were not.
If Obama harbored prez ambitions or to be seen more as a leader and he probably did even then, I would peg him more into the former category.
 
"If Obama harbored prez ambitions or to be seen more as a leader and he probably did even then, I would peg him more into the former category"

I agree that he probably harbored those ambitions at that time. Which is why it's telling that he had no problem speaking out against the resolution in 2002...
 
TheDanold said:
I base my guess on profiling who supported and who didn't. Most of the better known Dems were in favor of Iraq action and most of the lesser known ones were not.
If Obama harbored prez ambitions or to be seen more as a leader and he probably did even then, I would peg him more into the former category.
Click to expand...

Yep. I find it funny that even the dems are arguing that he would have considered politics, those of Illinois. NY is a liberal state. But, Hillary quit running for the NY a long time ago.
 
Onceler said:
She wasn't fooled. She was terrified.

She looked at polls, saw that the vote was being framed around patriotism, thought about her '08 run & how it would likely be based on national security, and did the most politically expedient but morally bankrupt thing possible.
Click to expand...
I think that sums it up quite nicely. 'Nuff said.
 
LOFL at the wussy lefties afraid of a strong woman being President. Thankfully there are enough dems (majority) that can process above an 8th grade level gotcha.
If that's your strategy for Breck girl he's in trouble.
 
the breck girl?

what an utter load of Rovian trash.

The congress was frivcking lied to.
The were not used to being lied to about the countries security.
Budget sure ,policy sure but not the security of the country and right after 911 with their trumped up security treat the Bush team knew they wouold get the benifit of the doubt and they did.
I really dont blame anyone who tried to help the country come together at what looked like a pretty dire time.
I do blame those that still wont admitt this war was a mistake.

Do we really want ANOTHER president who cant admitt mistakes?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top