First Barbara Boxer, now Hillary:
In an exclusive interview with ABC News in Baghdad, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., called the situation in Iraq “heartbreaking” and said she doubts Congress and the American people believe the mission here can succeed.
“I don’t know that the American people or the Congress at this point believe this mission can work,” she said. “And in the absence of a commitment that is backed up by actions from the Iraqi government, why should we believe it?”
Clinton spoke with ABC News after meeting with Gen. George Casey and Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, the top American commanders here. She is one a one-day visit to Iraq as part of congressional delegation that includes Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., and Rep. John McHugh, R-N.Y.
Clearly, Hillary Clinton was making a pointed jab at Dick Cheney, who has well known heart problems. Personally, I am outraged. OUTRAGED! Someone call the NY POST, Red State, the National Review, Dan Riehl, and all the other right wing bullshit artists and tell them it is time to demonstrate our outrage (OUTRAGE!) at these remarks.
Otto Man
I’m assuming this is only a half-joke, because you know one of those morons is going to get their panties in a serious wad over this.
Can anyone pinpoint just when it was that the Republicans became such a pathetic a sniveling, whining collection of pearl-clutching cry-babies? All they ever seem to do now is complain about how liberals are so mean to them that it’s getting in the way of their destruction of our country. How rude!
Forget the Daddy Party. They’re looking more and more like the Teething Baby Party.
Darrell
Look, a rabbit! [/John Cole]
ThymeZone
Look, a Darrell!
/ Darrell
Paddy O'Shea
The frantic Bushie attack monkeys are lashing out furiously all over these days. And is there any wonder why?
Rasmussen: Bush Job Approval Drops 9 Points In Three Days
Jan 12 35% Approve 61% Disapprove (same for Jan 13)
Jan 11 39% Approve 58% Disapprove
Jan 10 44% Approve 54% Disapprove
Nice speech, Mr President!
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm
demimondian
John, don’t you understand that this shows that hysterical people should not be in roles of power in the government? Hillary, like Boxer, clearly had her brain dominated by uterus at some point, and is, therefore, inevitably, a victim of _husterus_. This just shows that the old ban on women in high places is well justified by language.
(As to Condi, being childless, her brain has never been dominated by her uterus, so there’s no problem there.)
Darrell
The wingnut case for invading Iraq:
Andrew
Shorter Darrell: It’s STILL Clinton’s fault.
jake
Nov. 7, 2006. Their little heinies weren’t up to the “thumpin’.”
Paddy O'Shea
You have to be amazed by the ability of Darrell, Red State, National Review, The Hindrocket, Rick Moran and all the other sorely chafed asses to stand up so boldly for failure.
What is it about defeat that gets them so excited? Could they be as thrilled by a president that actually had some military success?
Or is it the beating that incites them ..
ThymeZone
Shorter BJ: We can still get the page views up just by letting Darrell post here as if it were still 2004.
Best troll routine on the intertrons.
For Sale: “God fearing Bush-loving” t-shirts.
godblesstheright.com
What a life. What a racket!
Steve
Pretty funny. Of course, it’s still not as terrible as what Tim said about Sen. Johnson the other day.
I was really stunned when I was on my way to work the other day and saw the Barbara Boxer thing on the front page of the NY Post. I mean, yeah they’re a rag, but they’re still a real newspaper. It’s easy for a blogger to throw up an outrage post over anything and everything, but this is a newspaper devoting FRONT-PAGE space to this. Wow.
RSA
Similarly, if Bush were Jewish, I’d blame the disaster in Iraq on his being a victim of hubris. What the hell, it’s hubris in any case.
jake
Don’t ask. Don’t tell.
Bruce Moomaw
Uh, Darrell. Virtually all of us awful liberals enthusiastically FAVORED having Bush force Saddam to allow the inspectors to inspect the place — thoroughly. And that included supporting a policy in which, iof Saddam refused to allow inspection of any particular site, the US would say, “OK, you don’t want us to look at that? We’ll just bomb it flat instead.” KAPLOOEY!
Read, as just one of countless examples, Kevin Drum on the subject. Consider that even Chirac said France would support such a policy. And then consider that:
(1) Bush and Blair insisted on invading not only before the inspectors had finished their work, but at a time when they had already come close to disproving that Saddam had any major nuclear-weapons program — which is almost impossible to conceal.
(2) Chemical and biological weapons are much easier to shuffle around from place to place and could possibly — in significant amounts — have been kept one jump ahead of the inspectors; but even current biological weapons are also far less deadly than than nuclear ones. And — as we learned to our incredulity — when we DID invade, not only did we have no plans to deal with the obvious likelihood (pointed out by the CIA to Bush in detail) that Saddam (like any sane dictator) would have tried either to use those weapons against us or deterred us from invading by threatening to give them to worldwide terrorists. We didn’t even have any plans for guarding the likely CBW depots AFTER we invaded! US troops stood around on street corners innocently watching looters carrying material and records wholesale out of those centers, and were horrified to learn afterwards that nobody had bothered to tell them about their importance!
(3) The “Manning memo” leaked from Downing Street — whose authenticity the Blair government does not deny — describes Bush and Blair discussing, in detail, the fact that a full inspection would probably not provide adequate justification for invasion, and discussing how to trump up the case for one. (See Drum’s March 27, 2006 entry on the subject, and the detailed NY Times description of the memo’s contents to which Drum links.) The reason is that Blair, like Bush, was absolutely convinced that occupying, rebuilding and reforming Iraq would be a Cakewalk, and so lying to their own people and the rest of the world about the justification for the invasion was perfectly justified morally. Fools willing to lie in the service of their foolish overconfidence — it’s the oldest political story in the book.
And now see the consequences. We are almost helpless militarily to deal in any way with the very real danger of Iran’s Bomb program, or with the consequences of the fact that North Korea and Pakistan already have it. And that’s on top of all the other wholesale disaster this cretinous war has inflicted on us, and on the worldwide cause of civilization versus religious (and nonreligious)tyranny.
RandyH
Must-read Glenn Greenwald and Barbara O’Brien re: Rod Dreher finally admitting that the “Dirty Fucking Hippies” might have been right all along. Poor guy’s losing his faith – made me think of the evolution of John Cole, really.
Is all of the neocon “common sense” propaganda and PR management finally imploding on itself? Let’s hope.
Paddy O'Shea
For those with even shorter memories than mine, here is Laura Bush being particularly snarky about Condi’s unmarried status. Makes Boxer’s supposedly outrageous statement seem rather mild and contrite in comparison ..
“Dr. Rice, who I think would be a really good candidate (for President), is not interested. probably because she is single, her parents are no longer living, she’s an only child. You need a very supportive family and supportive friends to have this job.”
Of course, this was at the height of the rumors that her Georgie was boning Condi. Perhaps it was Laura who was really single at this time?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bella-depaulo/laura-bush-gives-condi-ri_b_36563.html
Darrell
Poorly thought out on your part Bruce. Keeping 150,000 troops on Saddam’s border was unsustainable. As soon as they left, he’d thwart them just as he did in 1998 (and earlier). Problem is, Saddam has NEVER complied with his ’91 terms of surrender without a gun pointed to his head.
srv
Bruce, Darrell still insists that Saddam threw the inspectors out. He cannot deviate from established talking points, so you can’t win with logic.
Paddy O'Shea
Darrell is a Loser Lover.
Darrell
Saddam did in fact block inspectors from sites and confiscated documents from them. Are you suggesting that he more or less cooperated with the weapons inspectors? Not that I doubt you really are that stupid, but I’m looking for more confirmation of it.
Paddy O'Shea
Darrell: Did Bush cooperate with the weapon’s inspectors?
scarshapedstar
This is not a gooooooood woman.
Tsulagi
Okay, you’re not asking the critical question. While Hillary was in Baghdad, how many troops were in photos with her. Forget all those minor concerns, you know like civil war, 80% solutions, rape and alternative interrogation rooms under new management. From 20k feet in the air it all looks good. How many soldiers were in a photo with Hillary. That’s how success is measured.
RSA
Unlike having over 100,000 troops inside Iraq’s borders now? Hmm.
Fledermaus
Hey now RSA no fair using logic and reasoning. That’s what all the liberal elitists do.
Zifnab
Both have a well-known liberal bias.
Darrell
The difference is, that now we don’t have to worry about Saddam reconstituting his WMD programs, do we? Even Clinton understood that.
Fledermaus
Then why are we still there? Sounds like ‘Mission Accomplished’ to me.
Zifnab
Wow. That is pretty heavy stuff.
I mean, I do feel Dreher’s pain. The conservative movement, like so many other movements before it, found roots in the American conscience specifically because it had a great many noble goals and ideals. Fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility, capitalism driven to make every nation a first-world nation. Some of the goals were fool-hardy (but not much more fool-hardy than the liberal parallels), and some made a great deal of sense.
But then conservatives abandoned their principles almost entirely and without exception. How hard-breaking to see the very leaders you elected to high office drive the knife through the back of your idealistic dreams.
SeesThroughIt
Very well said, Zifnab.
srv
God, you are an incessant moron. What part of “threw out” or “kicked out” do you not understand?
TenguPhule
The inspectors left in 1998. They were back in 2003. Saddam fully cooperated in 2003. Bush invaded anyway.
Do I need to speak slower for the Darrells to understand?
TenguPhule
The WMDs that Saddam had given up on and destroyed before Bush invaded and that the UN inspectors were telling everyone were not there anymore.
But that’s on planet Earth. On Planet Darrell, Saddam was plotting to start WW III by launching nukes at NY and brave Sir George had no choice but to swing his manly codpiece and crush Iraq before creating Democracy left and right for those ungrateful terrorist loving Arabs.
Pooh
Yes.
Simple answers to simple questions about simple people…
vwcat
I really like Barbara Boxer and think she has nothing to apologize for.
However, I don’t like Hillary and the wingers can say whatever they want. have at it.
GOP4Me et al
If they’d sent them both to Gitmo like we’d advocated months ago on Scrutator, none of this would have ever happened.
No one likes to be told, “I told you so,” but… I told you so.
chopper
no, they aren’t ‘arguably super-powerful chemical weapons’. they were fuel-air bombs, which our own army uses.
chopper
too bad that the same rule didn’t apply to george bush. he refused to let the inspection process finish, despite the fact that the UN team stated that iraq was complying and they needed more time to complete the inspection process.
if only bush wasn’t so impatient, we might have saved $350 billion and 3000+ american lives.
chopper
since when do you go to war over a ‘worry’?