Please remember that at that time some very credible people (General Colon Powell, for instance) said that intelligence indicated that a known unstable leader who'd used WMD's before was again in possession of them. What's more, that same intelligence showed that this insane leader made purchases of materials necessary to produce an atomic weapon and may have refined plutonium enough to deliver at least a "dirty" bomb. No one, not even Senator Obama, knew that the intelligence was a bald-faced lie. Frankly, I doubt that even General Powell knew that. It is even remotely possible that President Bush himself didn't know, but most assuredly his puppet-masters did.
Senator Clinton didn't "vote for war". She voted to give the President of the United States the authority to use force as a negotiation tactic in what was presented as an escalating and dangerous situation. AND.. If a known madman has his finger on "the button" that could start a conflict whose results will be measured in half-lives, I want a leader who will make the tough decision to act militarily. Given the information at the time, she made the *right* decision. As she's said many times after that, if she'd known of the lies, faulty intelligence and the abuses that President Bush would commit with the approved authority, of course she would not have approved.
Obviously, what was wrong was the lie upon which all these decisions were based. I sincerely hope that someday people are held accountable for that treasonous act.
With all due respect to Senator Obama (and please believe I *really* like the guy), what if some new threat manifested, where good intelligence shows a clear and present danger requiring expedient action. I have no doubt that Senator Clinton would act. She proved she can make that difficult decision. Would he?
When I look at the Senators' resumes, Clinton is the clear choice. Senator Obama is an excellent speaker, and I love listening to him. Clinton's eloquence is best expressed by her actions and by results of those actions. She's already proven that she can move politcal mountains--she moved one. The very fact that heath care is finally on the front burner of politics is directly attributable to her. Although credit must be given to Senator Edwards for much of the revision, the fact is that Clinton's passion for the subject raised the issue and the political bar. As far as "likeability" is concerned, just look at women in any profession. Whenever a woman is assertive enough to compete in an all-male arena, she's labled a witch (or worse). If I asked most Americans to support a 40 year old African-American woman who was the mother of two small children who had only 1.5 to 2 years experience in the senate for the presidency, they'd think I was crazy. If I asked most Americans to support a man who was an ace Economist, a leader in health-care, who served in 5 senate bi-partison sub-committees, who was one of the first Americans to articulate the need for a Palistinian State, who helped settle down violence in Northern Ireland, who avidly helped introduce and develop the "People with Disabilities" act, who pioneered numerous childrens' programs that are now responsible for insuring millions of Amreican kids... they'd beg me to know who this superman was.
Slashdot Mirror
Senator Clinton didn't "vote for war". She voted to give the President of the United States the authority to use force as a negotiation tactic in what was presented as an escalating and dangerous situation. AND.. If a known madman has his finger on "the button" that could start a conflict whose results will be measured in half-lives, I want a leader who will make the tough decision to act militarily. Given the information at the time, she made the *right* decision. As she's said many times after that, if she'd known of the lies, faulty intelligence and the abuses that President Bush would commit with the approved authority, of course she would not have approved.
Obviously, what was wrong was the lie upon which all these decisions were based. I sincerely hope that someday people are held accountable for that treasonous act.
With all due respect to Senator Obama (and please believe I *really* like the guy), what if some new threat manifested, where good intelligence shows a clear and present danger requiring expedient action. I have no doubt that Senator Clinton would act. She proved she can make that difficult decision. Would he?
When I look at the Senators' resumes, Clinton is the clear choice. Senator Obama is an excellent speaker, and I love listening to him. Clinton's eloquence is best expressed by her actions and by results of those actions. She's already proven that she can move politcal mountains--she moved one. The very fact that heath care is finally on the front burner of politics is directly attributable to her. Although credit must be given to Senator Edwards for much of the revision, the fact is that Clinton's passion for the subject raised the issue and the political bar. As far as "likeability" is concerned, just look at women in any profession. Whenever a woman is assertive enough to compete in an all-male arena, she's labled a witch (or worse). If I asked most Americans to support a 40 year old African-American woman who was the mother of two small children who had only 1.5 to 2 years experience in the senate for the presidency, they'd think I was crazy. If I asked most Americans to support a man who was an ace Economist, a leader in health-care, who served in 5 senate bi-partison sub-committees, who was one of the first Americans to articulate the need for a Palistinian State, who helped settle down violence in Northern Ireland, who avidly helped introduce and develop the "People with Disabilities" act, who pioneered numerous childrens' programs that are now responsible for insuring millions of Amreican kids... they'd beg me to know who this superman was.