Hillary called out!! Obama scores again!

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
I think any politician who reaffirms America's policy of not using nuclear weapons except as a response in kind is probably saying the right thing. Other nations who could possibly be overrun by invading conventional armies might look at it differently, but that hasn't been the case for the US since Lincoln's time...

While some Americans, particularly those suffering from the intellectual snakebite of talk radio seem to think that initiating actual armed conflict with nukes would be perfectly fine, the hypocrisy in that is beyond the pale, the craven moral weakness in advocating or even threatening it desperate bluster or worse.

Hilllary's 2006 remarks echo my sentiments, while her more recent ones were merely an opportunity to attack a rival... I'll rate that as unfortunate exploitation, while the current admin's statements in that regard are clearly a lot worse...

Don't think I'm some huge fan of Hillary, I'm not, but compared to her repub rivals, she's a gem... Giuliani will never get the nomination, Romney is a proto-fascist, and Thompson a fear-mongering neocon flip-flopper in his own right... cubans with suitcase nukes is easily the lamest reference of the current race...

I think this goes under "things you think but do not say". I agree we shouldn't initiate a nuclear strike, but why tell our enemies that? Let them think that we are as crazy as they are and would use nukes with little provocation.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
heartsurgeon, as much as I may agree with your posts (or not) Dave & others have been asked to not make Republican a pejorative term by changing the spelling, can you stop doing it to the Democrats please?

You know, kinder, gentler?

He likes to show how mature he is, we like to watch. I prefer Dumbocrats anyway.

 

[heartsurgeon]

I think any politician who reaffirms America's policy of not using nuclear weapons except as a response in kind is probably saying the right thing. Other nations who could possibly be overrun by invading conventional armies might look at it differently, but that hasn't been the case for the US since Lincoln's time...

do you believe the use of nukes to end WWII with the Japanese, was unjustified? your statement would suggest that you don't.

and just to clarify...your saying we should not use a nuclear weapon against an enemy unless they detonate a nuclear weapon against us?

i want to be perfectly clear on this..

 

[heartsurgeon]

heartsurgeon, as much as I may agree with your posts (or not) Dave & others have been asked to not make Republican a pejorative term by changing the spelling, can you stop doing it to the Democrats please?

I would be happy to accomodate you. Does this also mean I should not refer to the Senate Majority Leader as Hairy Reed?

 

[Starbuck1975]

I am not sure blaming the old store keeper for a crime committed 8 months after he retired is going to float any more.

Well if the criminals who robbed the store were planning their robbery, and the old store keeper was aware of their planning activities, he is somewhat responsible for choosing not to act on that knowledge and just passing the problem on to the next guy.

Let's face it...the blame game is futile when it comes to the rise of Al Quaida and 9/11.

Bush Sr. failed to define America's role in a post Cold War world.

Clinton failed to identify the emerging threats to America in a post Cold War world.

W failed in his response to Al Quaida's attack on American soil.

And if you really want to play the blame game, we have to go back to European imperialism in the Middle East, the fall of the Ottoman Turkish Empire after WW1, and the insanity of Cold War politics from the 50s through the 80s, particularly in the Middle East.

By the way, haven't all the Hillary supporters noticed all of her similarities to Bush? Connections to big business (wal-mart), using her husband to get elected (compared to Bush using his father), part of a political machine (does she have her own Karl Rove too? Or is it just Bill?), eagerness to prove that she is "tough" (is she yet another hawk?). The only difference is that she has a D next to her name instead of an R. Why does everyone seem to hate Bush, yet seem so eager to elect a similar person? Does the change of a name make that much of a difference?

Easy...because Democrats subscribe to the notion that had a Democrat President been in office for 9/11, things would be so much better...because the economy happened to be doing well during the Clinton Administration, Democrats think he was the greatest thing since sliced bread, and they assume his wife will usher in another era of prosperity...what they fail to recognize is that Hillary, as far as leadership qualities go, is not that much different than Bush.

 

[Rio Rebel]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: senseamp
The vitriol directed at Hillary from the right is my prime reason for supporting her. Keep it up.

That is a pretty sad way to go through life. Just proves that conservatives are guided by ideologies, while liberals like yourself are guided by nothing but emotions.

Yes, one person's reason for supporting Hillary proves that all liberals are emotional, and all conservatives are rational. It also proves that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, OJ did it, and I have a 10" schlong.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: senseamp
The vitriol directed at Hillary from the right is my prime reason for supporting her. Keep it up.

That is a pretty sad way to go through life. Just proves that conservatives are guided by ideologies, while liberals like yourself are guided by nothing but emotions.

Oh, so blowing undercover cops and screwing hookers are focal points of conservative ideology. I missed that in my intro to conservatism seminar. Thanks for clearing it up.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: senseamp
The vitriol directed at Hillary from the right is my prime reason for supporting her. Keep it up.

Well at least we can see that you're supporting her for all the right reasons... :roll:

Enemy of my enemy is my friend. A candidate that would be palatable to the right would not be acceptable to me. Elections have to mean something. If we have rightwinger and rightwinger lite running against each other, that's not much of a choice, now is it?

Not to nitpick, but it's a very bad and myopic strategy. For example, it didn't work too well in Afghanistan... Remember when the Americans were pouring money and weapons into Taliban camps, to "fight the Soviets"?

 

[AAman]

It doesn't matter what they say, what their positions are, etc. - anyone will be better than another anti-American Xian fascist like Dumbya and his traitors.

 

[imported_Baloo]

OP, you are deluded. Hillary is gaining, Obama is falling. And Hillary never "called Obama a rookie for stating he would never use Nukes in conflict with Iran.. " She called him niave that would would discuss the subject of nukes at this stage. She is not the only one to take that position. As for her comments about the Bush administration, well, that's current, Bush is the president, so responding to Bush administration discussions of using nukes, yeah, that is when you would discuss it, not detailing your own position a year-and-a-half before the next elections on a specific hypothetical situation.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: alchemize
How did this thread go to a pissing match about who holds more responsibilty for 9/11?

Because the usual apologists came in, right on schedule, to derail the thread.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Baloo
OP, you are deluded. Hillary is gaining, Obama is falling. And Hillary never "called Obama a rookie for stating he would never use Nukes in conflict with Iran.. " She called him niave that would would discuss the subject of nukes at this stage. She is not the only one to take that position. As for her comments about the Bush administration, well, that's current, Bush is the president, so responding to Bush administration discussions of using nukes, yeah, that is when you would discuss it, not detailing your own position a year-and-a-half before the next elections on a specific hypothetical situation.

Hillary is gaining nationwide, while Obama is gaining in the early states. This is to be expected from the way each campaign is using their resources right now. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out both among the democrats and republicans: Giuliani, like Hillary, is spreading his campaign nationally while Romney is running a traditional early state campaign.

But back to the topic at hand. Summarizing what you said:

Okay: Discussing nukes in contrast against the Bush administration 2 1/2 years before an election
Naive and not okay: Detailing a hypothetical position involving nukes 1 1/2 years before an election

I can see now why this story is such a big deal. That should be a huge selling point for Hillary. Hopefully, she'll keep pressing the position that discussing nukes is naive.

[Edit] Oops, I mean I hope she presses the position that discussing nukes 1 1/2 years before an election is naive.