Hillary In New Letter To Bush: Stop Lying, Mr. President

Comments (41)

john mccutchen wrote on September 12, 2007 12:05 PM:

How convenient. It took Clinton, according to her foreign policy adviser Madeline Albright, until 2006 before she realized that Bush had been scamming her for four years.

Better late than never. Guess that's the wages of "experience"

bob wrote on September 12, 2007 12:20 PM:

Yeah, speaking of "too little too late..."

dcshungu wrote on September 12, 2007 12:26 PM:

This is truly muscular preemption of Bush's planned September 'snow job' about how his 'surge' has worked so well that he feels it would make sense to 'drawdown' our troops level to 130,000 by next summer. Now, if only the MSM would follow Hillary's lead and expose Bush's planned snow job for what it is, then maybe we might began to turn the corner on the Iraq fiasco. However, knowing how enabling and inept THIS MSM has been in the past, I won't hold my breath because the likelihood that Bush would again get away with murder is very high.

cromulant wrote on September 12, 2007 12:29 PM:

Hillary's pre-emptive letter will get her labelled as someone who advocates the "rush to failure" invoked by Petraeus. Tat-for-tit, so to speak. Sen Clinton is correct in her assertions, but it seems to me Bush will continue to ignore all critics and claim he's just following The General's orders.

Anonymous wrote on September 12, 2007 12:32 PM:

Well, yeah, it IS better late than never. I'm no Hillary fan, but this is a much-needed strong statement not just about the war, but about Bush's habit of deception and failure. Like it or not, her frontrunner status gives her attack the weight it needs to break through the media's Bushlove barrier. Instead of harping on her past deficiencies, we'd do more good helping spread this message and holding her to her own words.

mopper wrote on September 12, 2007 12:33 PM:

LOL, dschungu, Clinton's "leadership"?

Biden hammered Petraeus on this just yesterday:

* Committee Chairman Joe Biden (D-Del.) got Petraeus to concede his proposed troop withdrawals — allegedly a major concession — were scheduled to happen anyway.

Now that's leadership from Clinton: fighting a battle others have already fought and won, but doing it more publicly.

DaveW wrote on September 12, 2007 12:37 PM:

cromulant, nobody expects Bush to be influenced by anything any Dem, or pretty much anybody else except Rove and Cheney say. I think it will help blunt some of Bush's spin, though, since she can't be totally ignored by the media.

PS-- The Anonymous above is me, again. Can no one rid us of this crapulent comment system?

aleks wrote on September 12, 2007 12:38 PM:

Give her a break you guys, until 2006 it was still possible that Bush's popularity might rebound.

SeeDee wrote on September 12, 2007 12:40 PM:

Remembering the reported 'corruption' in the area (Iraqi Forces Training) Petraeus previously commanded, and the fact that the corruption reached right up to the officer next to Petraeus, is it possible that Bush has 'blackmailed' Petraeus into being his scape-goat for the failed policies in Iraq?

Does anyone really know the full story on HOW Petraeus wound up as top dog (militarily) in Iraq?

Now, Bush embraces those 'plans' laid out by Petraeus...and when they go awry (as they inevitably will), then Bush can place the blame on an inept general.

After all, it seemed that Bush DID have some difficulty in finding a general officer who would agree to come up with the 'surge' idea.

tekel wrote on September 12, 2007 12:44 PM:

The headline gives Hil too much credit. If the letter actually had said "Stop lying to the American people," that would be news. This wishy-washy 'misrepresentation' bs is a waste of her time and ours, and gives Fox news all the wiggle-room they need to misquote her to her (and our) disadvantage.

This is very much too little too late. It's time to call this administration what it is: a bunch of fucking criminals. If Hillary can't make herself do it, even with the massive groundswell of public recognition, she's not fit to lead.

tekel wrote on September 12, 2007 12:45 PM:

And can I say, for the record, that Mrs. Clinton's new publicity photo scares the hell out of me? Much too glossy and airbrushed and all sharp pointy teeth. Like she's going to take a bite out of your face.

oldtree wrote on September 12, 2007 12:47 PM:

does she say lying, or is that a paraphrase?

John Singer Sargent wrote on September 12, 2007 12:55 PM:

I agree; Bush will ignore anything except his own self-ratifying delusions.

Just to remind the good Senator: Iraq is a war which never had to take place. Invasion, and how to create an excuse for it, was being discussed by Bush and his cabal only hours after his coronation in 2001.

For months, despite the pressing and available intelligence, Cheney / Bush left America unlocked, so to speak -- and on when we were hit six years ago, they all said "Who knew?" But they had their excuse.

Then we had WMD's; yellowcake; aluminum tubes; a 9/11 connection between Saadam and Al-Qaeda. All of it, and much more -- all of it -- was fabricated. It was all a lie.

Cheney / Bush lied to create this war. There wasn't an ounce of truth in their claims. Sufficient reason existed *at the time* to doubt their veracity; and Democrats "rushed to failure" to support a war they knew would be a horrible failure for the sake of their political hides, including the good Senator.

We've had to endure the strutting, preening and braying of Bush for years -- proclaiming "Mission Accomplished!" and then, "It's hard work!" to, "We're makin' progress!" to "Wait 'till September!" to, "Next Spring!"

Now, half a million dead Iraqis, nearly 4,000 Americans; over a million Iraqi wounded and perhaps 30,000 Americans. And all of it, absolutely **for nothing**. All of it based on lies.

It would have been heartening if the good Senator had called Bush what he in fact is -- a liar -- simply, and directly: "Sir, stop lying to the American people about Iraq, as you have done for the past five years."

Instead, we get yet another respectful request -- Please, sir, don't do more bad things; thank you. It's even more disheartening than if she'd said nothing.

RWN wrote on September 12, 2007 1:01 PM:

The matter of late is irrelevant in the sphere of what is best for America and not what is best for the candidate. (I will state I am an Obama volunteer.) What is important is that the Democrat leadership in or out of the structure is beginning to get some teeth & nails and starting to echo the electorate.

Hillary is not a populist so she will tactically and strategically weigh each move. What is good is that she is literally calling out Bush as a liar. This is more than symbolic it will put the Reptiles and Authoritarians on the defensive for they will have to defend the numbers if the Democrats and wildcat Republicans hold them to it. The numbers are not holding up to scrutiny, they never did, but the Authoritarians never thought that really mattered, now it will.

What is important is the line in the sand when the nation realizes that every wounded or dead American in Iraq was unnecessary not unlike Vietnam for a failed policy or strategy.

Lastly Warner's question of whether America is safer because of Iraq to 4-star who dodged the question is even bigger for it goes to the heart of why or why not. The question is not whether Iraq or its citizens are safer but whether the US is safer.

Biden has the plan of extracation, harden the split of Iraq and bring in the UN to peace keep. Will it happen? Not on Bush's watch unless....unless the Dem's decide to go down the path of impeachment...

The numbers are simple: They need 67 votes to overide a veto, 60 votes to override a filibuster...but they can start an impeachment proceeding in the House....

dcshungu wrote on September 12, 2007 1:06 PM:

And can I say, for the record, that Mrs. Clinton's new publicity photo scares the hell out of me? Much too glossy and airbrushed and all sharp pointy teeth. Like she's going to take a bite out of your face.

For all of its attempts at being 'impartial', TPM does have subtle ways to convey its preference for Obama: The selection of the photos of the two candidates that they post. Currently, Obama is depicted looking 'presidential', smartly dressed, serious and thinking expression. Hillary's pic? Well, you said it. It is not only scary but makes her look goofy.

I'd pointed this out before, so I hope that now TPM would try to improve its taste in HRC's photos...

John Singer Sargent wrote on September 12, 2007 1:07 PM:

"Democrat" leadership, RWN? Hmmmm....

And, she didn't "literally" call Bush a liar -- to do so, she would either have had to accuse him of lying, directly, or call him by that term.

Jinchi wrote on September 12, 2007 1:08 PM:

The numbers are simple: They need 67 votes to overide a veto, 60 votes to override a filibuster

Actually the numbers are simpler than that. George Bush needs 50 votes in the Senate and 218 in the House to get his budget funded. He can only do that with votes from Democrats.

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have the upper hand here. They just haven't realized it yet.

Anonymous wrote on September 12, 2007 1:14 PM:

mopper sez:

Now that's leadership from Clinton: fighting a battle others have already fought and won, but doing it more publicly.

You missed the point...again. The point is NOT that there was any dispute about whether the troops levels were scheduled to return to their pre-surge level by next summer! The point IS that Bush is going to go on TeeVee and claim that the 'surge' has works so well that he is going to reduce the troops level to 130,000 (pre-surge level) by next summer, to the sound of 'amens' from the MSM. HRC's letter is a good start at preempting this nonsense!

Got it now?

ROTFLMAO!

EH wrote on September 12, 2007 1:15 PM:

And can I say, for the record, that Mrs. Clinton's new publicity photo scares the hell out of me? Much too glossy and airbrushed and all sharp pointy teeth. Like she's going to take a bite out of your face.

Funny how you excoriate her for a lack of substance in her letter before commenting on her appearance. Frankly, I'm impressed when any Democrat attempts something of substance.

Daniel wrote on September 12, 2007 1:18 PM:

Dems are being particularly divided on the Iraq issue this week, which is not surprising given the predominant place the issue plays in presidential politics. Clinton and Obama are pushing each other to take the lead in Iraq, and this letter is a reflection of that. They are also feeling Dodd's and Richardson's pressure.

www.campaigndiaries.com

mopper wrote on September 12, 2007 1:22 PM:

Anon--no, I did not miss the point. I get it. I'm just not impressed with it as any sort of "leadership" on the issue when you have Biden, Pelosi, Reid, et al, already hammering Petraeus and Bush on the very same subject.

It's a political stunt, just like her other angry letters to the White House and administration operatives have been. Just like the call for Maliki's ouster was. Just like everything she does.

It's always political point-scoring with her. This isn't about molding public opinion, it's about scoring points with the anti-war base.

The fact that I'm not bowled over by her transparent politicking is not me missing the point. It's me getting the point.

Becca Morn wrote on September 12, 2007 1:35 PM:

Does anyone here think that if the political landscape now resembled what it did eight years ago (Dem President, GOP majority Congress) that the GOP would not hesitate for a single instant to deny funding?

The majority leaders and whips would -- as they still do -- demand total party loyalty in any critical vote on the issue.

Just look at it now: Even when they lose votes, the GOP members vote with 100% unity.

But the Dems? It's child's play for them to peel off the few dozen in the house and ten or so in the Senate.

The White House and the GOP are playing the same game they've been playing for the last generation: Total unity on their side, and wedge away enough Dems to get things passed.

It's time -- at least on these important issues -- for the Dems to demand a little loyalty of their own. None of this "Blue Dog" crap should be acceptable at the DNC level.

But what am I saying? Hoping against hope for the Democratic Party members to grow a collective spine...

In the meantime, Bush and the Republicans keep our troops in a place where a hundred or so will die every month and countless more will be injured or crippled permanently. And the US economy will continue to bleed billions for a war cum occupation that never should've happened in the first place.

The ONLY thing I want to hear coming from any serious Democratic party member's mouth is, "This ends now. No compromises."

DemocraticWhining wrote on September 12, 2007 1:56 PM:

I'm fascinated that Hillary is taken to task presumably by the readership that would like to see her or Obama in the oval office. Granted the readership here is ahead of the curve on policy actions, but this is a political sphere. Let me make a few comments on the above.

1) Its timely because Bush just announced his intentions, and is about to appear on TV for a mini-victory speech. She couldn't have written the same letter a month ago because the substance of the letter wouldn't be relevant. The thing that really gets me is she has been supportive of troop drawdown and withdrawal for over a year.... everyone in comments seems to forget this.

2) You cant call anyone a liar, it wont help with the electorate, and phrasing like that makes it easier for Republicans to bring out their base. Character is the issue with the idiots who voted for Bush. If we are lucky they'll be so disenchanted with the GOP they simply will stop participating for a while. Character assignations will bring them out.... poor strategies you are suggesting here folks.

3) What she looks like? Give me a f'n break people. You might as well say Obama cant win cause he looks too black or too white. If only Hillary looked prettier or had bigger boobs. Its patently offensive for one, but secondly, if Dem's are making these arguments on boards, it validates this as a 'voting issue'. Is this really how we want the electorate to weigh in on an election. If so, Hello Romney.

All in all, this comments section is a freaking laser beam on this parties problem. Even when someone gets some sack and starts going on the offensive its not good enough. Rally behind our candidates folks..... the more fragmented we are, the less likely we'll win the general election.

As for my $.02; I'd be pleased to have Hillary or Obama in office, to stop the hemorrhaging. Hillary is a bad ass, because she is a successful political creature. Chances are if you have an issue with a bad ass assertive woman (or black candidate for that matter) I think you might have some deeper issues about the white male patriarchy that has dominated the top of the political heap.

OCPatriot wrote on September 12, 2007 2:05 PM:

You have to realize that, to get elected, Hillary needs a majority. To get a majority, you have to appeal to the greatest number of people, even across party lines. It is suicide, politically, to speak out too directly because it will turn off the undecided and those of the dividing lines. What the vocal anti-war people want is self-destructive; they want their jollies off about speaking about ending the war; but they forget there is a long term objective here, which is to gain the Presidency; and that, like it or not, is the disciplined route Hillary Clinton is taking. Until a Republican candidate is chosen, there is no point in setting your political position in concrete; it will be too easy to knock it down. Watch how she performs when the Republicans finally choose a candidate and she is chosen, and then begin to comment. For now, as far as I'm concerned, she is doing the smart thing.

coonsey wrote on September 12, 2007 2:15 PM:

If Hillary truly feels that Bush is LYING, she needs to DEMAND that the House of Representatives take up articles of impeachment.

I know he is lying but I'm a nobody. It has to be SOMEBODY with a little influence and power.

It's time to remove President Bush from office before we end up in Syria and Iran.

kjoe wrote on September 12, 2007 2:39 PM:

this site is giving me deja vu with the constant cheerleading for Hillary.

reminds me of Naral in 2000---ignoring the outstanding record of Bill Bradley on women's issues, and making an early committment to the flip-flopping, I did not see the CBS program about Juanita Broaddrick, I am a centrist who is progressive and can win Al Gore. It worked. The vice-president of the united states eked out a narrow victory over Bradley in New hampshire, and the nomination race was over----much to the relief of the centrist press.

DonnaG wrote on September 12, 2007 2:45 PM:

Good for Hillary in writing the letter. Every little bit helps in countering the Bush team insanities. Having said that, I am a lot more impressed with Obama taking the much larger effort to engage the public with his major speech today than I am impressed with Clinton writing another letter. As, RWN said above, Hillary is not a populist.... so perhaps it doesn't occur to her to do more than write and publicize a letter and consider that to be sufficient leadership.

As for the new publicity photo, I remember this new photo appeared after some commenters complained about the previous [stern look] photo of Hillary used on this site. I have to say, though, every time I see this new photo of Hillary, I immediately am reminded of Laura Bush's 'wide-eyed sweetness neutral' smiling persona.

Rick Roberts wrote on September 12, 2007 4:01 PM:

What will it take to make you people happy? OK, she didn't chime in when you thought she should have, but she's speaking up now. She's headed for election. Do you wish to tear her down before she even gets started?

bob wrote on September 12, 2007 4:03 PM:

I'm sure Bush will change course immediately upon receiving Hillary's letter.

Her letter writing campaigns are really just pointless. She might as well put our press releases instead, since that is basically what they are and that is how much of an impact they have. She uses them to distract Dem primary voters from her past and present positions on Iraq.

Hey, look over here, I wrote a letter to Bush!

Jim Hurley wrote on September 12, 2007 4:44 PM:

The bottom line is Senator Clinton speaks as the front runner at this point in time and deserves credit for using her position to directly address a President who manipulates the media to get his message to the American people, of which currently 25-30 percent support him.
It is that minority of people still caught in a web of deceit that need to join us and vote to remove from political office those who share, or for whatever reasons, support this slide from reality.

Jim Hurley

dcshungu wrote on September 12, 2007 4:57 PM:

mopper sez:

I'm just not impressed with it as any sort of "leadership" on the issue when you have Biden, Pelosi, Reid, et al, already hammering Petraeus and Bush on the very same subject.

You still do not get it. Clinton's hammer is bigger...therefore it is "leadership." Who is going to pay attention to Biden, Reid, Pelosi? Got it now?

tekel wrote on September 12, 2007 4:59 PM:

OK, to be fair, TPM is using Hillary's official Senate photo, which supposedly she has OK'ed for reprinting:

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/photos/

So if she's approved the photo, who am I to complain? I just think it's a stark contrast to the other headshots we see on other stories here- it is obviously a very polished publicity photo, and it looks like she's selling something. Maybe not used cars, but could easily be insurance or real estate. If TPM used the following shot of Obama (airbrushed cheeks?, teeth and eyes whitened, I probably would have lifted the glare from his lips too) I'd have the exact same complaint:

http://www.uncorrelated.com/images/obama.jpg

So anyhow. I don't like the way Hillary looks in that photo, which has nothing to do with the way that I don't like Hillary's dissembling about Bush's lies. Calling them "misrepresentations" is playing on their terms- Bush is a liar, and he's breaking the law. There is no basis for any argument to the contrary and no one should be afraid to make those factual statements, least of all a candidate from the party that holds the majority in the house.

And as far as running with an eye to the general, she's got to win the primary first, and the best way to do that is by sticking a sharp rhetorical knife in George Bush's back every single chance she gets.

People are stupid. "Misrepresentations" is about five syllables too long to get the job done.

freeman88 wrote on September 12, 2007 7:42 PM:

All of you whining at Hillary right now with your "too little, too late" comments are a bunch of turncoat morons!

There is nobody else in the congress trying to hold bush accountable for his deadly LIES, is there???? Oh sure, we hear from a radio personality once in a while, but NEVER have we heard so much straight to the point conversation aimed at bush from Capital Hill. In fact Hillary is a class act who with her letter is showing those on the Congress what courage looks like. In fact, this woman has begun to show us all that very same thing.

And, we all know that tomorrow the snake pit; better known as the, "right wing noise machine". Yeah, they will ALL be screaming over every channel of the Main Stream Media, each newspaper, and on Sunday, all of those Godless (small 'c' Christians), will be in their churches getting the negative push-back from morning through the drive-time and all over the night about how bad Hillary was to put those words in a letter.

So, I'm sure she would appreciate support from those of us in her own party. It matters not if you support her for president, just support her as someone trying to do the right thing!

It's only fair.

BTW, I don't know who I am going to support in the primaries, but I do know enough to be respectful of someone who for once, is telling it like it really is and has our nation's best interest at heart.

If you weren't so full of pithy little put-downs, the people I am addressing would see this too!!

Jan wrote on September 12, 2007 7:59 PM:

I thought Senator Clinton's letter was brilliant.

~ She called him a liar.
(Okay, she didn't use the words "fucking liar." I guess that's because she's not an immature dolt.)
~ It was pre-emptive.
~ She pointed out that his "troop reduction" was going to happen with or without him.
~ She pointed out that it appears *HE* is the one who is going to ignore the 2006 elections and leave the same number of troops in Iraq.
~ She pointed out that Bush extended the troops' tours. (VERY important point, as other mil-pers posting here will fully understand)
~ And she brought up the sham of "Mission Accomplished."

Now, could I hear how this letter DOESN'T work, instead of stuff like "I don't like her. She's a poopy doody-pants."

In addition, whoever said these letters have no weight...
She's won the only clear battle with the administration yet, with a letter to the Pentagon, then another letter asking Gates to clarify his subordinate's opinion, then a letter FROM Gates in response, and then her requested briefing without further adieu.

The Bush adminstration has been forced to address her. Who else have they addressed, peer to peer?
It's because she chooses to address them ONLY as their own peer.

She's truly brilliant, and this letter was perfect.
And on that point, I'm starting to get really tired of Democratic Clinton Haters. The way you swallow the GOP talking points, you might as well call yourselves Republicans.
I'm not even a Democrat, and I believe ANY DEMOCRAT will beat ANY REPUBLICAN.
I just wish Democrats did.

I'd also like to ask this guy if he actually KNOWS how many DEMOCRATS there are in the Senate:
"Actually the numbers are simpler than that. George Bush needs 50 votes in the Senate and 218 in the House to get his budget funded. He can only do that with votes from Democrats."

Bush has 49 Republicans and Joe Loserman. That's Bush's 50 votes.
In case of a tie, Bush has Cheney's vote.
So... The "upper hand" is Bush's, not Reid's or Pelosi's.

With all that said, I can't do anything but repeat comments from other posters verbatim, because I agree so whole-heartedly:

(1) "The bottom line is Senator Clinton speaks as the front runner at this point in time and deserves credit for using her position to directly address a President who manipulates the media to get his message to the American people, of which currently 25-30 percent support him."

(2) "What will it take to make you people happy? OK, she didn't chime in when you thought she should have, but she's speaking up now. She's headed for election. Do you wish to tear her down before she even gets started?"

(3) "All in all, this comments section is a freaking laser beam on this party's problem."

Amen. Amen. Amen.
(and I'm not even religious)

dhs wrote on September 12, 2007 10:59 PM:

All of the Democratic candidates have made good statements recently; but the ones who hold office, especially the 4 senators, are in a position to back up their statements with action. They can put forward bills which lay out a plan to end the war and extricate the nation from this morass. They can filibuster any bill that allows this war to go on, with continued carnage, disabling of the military, and squandering of the nation's treasury.

Rather than pit the candidates against one another, it would be better to encourage them to work together, for the sake of the country and the Democratic party, to bring effective action and demonstrate clearly to the electorate, that the Democrats are truly capable of running the country.

Any one of the current Democratic Presidential candidates would make an outstanding president, and the others would make able cabinet members. But they have to show they can work together and lead the country effectively.

august west wrote on September 12, 2007 11:35 PM:

"under a banner tha read"

Please, TPM.

Proofread your stuff.

tekel wrote on September 13, 2007 2:25 AM:

Jan:

What will it take to make you people happy?

Justice. Respect for the rule of Law, not the rules of men. Impeachment by the house and conviction by the Senate of Alberto Gonzales, Richard B. Cheney, and George W. Bush. Their removal from office, and their subsequent prosecution for war crimes.

And, for good measure, a criminal conviction for complicity in illegal wiretapping for all the telecoms who participated, with a settlement that requires them to implement open-source and auditable net neutrality. And a criminal conviction of Halliburton and subsidiaries for fraud.

This is not a game. They Bush Administration has been lying to and stealing from the American People for the last six years. They have been torturing American citizens, for christ's sake. Now we've caught him, and it's time to punish him. The punishment must be severe enough to serve as a deterrent to future generations, or else it's going to be like Cheney and Thompson reborn from the Nixon scandal 30 years ago. We need to make sure that nobody who worked for the Bushies at any level can ever work in government again. People 100 years from now should teach morality and the American Dream to their children by telling them stories about what we did to destroy the Bush family in 2008.

George Bush and all that he stood for must be publicly eviscerated. All his accomplices must be punished, without mercy or succor, hounded to the ends of the earth, locked in chains and dragged before the Senate or the war crimes tribunal in The Hague, and then sentenced to long prison terms (or death). Their families must have their ill-gotten assets seized and redistributed to those who have suffered at their hands. And all their evil and tainted works must be torn down.

That's what it will take for me to be satisfied. Bush should have been impeached before the elections in 2004 for the illegal wiretaps. Since then, even more crimes (yes, crimes, as in violations of USC Title 18) have been committed by the Administration or revealed by the last six months of Democratic investigation. Hillary has had 3 years since 2004 to watch the waddling, paddling, and quacking, but she still can't call it a duck. What is she waiting for?

What would it take for me to be satisfied with Hillary? I want her to take the Presidency, and I want her to do it by making a political spectacle out of destroying George Bush. Talking about his "misrepresentations" just ain't going to cut it.

She has nothing to lose by coming out broadside with all guns blazing. Call Bush a liar. Call him a criminal. Call him a disgrace to the white house and the nation. Call him unfit to lead and deserving of impeachment. Call him a coked-out dry-drunk man-child, a failure as a father and a husband and a son. Call him a sore loser and a poor sport and a shitty tennis player. And a mysoginist. And a sterotypical asshole frat boy. He's certainly all of these things and more, and THE WHOLE WORLD KNOWS IT- AND HATES HIM FOR IT.

Pointing these things out should be the easiest thing in the world for her- John Stewart has already done all of the heavy lifting. And the people would rally around her for telling what they know to be the truth.

If she can't stand up as the democratic frontrunner and speak the truth about the President now, why should I trust her, the woman who would be President herself, to tell me the truth about anything else?

nightslider wrote on September 13, 2007 2:42 AM:

well I'll be darned if some of the officiados who supported lieberman aren't here denigrating HRC. and guess what they sound the same as they did during the last elections. (Ignorant) Lamont and I salute your worldly words of wisdom, yep support LIEBERMAN and you did.

GFYS.

Jan wrote on September 13, 2007 7:14 AM:

Tekel,
re: "Jan: What will it take to make you people happy?"

This will probably be long, because I'd just like to point out some stuff from your post that you directed to me.

Although I sincerely believe that Bush and Cheney have committed impeachable offenses, they are not going to be impeached.
That's just reality.
You can get it to the Senate, but you can't get it through the Senate.
Investigations? Fine. As many, as often, as possible.
Impeachment? Currently a complete waste of time.

More interesting is your call for a war crimes trial. Guess how you'll get that satisfied?
By getting yourself larger majorities in Congress and a Democratic President.

I'd like to note that we are actually ruled by the rule of men, because "men" (I know you mean it generically) make our laws. Our founders were men; what they make are the rules.

You act like you are the only one who cares about the rule of law. No, everyone who agrees these men should be impeached also cares about the rule of law. One of those rules is that 67 Senators must convict on impeachments.
Let me know when you have the 67 votes.

Thumbs up to all the convictions you want, but you and me are NOT the rule of law. Get a majority in our Congress who agree with you, and it will be done.

You control three people in Congress, with the cooperation of your neighbors.
Between us, one of my neighbors or I call John Sununu every single day. John Sununu is going to lose his job next year (not just bluster; statistics) and yet he hasn't budged from being a Loyal Bushie.

If I can't get John Sununu to move on anything -- in the face of losing his job in 2008 -- how are you planning on moving beyond your two Senators (whom I assuming are Democrats willing to convict Bush without further adieu), and then convince my John Sununu?
I'll take any suggestions.

[insert your two long paragraphs here, of all your hopes and dreams but still no actual MEANS of getting all your hopes and dreams when we still only have 49 Democrats in the Senate.]

And I know it's not a game. I know it's not a game I think more than you do.
That's why ranting about stuff that you have no means of making happen is a waste of everyone's time. People posting on TPM aren't the ones holding you back from impeaching Bush and Cheney.

MY SENATOR is holding you back, and so far, he's not budging.
LET US ALL KNOW WHEN YOU HAVE 67 SENATORS ON BOARD WITH YOU. That, friend, is the rule of law.

When you put the blame on Hillary Clinton, you make a fool out of yourself.
And, contrary to your opinion, she has EVERYTHING to lose by coming out with guns blazing. It's a complete and utter waste of ammunition. You are the one who said this is not a game. Yes, it's WAR. War takes ammunition. Good soldiers don't blow it.

I don't care if you don't support Hillary Clinton. I mind that you hold her to a standard that her own supporters don't care to hold her to, like you get to decide for us.
No, I encourage you to support Mike Gravel, Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinch, because they come out with guns blazing.
And if any of them becomes the nominee, it's fine by me.
(maybe not Mike Gravel, just to be honest)

Here's what you asked of Senator Clinton:
"Call Bush a liar. Call him a criminal. Call him a disgrace to the white house and the nation..."
She just did that. That's what this entire post is all about. Did you read her letter?

Now you don't like the words she used.
You don't like that she didn't use words like this :
" Call him unfit to lead and deserving of impeachment. Call him a coked-out dry-drunk man-child, a failure as a father and a husband and a son. Call him a sore loser and a poor sport and a shitty tennis player. And a mysoginist. And a sterotypical asshole frat boy."

No, that's not her style. It's one of the reasons I support her.

And I really don't know which candidate I'd steer you towards, because I don't hear any of the candidates speaking as crudely as you do.

Tekel, you promised us that these types of confrontations is what it would take for "the people to rally around her."
Well, first of all, according to the only measures we have right now, people are already rallying around her.

But, second of all, imo, Clinton IS the candidate who has kept her eye on Bush more than any other candidate. It's one of my reasons for supporting her.
For example, every other candidate addressed Petraeus and the media these last few days.
Clinton barely said a word to Petraeus, and she barely said a word to the media; she addressed BUSH.

I don't need you to trust her and, seriously, I don't even need you to vote for her.

I want you to find the candidate who is doing what you are asking of them, like Clinton is doing what I am asking of her.

And if your blazing candidate wins the nomination, I promise I will vote for him.

Hillary Clinton, so far, is doing everything her supporters are asking from her.
So, my only point is, if SHE wins the nomination, will YOU promise to vote for HER?

If the answer is no, I will have zero sympathy for you or any other Democrat if you blow yet another election because your party is incapable of campaigning without publicly eating each other alive.
After what I've been through from DEMOCRATS for supporting one of their fellow Democrats, I'm just going to vote for my candidate, and I really don't care anymore what happens to the Democratic Party.
I'm an Independent. I'm for smart government. Publicly eating each other alive isn't smart.

And, btw, I don't mean the candidates; I think they've all done a damn good job at staying above the fray.
I mean you -- their supporters. Why do you have to be so ugly to each other? It's just not what teammates do.

And, Tekel, if you really believe this is not a game, then rather than making outrageous demands on a candidate who you are never going to support anyway, I advise you start satisfying yourself by planning what you will do if this administration declares martial law about Nov. 1, 2008. I'm not concerned about any of the Democrats being elected. I'm far more concerned that there will be no elections.
Our rule of law is in Bush's court if we have another attack.

Anyway, thanks for listening.

Bedford wrote on September 13, 2007 9:48 AM:

I didn't read anything in Clinton's "letter" that might lead one to believe that "it took four years" for her to realize that W would not represent the facts accurately. We will have another attack, bet on it. I just wonder who and how many will get "atta boys" for the next one. Cheney, perhaps. W told us all, years ago the it would be up to "some other" president to get done with Iraq. Geez, people catch on, he doesn't WANT to be out of Iraq, or Iran, or anywhere else there is oil.

Tom wrote on September 13, 2007 2:10 PM:

For what it is worth - thank you Senator Clinton. The fact of the matter is that Bush does not care about what anybody outside his political bubble think regarding the war. Bush has made up his mind long ago that he is president and can do whatever he wants regarding the war. The Democrats sit there and throw stones and mouth off like that is going to ever have an everlasting effect or make a difference. The american people are against this war...we elected a democratic congress last November to make a change of course and strategy in Iraq. The Democratic leaders in Congress have failed to do so. I am an american citizen and want answers! Iraq has been one big blunder after the other. It is never going to change. There will never be a political solution. We need our troops to redeploy and secure Iraq's borders with our international neighbors. It is time to allow the Iraqi citizens govern themselves. Will there be loss of life, of course. That is normal in fighting for your rights and establishing a democracy. Is it worth one single american soldier's life - absolutely not! Our country has enough problems already then to meddle in other nation's affairs. Let Iraqwork itself out. Our military can provide logistical support at the borders to prevent more insurgency to infiltrate Iraq. The Iraqi government is a joke, but it is up to the people of Iraq, Sunni, Shia, and Kurd alike to change that course.

I hope the Democrats muster up the courage to stand up to the President and represent the best interest of the american people. Stop the funding for the war, and that will force the president to withdraw military forces. Stop the funding. Then and only then will Bush be faced with a real dilemna that he can no longer brush to the side. If the Dems do not take the stand against the president and cut funding for the war....republicans will win the white house and gain their majority back in the Senate. God help us all!!

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)