Hey, we had a vote and "your girl" (good God, that is a creepy phrase about a distinguished woman 60 years old) lost by OVERWHELMING 70.4% to 29.6%.

He might not speak for you, but in Move On, YOU are the one whose out of step with the organization. I think he spoke pretty well in this article.

It should be quite easy for MoveOn or anyone else who wants to defend MoveOn to produce examples of MoveOn's support for CIA and military operations in Afghanistan after 9/11.

We know that when MoveOn supports or opposes something or someone, they are very vocal about it, e.g., their position on General Petraeus.

I think she nailed them and they are making the usual whine of people who get nailed. Rovian talking points. Republican talking points. MoveOn has found that that's a code that works with their supporters.

MoveOn executive director Eli Pariser is a significant voice in MoveOn. In many ways, he now is MoveOn. If he opposed operations in Afghanistan, it's fair to say that one of the most powerful voices now in MoveOn did oppose them.

Why doesn't he explain why he opposed going after al Qaeda and the Taliban?

This a fairly good defense of HRC and the war but as much as I would like to believe it, it still falls a bit short. She authorized it without reading the NIE, without thought to the big-picture consequences of invasion and without insisting on accountability. I remember what things were like then, and I understand the mind-set of the American public and Washington - people who opposed the war needed a lot of guts to go against the President, even questioning Bush was considered unpatriotic... so in some ways I understand and can forgive her.

However, that is the kind of thing that I can tolerate in a Senator but I expect the POTUS to have those guts.
No Obama wasn't in Washington then so we don't really know how he would have voted, but we do know how she voted and she failed the test. I would rather vote for someone where there is a chance they would have the guts (and there is a fair amount of evidence to indicate that he would) than vote for someone who I know doesn't.

But that is just me. I respect that you feel differently.

Re "it is not a vote to rush to war":

Yes it was, whether she wanted it to be or not.
She should have been alert enough to know how the
vote would be used. Many of us were.

If you actually read her speech (the whole speech), which she made on the Senate floor, it is intelligent and reasoned. The last paragraph in particular sums it up well: "So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed." http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=233783

Bush let us down, not Hillary.

I disagree. Hillary showed phenomenally bad judgment to expect Bush to have a weapon and not use it. Many, many people who were watching the march to war unfold knew that he could not be trusted, knew that the diplomacy was all a sham long before later discoveries revealed the truth.
Is her judgment of world leaders really that bad? In Lincoln Chafee's new memoir, an unnamed Senator (widely thought to be Jack Reed, D-RI) said that many Dems got on board the war-wagon because they thought it would be over quickly and easily and would result in cheap gas. In the Republican-controlled Congress they did not want to be on the losing side of an issue that would have such positive consequences.
I really cannot approve of a candidate who thinks war is an acceptable for of foreign policy.

my goodness! what kind of activist nuts would prefer international law to war in order to bring al qaeda to justice? and does that mean they were opposed to the war, or just that they wanted to exhaust all other options first?

Meanwhile, across the country in Berkeley, California, MoveOn founders Wes Boyd and Joan Blades were writing an anti-war petition of their own. Entitled "Justice, not Terror," it read, in full: "Our leaders are under tremendous pressure to act in the aftermath of the terrible events of Sept. 11th. We the undersigned support justice, not escalating violence, which would only play into the terrorists' hands."

Hell, bin Laden pretty much spelled this out as his plan, and our Glorious Leaders went along with it anyway.

Billy,

Hillary justified her vote by saying it was exactly like the decision Bill made to go into Kosovo. Ethnic cleansing was going on and the UN would not give the OK. So the US acted unilaterily, without UN approval. She placed the security of our country in jeopardy because she thought the US has to be the human rights police. Since that turned out more or less OK, Hillary thought this adventure would be the same.

She did not do her homework for this situation because she equated it with a past conflict and would not listen to any information to the contrary (NIE). The reliable information she based her decision on was from Bill. Period.

Hear it in her own words - 2 weeks before the invasion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZcY6TGfAxE

Billy;
I want to apologize for any vitriol you may have received. As you know emotions are running high on both sides here. But I think the passion that both candidates have inspired is worth it because I think it is that passion that will carry one of our candidates to the White House.

I think after the Primary it will get much better when we all focus on McCain and the general.

I do not hate Hillary although I am disappointed in the way she has used Republican talking points to attack Obama. But he can handle it now and later when it comes from the Republicans directly.

My main reason for not backing Hillary is that she is too much of a hawk for my liking. Although I am now dismayed if MoveOn is being disingenuous if they are backing down from their stance during the build-up to Afghanistan.

Hillary's signing that Iraqi Resolution and now criticizing MoveOn for being against Afghanistan Invasion is typical of a hawkish stand and I am one who believes that war should always be the last stand against tyranny because one needs to weigh the loss of innocent life against the toll of the war. The question must always come down to” which course will save the most lives."

According to the Lancet report our bombing of Iraq has killed many more times more civilians that Saddam did.

I have read some comments from Hillary intimates that she felt had to support the resolution or they would use it against her in this election. Do you think the loved ones who have lost soldiers or the survivor family members of Iraqis would find any comfort in that rationale?

This why I support Obama. He stood up even though it was unpopular and he could have stayed silent. I want a leader who does not rush to war for expedience.

I do respect your choice though and I wish we had more reasoned discussions here. Hopefully it will end soon!

Here is a different concept. Folks within a party could disagree. Folks within a movement could disagree. Activists could disagree. That is how individuals are. For example, if you are a democrat, do you agree with all other democrats?

Meanwhile, if you are a candidate for the democratic party, is it not better to find a way to be more inclusive, to hear more voices, to not perceive opposing opinion as a threat within your own (supposed) party? Wouldn't it be better to find ways to include everyone?

I am against Clinton as president. Shouldn't she still want my vote? If not for activism, even activism I disagree with, not much would be done. Ultimately we would still be under British rule.

There is a spectrum of democratic opinion. From the far left to the more libertarian, we need to take the Whitehouse away from these insane neocon, new world order war mongers. They have all but destroyed this country and are working on the rest of the world. That will take all of us. It would be better to find ways to persuade folks to join the team, than discard out of hand anyone who disagrees with you.

Case in point: There are Hillary supporters who were are part of moveon. Some of them, after hearing this news, are no longer Hillary supporters. So was it good to be, once again, divisive?

I keep on telling you. Bite his ankles, kid.

But you're not a troll. We disagree, but you're trying to push your arguments with facts and logic. The others? Not so much.

Billy we saw the toll-a-thon for what Allsburg wanted it to be. A way to make fun of Clinton and anyone that supported her. Don't take the bait in the future.