Billy Boy would just have a cigar,take a poll, and then make up some BS lie.

bbz123 on February 17, 2007 at 7:27 PM

Finger in the air, Which way is the wind blowing right now?

The wind ain’t blowing? Damn , what do I do now?

1sttofight on February 17, 2007 at 7:34 PM

In the game of political chess, its check to you Mrs.Clinton

sonnyspats1 on February 17, 2007 at 8:20 PM

I’m infuriated that this two faced biatch gets away with this crap. Not that anyone doesn’t already know that she bases every position on what will get her the most votes (which is basically the Democrats’ MO all around), but this right here should be played on every channel, quotes pulled for front page articles in every paper, etc.

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/02/15/video-hillary-on-iraq-then-and-now/

As for Edwards, I’m just going to repost a comment I made the other day in the thread covering Silky Pony jumping on board with the slow bleeders. I’m a little less furious about him, because I don’t think he stands a chance, but I feel compelled to point out his comments from 2003 when he was trying to be the pro-war Democrat in the primaries.
——————-

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295/

MATTHEWS:Let me ask but the war, because I know these are all students and a lot of guys the age of these students are fighting over there and cleaning up over there, and they’re doing the occupation.

Were we right to go to this war alone, basically without the Europeans behind us? Was that something we had to do?

EDWARDS: I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn’t let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage.

And I think Saddam Hussein, being gone is good. Good for the American people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the Iraqi people.

MATTHEWS: If you think the decision, which was made by the president, when basically he saw the French weren’t with us and the Germans and the Russians weren’t with us, was he right to say, “We’re going anyway”?

EDWARDS: I stand behind my support of that, yes.

MATTHEWS: You believe in that?

EDWARDS: Yes.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about-Since you did support the resolution and you did support that ultimate solution to go into combat and to take over that government and occupy that country. Do you think that you, as a United States Senator, got the straight story from the Bush administration on this war? On the need for the war? Did you get the straight story?

EDWARDS: Well, the first thing I should say is I take responsibility for my vote. Period. And I did what I did based upon a belief, Chris, that Saddam Hussein’s potential for getting nuclear capability was what created the threat. That was always the focus of my concern. Still is the focus of my concern.

So did I get misled? No. I didn’t get misled.

MATTHEWS: Did you get an honest reading on the intelligence?

EDWRADS: But now we’re getting to the second part of your question.

I think we have to get to the bottom of this. I think there’s clear inconsistency between what’s been found in Iraq and what we were told.

And as you know, I serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee. So it wasn’t just the Bush administration. I sat in meeting after meeting after meeting where we were told about the presence of weapons of mass destruction. There is clearly a disconnect between what we were told and what, in fact, we found there.

MATTHEWS: If you knew last October when you had to cast an aye or nay vote for this war, that we would be unable to find weapons of mass destruction after all these months there, would you still have supported the war?

EDWARDS: It wouldn’t change my views. I said before, I think that the threat here was a unique threat. It was Saddam Hussein, the potential for Saddam getting nuclear weapons, given his history and the fact that he started the war before.

MATTHEWS: Do you feel now that you have evidence in your hands that he was on the verge of getting nuclear weapons?

EDWARDS: No, I wouldn’t go that far.

MATTHES: What would you say?

EDWARDS: What I would say is there’s a decade long pattern of an effort to get nuclear capability, from the former Soviet Union, trying to get access to scientists…

MATTHEWS: What about Africa?

EDWARDS: … trying to get-No. I don’t think so. At least not from the evidence.

MATTHEWS: Were you misled by the president in the State of the Union address on the argument that Saddam Hussein was trying get uranium from Niger?

EDWARDS: I guess the answer to that is no.

I did not put a lot of stock in that.

MATTHEWS: But you didn’t believe-But you weren’t misled?

EDWARDS: No, I was not misled because I didn’t put a lot of stock in to it begin with.

As I said before, I think what happened here is, for over a decade, there is strong, powerful evidence, which I still believe is true, that Saddam Hussein had been trying to get nuclear capability. Either from North Korea, from the former Soviet Union, getting access to scientists, trying to get access to raw fissile material. I don’t-that I don’t have any question about.

MATTHEWS: The United States has had a long history of nonintervention, of basically taking the “don’t tread on me and if you don’t we’ll leave you alone.” We broke with that tradition for Iraq. What is your standard for breaking with tradition of nonintervention?

EDWARDS: When somebody like Saddam Hussein presents a direct threat to the security of the American people and, in this case, the security of a region of the world that I think is critical.

He quickly realizes that he’s pissed off a lot of liberal primary voters and tries to say he would have gone about it differently than the President, but he can’t seem to explain how, because he just go through saying he’d have done it exactly like the President and stands by how the President went about it. He actually tried to flip flop in a matter of minutes because he feared alienating the far left voters… yet he had no where to go because the comments I just cited leave absolutely no wiggle room for him. What would he have done differently, sent a hooker over to the hotel rooms of the foreing ministers of France, Germany, and Russia?

This guy is worthless and I hope soon enough we never hear from him again.

RightWinged on February 15, 2007 at 4:28 PM

RightWinged on February 17, 2007 at 8:44 PM

Bonus exit question: WWBJD?

He most likely would launch a cruse missile attack on a few camels and maybe a tent or two followed by a B2 strike on a soybean processing factory claiming that it was producing Ricen nerve gas. He would order all troops out of Iraq except for those assisting in the enforcement of a “No Terrorist Zone” over the north and south thirds of the country. He would help France to prevent any future riots by using NATO troops as a shield between the Muslims and the rest of the country, being careful not to fire their weapons, of course, as we wouldn’t want to create an international incident with any Muslim State.

Hillary, on the other hand, would hold a international town meeting to discuss what the definition of terrorism is and how best to implement the Kyoto Treaty while finalizing her National Heath Care policy funded through the National Oil Profit Tax she and the Democrats in Congress would force on the American owned oil companies but which would exempt any foreign owned companies.

Edwards would defer the entire decision making process to the blogsphere and would stand behind them because he knows he can trust them to make a reasonable decision based upon consensus.

RedinBlueCounty on February 17, 2007 at 9:53 PM

WWBJD? Push the problem off on a future administration?

jaleach on February 17, 2007 at 10:36 PM

Hillary understands that although the far left antiwar thugs may be able to savage her for not admitting her pro war vote was a mistake she certainly wouldn’t look “presidential” doing so. She also knows that the DEM win last November wasn’t as much about Iraq as the left says it was and that even if she wins in 2008 a immediate pull out is not in anybody’s interest (except our enemies). I don’t like Hillary much but she is the best of a bad crew running from the left in that regard. Hillary also remembers that the intelligence presented to Congress in 2002 for the authorization vote was the same stuff Tarrant and Co. gave her husband in 1998 and nobody thought it was wrong then either. Before this is over Hillary may have to refer to her DEM opponents as “surrender monkeys” and may well win by doing so.

Buzzy on February 17, 2007 at 11:54 PM

WWBJD? He wouldn’t have gone to war over 9-11. He would have treated it like a legal conundrum.

Hillary is unelectable. She won’t get the male vote. Can you imagine a real man voting for her? Think about the bumpers sticker fun we’ll have though if she’s nominated.

Rush Limbaugh still has the best quote about her,

“She’s every man’s 1st, 2nd, and 3rd ex-wife all rolled into one.”

Mojave Mark on February 18, 2007 at 1:22 AM

Never let her forget her words on the Larry King Show in April 2004, when asked about the lack of WMDs and her expressing no regret over her vote;

“No, I don’t regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade.”

And

“The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration,” she said. “It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared.”

CNN.com

LewWaters on February 18, 2007 at 2:13 AM

WWBJD, same as hellery…depends on a couple things, mostly what does ‘do’ mean? “Is” is ‘IS’ but to DO, as in “would do” now thats a tough one.

Hill would ‘do’ nothing. She is an expert at saying nothing and “DO-ing” nothing but to defend herself, not her nation.

I honestly believe she is quite incapable of making a decision that is not based in its entirety on her ‘image’, which is an extremely dangerous mindset for a country. I really doubt she could run/manage a coffee shop, let alone 300 million people.
Then there’s this…
Where is that web site with all the info on the dozen or so people that came to untimely deaths, and everything points to associates surrounding the Clinton’s?
Just sayin’.

Ahhh , here it is …..

shooter on February 18, 2007 at 11:44 AM

Bonus exit question: WWBJD?

Cigar, followed by two very short decision-making words.

I don’t want to consciously ban myself. Much rather do it by mistake.

Entelechy on February 18, 2007 at 2:32 PM