Letter to the editor:

Clinton’s war vote disqualifies her

Jim Salonisen, Henderson

Fri, May 2, 2008 (2:05 a.m.)

After the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.’s speech Sunday before the NAACP and his answers to questions from the National Press Club, voters can now decide whether this issue should affect their decisions.

Now it’s time to move on to the biggest issues in this campaign — the Iraq war and the worst economy in many years. Hillary Clinton’s tough talk does not hide the fact that she voted for the Iraq war.

This bad judgment and the fact that she didn’t even bother to read all of the documents regarding this huge decision, in my opinion disqualify her from becoming president.

Barack Obama has the correct judgment and temperament to be the next president. Obama and Clinton are only two of John McCain’s problems. His other big problem is Ron Paul.

Discussion: 5 comments so far…

By StanG

5/2/08 at 2:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

Actually, we have no way of knowing what Obama's vote would have been. He had no vote at the time. We know what he says he would have done, but that ain't the same thing. For all you know, he might have taken his favorite cop out ... "Present", if only from force of habit.
By Heidiho610

5/2/08 at 3:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

Agreed - Clinton acts as if she had no choice but to vote for this war, but 23 Senators and 133 Congressmen voted against it. Obama spoke out harshly against this war and Clinton had intelligence available to her that she did not even read. I think Lincoln Chafee, the only Republican Senator to vote against the war, says it best:

“I find it surprising now, in 2008, how many Democrats are running for president after shirking their constitutional duty to check and balance this president,” writes Chafee. “Being wrong about sending Americans to kill and be killed, maim and be maimed, is not like making a punctuation mistake in a highway bill. They argue that the president duped them into war, but getting duped does not exactly recommend their leadership. Helping a rogue president start an unnecessary war should be a career-ending lapse of judgment.”
By NVMakz

5/2/08 at 7:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

Clinton, along with other uber-libs like Daschle, Kerry, Durbin, Feinstein and other major Dem Congressional voices talked bigger, harsher and with more violence against Saddam in the 90s, but did nothing. Into the 00s, they were still talkin' and had the exact same intel that the Administration had.

There was no lying into or duping anyone into the Liberation of Iraq. None. If someone claimed they were duped, they do not belong in public office in any state.

What Obama "would have voted" on anything is functionally irrelevant. As is most of his candidacy seems to be.

The Liberation of Iraq is going much better after the "surge" - there is no recession (though some serious shaking going on) unless the liberal promotes it (bad news is good news to da' liberal). Clinton was correct on the first and has no clue at all on the second. This from someone who would never vote for Shrillary.

Iraq hasn't turned into the Vietnam-Redux that most liberals would have liked, has it? Iraq is going very well = note the LACK of major liberal media demonization on the subject for the last year. Berkley herself went over and came back very impressed in the last several months.

PS: Chafee was a RINO his whole career. To quote him, because he was a "republican" is a sad joke.
By JohnF

5/2/08 at 10:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

Iraq is going well? Since when? The green zone was bombed the other day, for cryin out loud. American casualties were up last month.

Obama put it best when he said that three years ago American casualties were terrible. Then the violence got out of hand and casualties were unacceptable. Now we've had the "surge" and casualties are back to being terrible, and we somehow see this as an improvement in the overall situation.

Colin Powell had this to say:
"I'll tell you what they're all going to face — whichever one of them becomes president on Jan. 21 of 2009 — they will face a military force, a United States military force, that cannot sustain, continue to sustain, 140,000 people deployed in Iraq, and the 20 (to) 25,000 people we have deployed in Afghanistan, and our other deployments."

So somebody tell me, what's the recipe for succes in Iraq? We can't stay and we can't leave. Sounds like Viet Nam to me.

I find it funny that people can refer to what we did in Iraq as "liberating" the country. Liberating from whom? Themselves? I think we're finding out that, as brutal as he was, Saddam was no different from any of the other people who would lead Iraq.

Merriam Webster defines "liberate" as

1: to set at liberty : free; specifically : to free (as a country) from domination by a foreign power

Was Saddam a foreign power in Iraq, or ar we?

Justify what we're doing there how you will, but don't call it a liberation. It's an invasion pure and simple.
By NVMakz

5/2/08 at 1:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

JF: Are you calling Shelley B a liar?? Yep!

Obama is a polit-puppy shadow representing how shallow the lib-bench of candidates is these days.

The liberation of 50,000,000 must really piss you off = less enslavement on the planet. Iraq would, imo, be "done" already if you lib-clueless would assist, instead of "voting for it before voting against it". The enemies of America see "you" for what you are = the enemy within, all for "a few seats more". Political whores.......

It took America 12 years from defeating the British until the Constitution was ratified, ims. It took 7 years after winning WWII until Europe settled down, Japan 15, even after bombing them into surrender.

As long as da' liberal acts as the friend of enemies of America, trouble will be on the way = exactly as da liberal loves it to be.

Bad news is good news to the Democrat.

Ever notice how the word Republican ends in "I can", while Democrat ends in "rat"?? That's about as much as the swing voter needs to know in today's politics.