Maureen Dowd, "Bomb, Bomb Iran": Hillary's vote

Bomb, Bomb Iran
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: October 10, 2007

....A Democrat, Randall Rolph, asked Senator Clinton why he should back her when she did not learn her lesson after voting to authorize W. to use force in Iraq. He did not understand how she could have voted yea to urge W. to label Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, possibly setting the stage for more Cheney chicanery....

***

...Joe Biden and Chris Dodd voted no, and Barack Obama would have voted no if he had voted.

If you know the dingbat vice president is agitating for a conflict with Iran, if you know that Condi is chasing after Cheney with a butterfly net on Iran and Syria, if you know you can’t believe anything this administration says, why vote to give them more backing on their dysfunctional Middle East policy?...

***

Her opponents have sounded the fool-me-once-shame-on-you, fool-me-twice-shame-on-me drumbeat. Obama chided Hillary for her willingness “to once again extend to the president the benefit of the doubt.” John Edwards wondered if in “six months from now he goes to war in Iran, are we going to hear her once again say if only I had known then what I know now?”

When Hillary voted to let W. use force in Iraq, she didn’t even read the intelligence estimate. She wasn’t trying to do the right thing. She was trying to do the opportunistic thing. She felt she could not run for president, as a woman, if she played the peacenik.

By throwing in with Joe Lieberman and the conservative hawks on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard issue, she once more overcompensated in a cynical way....

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/opinion/10dowd.html?hp

Hillary must feel she has to compensate for her being a woman and lack of military service

If you don't vote you can make whatever claim you want as to how you would have actually voted. NO vote is close to a yes vote in a Senate so closely divided.

That would have been a vote worth showing up for. O Bama might as well have voted yes. About O Bama. David Sirota says he will vote to allow Peru into Cafta. that vote O Bama will probably show up for and vote the wrong way. This time, stay on the campaign trail Sen. Obama.

If not voting is "close" to anything, it is to a NO vote, not to a YES. 60 votes were needed for K-L to pass, not voting was equivalent to a NO since it did not add to the number of aye's needed for passage. And there is no reason to doubt Obama's claim that he would have voted no. Besides the desire to bash at all costs, of course.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3592288&mesg_id=3594044

Quote from Senate Transcript

This is what Reid said the night before the bill

Mr. REID. Mr. Chairman, there will be no more votes tonight. We have tried to work something out on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment and the Biden amendment. We have been unable to do that.

We have been very close a few times, but we have just been informed that Senator Biden will not have a vote anytime in the near future. There will not be a vote on the other one anytime in the near future. We hope tonight will bring more clearness on the issue.”

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r110:S25SE7-0035

Obama publicly announced at the time of the vote that he was opposed to the bill. All the presidential candidates in congress have been missing votes. Obama can't be blamed for missing a vote that he was told wouldn't occur.

Reid called for the vote. I read his statement afterwards and believed that he would have voted Nay. He's saying Nay right after the vote was taken so it's not like he's waiting to find out how the wind went like when hillary voted Yea on the IWR.

She's learned nothing except she likes lieman and the dlc corporate machine stance. She thinks 'ol mow 'em down mark penn is gonna take her to white house.

sounds more like NO BALLS

anyone reasonable person.

He didn't vote on the Iraq War Reauthorization bill either did he?

he vote?

Who let the dawgs out?

You're not gonna believe this. I was in a hurry when I left the cabin this morning, and, well, silly me, I got the wrong bullets.

It is the most pressing item on her agenda. I'm guessing that she will use a combination of fire bombing and bunker busters. She might use chemical weapons a tactical nukes in the south.

Anybody that can get out of Iran now should. War is infeasible. Be afraid.

Fuck loyalty when it's wrong.

:sarcasm:

Or do you have only hollow blanket comments decorated with the sarcasm animated gif?

seems anything her majesty does is just fine with them..and to hell with our nation and what the neo cons are doing to this once proud nation of ours..

war with Iran..carpet bombing..they could care less..as long as her majesty is crowned ..........

fly

hard.

:evilgrin:

She should be writing a gossip column... She's Liz Smith with a bit more panache...

own assholes to accommodate Israeli whims.

For all of you who are applauding, remember that, as soon as your guy will be high enough to be seen as a possible winner, they will do that to him, including, you know, wondering about Edwards's haircuts or house.

So, may be she has a point, but I do not want to hear it from her, and any sensible Democrats should do the same.

it's guaranteed that Dowd will turn her fickled venom on any Democrat. I won't applaud anything that drips from her pen.

Maureen Dowd has also pointed out that the really heavy baggage for Hilary is that
she has a"Flower Child" reputation to run away from. That she has to maintain a
knee jerk response to many matters in order to assure her conservative base that
she can be just as tough as a man.

That would be not be so bad except that from a sane view of war, the "toughness"
that war requires does not unfortunately fall upon our Executive Branch or COngress
critters.

It falls upon the service people and the civilians.

But she's absolutely correct about Hillary in her column.

Sometimes I usually take whatever she has to say with a grain of salt. She's an equal opportunity offender; however, she's on target.