Two faced Hillary caught in another lie!

[inkyblacks@yahoo.com]

The USA needs to assure the world that we have not gone insane, and
thus declaring we will not use nuclear weapons to fight a small scale
conventional war is a very good thing. Barack Obama said he would not
use nuclear weapons against Afghanistan or Pakistan and that reassures
those nations we are not total idiots and monsters. Obama was 100%
wrong, however, in saying he might break international law to launch
conventional military strikes inside Pakistan to get to terrorist
groups without permission from the Pakistan Government. That was a
stupid mistake, but even Hillary Clinton ruled out nuclear weapons in
our conventional war against the extremist groups. As usual, Hillary
has two faces as reports show she herself ruled out nuclear weapons
use one year ago.

I like Denis Kucinich as the best candidate on issues, but he cannot
win. I will vote for Barack Obama because he is the best flawed
candidate that Democrats have that can win, and even the worst
Democratic candidate is better than any of the Republican insane
monsters running in 08. I will hold my nose and vote for Obama, but
it looks like he is making too many mistakes to win the Democratic
nomination. That means Fred Thompson will probably be our next
president because even in the best case Hillary Clinton cannot get
more than 45% of the vote, and she cannot win the general election.
If Democrats want to win the general election, they need to nominate
Obama. That is the only path to victory in 08. Independents will not
vote for Hillary and she will not get millions of Democratic votes
because so many people hate her lying guts. Her nomination will spur
3rd party candidates on the Left, and the Right will be 100% unified
to defeat her. She is a dream come true for Republicans.

--------see news story below---------

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/09/AR2007080900855_pf.html

Clinton Discussed Use of Nukes Last Year

By BETH FOUHY
The Associated Press
Thursday, August 9, 2007; 2:53 PM


NEW YORK -- Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton, who chastised rival
Barack Obama for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons in the war on
terror, did just that when asked about Iran a year ago.

"I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table," she said in
April 2006.

Her views expressed while she was gearing up for a presidential run
stand in conflict with her comments this month regarding Obama, who
faced heavy criticism from leaders of both parties, including Clinton,
after saying it would be "a profound mistake" to deploy nuclear
weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the
table," he said.

Clinton, who has tried to cast her rival as too inexperienced for the
job of commander in chief, said of Obama's stance on Pakistan: "I
don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements
with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons."

But that's exactly what she did in an interview with Bloomberg
Television in April 2006. The New York senator, a member of the Armed
Services committee, was asked about reports that the Bush
administration was considering military intervention _ possibly even a
nuclear strike _ to prevent Iran from escalating its nuclear program.

"I have said publicly no option should be off the table, but I would
certainly take nuclear weapons off the table," Clinton said. "This
administration has been very willing to talk about using nuclear
weapons in a way we haven't seen since the dawn of a nuclear age. I
think that's a terrible mistake."

Clinton's views on the potential use of nuclear weapons appear to have
changed since then.

Her campaign spokesman, Phil Singer, said the circumstances for her
remarks last year were different than the situation Obama faced.

"She was asked to respond to specific reports that the Bush-Cheney
administration was actively considering nuclear strikes on Iran even
as it refused to engage diplomatically," he said. "She wasn't talking
about a broad hypothetical nor was she speaking as a presidential
candidate. Given the saber-rattling that was coming from the Bush
White House at the time, it was totally appropriate and necessary to
respond to that report and call it the wrong policy."

 

[zacks@construction-imaging.com]

On Aug 9, 4:35 pm, "inkybla...@yahoo.com" <inkybla...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> The USA needs to assure the world that we have not gone insane, and
> thus declaring we will not use nuclear weapons to fight a small scale
> conventional war is a very good thing. Barack Obama said he would not
> use nuclear weapons against Afghanistan or Pakistan and that reassures
> those nations we are not total idiots and monsters. Obama was 100%
> wrong, however, in saying he might break international law to launch
> conventional military strikes inside Pakistan to get to terrorist
> groups without permission from the Pakistan Government. That was a
> stupid mistake, but even Hillary Clinton ruled out nuclear weapons in
> our conventional war against the extremist groups. As usual, Hillary
> has two faces as reports show she herself ruled out nuclear weapons
> use one year ago.
>
> I like Denis Kucinich as the best candidate on issues, but he cannot
> win. I will vote for Barack Obama because he is the best flawed
> candidate that Democrats have that can win, and even the worst
> Democratic candidate is better than any of the Republican insane
> monsters running in 08. I will hold my nose and vote for Obama, but
> it looks like he is making too many mistakes to win the Democratic
> nomination. That means Fred Thompson will probably be our next
> president because even in the best case Hillary Clinton cannot get
> more than 45% of the vote, and she cannot win the general election.
> If Democrats want to win the general election, they need to nominate
> Obama. That is the only path to victory in 08. Independents will not
> vote for Hillary and she will not get millions of Democratic votes
> because so many people hate her lying guts. Her nomination will spur
> 3rd party candidates on the Left, and the Right will be 100% unified
> to defeat her. She is a dream come true for Republicans.
>
> --------see news story below---------
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/09/AR200...
>
> Clinton Discussed Use of Nukes Last Year
>
> By BETH FOUHY
> The Associated Press
> Thursday, August 9, 2007; 2:53 PM
>
> NEW YORK -- Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton, who chastised rival
> Barack Obama for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons in the war on
> terror, did just that when asked about Iran a year ago.
>
> "I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table," she said in
> April 2006.
>
> Her views expressed while she was gearing up for a presidential run
> stand in conflict with her comments this month regarding Obama, who
> faced heavy criticism from leaders of both parties, including Clinton,
> after saying it would be "a profound mistake" to deploy nuclear
> weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
>
> "There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the
> table," he said.
>
> Clinton, who has tried to cast her rival as too inexperienced for the
> job of commander in chief, said of Obama's stance on Pakistan: "I
> don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements
> with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons."
>
> But that's exactly what she did in an interview with Bloomberg
> Television in April 2006. The New York senator, a member of the Armed
> Services committee, was asked about reports that the Bush
> administration was considering military intervention _ possibly even a
> nuclear strike _ to prevent Iran from escalating its nuclear program.
>
> "I have said publicly no option should be off the table, but I would
> certainly take nuclear weapons off the table," Clinton said. "This
> administration has been very willing to talk about using nuclear
> weapons in a way we haven't seen since the dawn of a nuclear age. I
> think that's a terrible mistake."
>
> Clinton's views on the potential use of nuclear weapons appear to have
> changed since then.
>
> Her campaign spokesman, Phil Singer, said the circumstances for her
> remarks last year were different than the situation Obama faced.
>
> "She was asked to respond to specific reports that the Bush-Cheney
> administration was actively considering nuclear strikes on Iran even
> as it refused to engage diplomatically," he said. "She wasn't talking
> about a broad hypothetical nor was she speaking as a presidential
> candidate. Given the saber-rattling that was coming from the Bush
> White House at the time, it was totally appropriate and necessary to
> respond to that report and call it the wrong policy."

So changing one's mind (like Romney has done on veritually every major
issue) is not the same as lying?

 

[SO WHAT?]

<inkyblacks@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1186691732.366740.274470@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...

Changing your mind isn't a lie. Wanna see some lies? The beginning, Da
Gubner ob Tayhas:
1. Bush: "We went into Russia, we said, 'Here's some IMF money,' and it
ended up in Viktor Chernomyrdin's pocket and others."

Fact: "Bush appears to have tangled up whispers about possible wrongdoing by
Chernomyrdin -- who co-chaired a commission with Gore on U.S.-Russian
relations -- with other unrelated allegations concerning the diversion of
International Monetary Fund money. While there has been speculation that
Chernomyrdin profited from his relationship with Gazprom, a big Russian
energy concern, there have been no allegations that he stole IMF money."
Washingon Post, 10/12/00

2. Bush: "We got one [a hate crime law] in Texas, and guess what? The three
men who murdered James Byrd, guess what's going to happen to them? They're
going to be put to death ... It's going to be hard to punish them any worse
after they get put to death....We're happy with our laws on our books."

Fact: "The three were convicted under Texas' capital murder statute...The
state has a hate crime statute, but it is vague." LA Times, 10/12/00.
"The original Texas hate-crimes bill, signed into law by Democrat Ann
Richards, boosted penalties for crimes motivated by bigotry. As Gore
correctly noted, Bush maneuvered to make sure a new hate-crimes law related
to the Byrd killing did not make it to his desk. The new bill would have
included homosexuals among the groups covered, which would have been
anathema to social conservatives in the state." Washington Post, 10/12/00

3. Bush: bragged that in Texas he was signing up children for the Children's
Health Insurance Program (CHIP) as "fast as any other state."

Fact: "As governor he fought to unsuccessfully to limit access to the
program. He would have limited its coverage to children with family incomes
up to 150 percent of the poverty level, though federal law permitted up to
200 percent. The practical effect of Bush's efforts would have been to
exclude 200,000 of the 500,000 possible enrollees." Washington Post,
10/12/00

4. Bush: "He [Gore] is for registration of guns."

Fact: "Gore actually favors licensing for new handgun purchasers but nothing
as vast as registering all guns." Salon, 10/12/00

5. Bush: Said he found Gore's tendency to exaggerate "an issue in trying to
defend my tax relief package. There was some exaggeration about the numbers"
in the first debate.

Fact: "No, there wasn't, and Bush himself acknowledged that the next day on
ABC's Good Morning America when Charlie Gibson pinned him on it." Salon,
10/12/00

6. Bush: "I felt during his debate with Senator [Bill] Bradley saying he
[Gore] authored the EITC [earned-income tax credit] when it didn't happen."

Fact: "Actually, Gore had claimed to have authored an 'expansion of the
earned-income tax credit,' which he did in 1991." Salon, 10/12/00

7. Fact: Gore noted that Texas "ranks 49th out of the 50 states in
healthcare in children with healthcare, 49th for women with healthcare and
50th for families with healthcare"

Bush: "You can quote all the numbers you want but I'm telling you we care
about our people in Texas. We spent a lot of money to make sure people get
healthcare in the state of Texas."

8. Fact: Gore said, "I'm no expert on the Texas procedures, but what my
friends there tell me is that the governor opposed a measure put forward by
Democrats in the Legislature to expand the number of children that would be
covered ... And instead [he] directed the money toward a tax cut, a
significant part of which went to wealthy interests."

Bush: "If he's trying to allege I'm a hardhearted person and don't care
about children, he's absolutely wrong."

9. Bush: "The three men who murdered James Byrd, guess what's going to
happen to them? They'll be put to death. A jury found them guilty."

Fact: Two of the three are being put to death. The other was given life.
Bush Watch, 10/12/00

10. Bush: said he favored "equal" rights for gays and lesbians, but not
"special" rights.

Fact: "Bush has supported a Texas law that allows the state to take adopted
children from gay and lesbian couples to place the kids with straight
couples." Salon, 10/12/00.
"Bush supports hate crime protections for other minorities! So Bush doesn't
believe that gays should have the same 'special' rights in this regard as
blacks, Jews, Wiccans and others. Employment discrimination? Again, Bush
supports those rights for other Americans, but not gays. Military service?
Bush again supports the right to military service for all qualified
people--as long as they don't tell anyone they're gay. Marriage? How on
earth is that a special right when every heterosexual in America already has
it? But again, Bush thinks it should be out-of-bounds for gays. What else is
there? The right to privacy? Nuh-huh. Bush supports a gays-only sodomy law
in his own state that criminalizes consensual sex in private between two
homosexuals." New Republic, 10/13/00

11. Bush. "We ought to do everything we can to end racial profiling."

Fact: The Texas Department of Public Safety has just this year begun keeping
detailed information about the race and sex of all people stopped by its
troopers, the sixth year Bush has been in office. Salon, 10/12/00

12. Bush got caught not giving the full story on Texas air pollution laws.
He was correct in saying the 1999 utility deregulation bill he signed into
law had mandatory emissions standards.

Fact: "What was missing, as Gore's campaign pointed out, was that many more
non-utility industrial plants are not mandated to reduce air quality. The
issue is an important one because Texas ranks near the bottom in air-quality
standards. Bush instead approved a voluntary program allowing grandfathered
oil, coal, and other industrial plants to cut down on pollution." Boston
Globe, 10/12/00

13. Bush: About the Balkans, "I think it ought to be one of our priorities
to work with our European friends to convince them to put troops on the
ground."

Fact: "European forces already make up a large majority of the peacekeeping
forces in Bosnia and Kosovo." Washington Post, 10/12/00

14. Bush: "One of the problems we have in the military is we're in a lot of
places around the world" and cited Haiti as an example.

Fact: "Though approximately 20,000 U.S. troops went to Haiti in 1994, as of
late August this year, there were only 109 U.S. troops in Haiti and most
were rotating through as part of an exercise." Washington Post, 10/12/00

15. Bush: "I don't think we ought to be selling guns to people who shouldn't
have them. That's why I support instant background checks at gun shows. One
of the reasons we have an instant background check is so that we instantly
know whether or not someone should have a gun or not."

Fact: "Bush overstates the effectiveness of instant background checks for
people trying to buy guns ... The Los Angeles Times reported on Oct. 3 that
during Bush's term as governor, Texas granted licenses for carrying
concealed guns to hundreds of people with criminal records and histories of
drug problems, violence or psychological disorders." Washington Post,
10/12/00
"He didn't mention that Texas failed to perform full background checks on
407 people who had prior criminal convictions but were granted concealed
handgun licenses under a law he signed in 1995. Of those, 71 had convictions
that should have excluded them from having a concealed gun permit, the Texas
Department of Public Safety acknowledged." AP, 10/12/00

16. Bush:"Said the number of Texans without health insurance had declined
while the number in the United States had risen."

Fact: " A new Census Bureau report says the number of uninsured Americans
declined last year for the first time since statistics were kept in 1987.
About 42.5 million people, or 15.5 percent of the population, lacked
insurance in 1999, compared with 44.2 million, or 16.3 percent, in 1998, the
agency reported. Texas ranked next-to-last in the nation last year with 23.3
percent of its residents uninsured. But that was an improvement from 1998,
when it ranked 50th at 24.5 percent." AP, 10/12/00

17. Bush: "Some of the scientists, I believe, Mr. Vice President, haven't
they been changing their opinion a little bit on global warming?"

Fact: "Bush's dismissive comments about global warming could bolster the
charge that he and fellow oilman Dick Cheney are in the pocket of the oil
industry, which likewise pooh-poohs the issue. [While] there is no consensus
about the impact of global warming, ... most scientists agree that humans
are contributing to the rising global temperature. 'Most climate experts are
certain that global warming is real and that it threatens ecology and human
prosperity, and a growing number say it is well under way,' wrote New York
Times science writer Andrew Revkin." Salon, 10/13/00

18. Bush: When Jim Lehrer asked Bush if he approved of the U.S. intervention
in Lebanon during the Reagan years, Bush answered a quick "yes" and moved
on.

Fact: "Lebanon was a disaster in the history of American foreign affairs.
Next to Iran-Contra, it was the Reagan administration's greatest overseas
fiasco. Quoting from the Encyclopedia of the American Presidency: '[In 1983]
Reagan stumbled into a disastrous intervention in the Middle East when he
sent U.S. Marines into Lebanon on an ill-defined mission as part of an
international peacekeeping force.' In December, according to Reagan
biographer Edmund Morris, 'two days before Christmas, a Pentagon commission
of inquiry into the Beirut barracks bombing humiliated [Secretary of State]
Shultz [who had backed the intervention], and embarrassed Reagan, by
concluding that the dead Marines had been victims of a myopic Middle Eastern
policy.'" tompaine.com, 10/11/00

19. Bush: "I thought the president made the right decision in joining NATO
and bombing Serbia. I supported him when they did so."

Fact: The bombing of Serbia began on March 24, 1999, and Bush did not
express even measured support until April 8, 1999 -- nearly two weeks later.
Prior to April 8, 1999, every comment by Bush about the bombing was
non-committal. Finally, he offered a measured endorsement: "It's important
for the United States to be slow to engage the military, but once the
military is engaged, it must be engaged with one thing in mind, and that is
victory," he said after being pressed by reporters. A Houston Chronicle
story documented the Governor's statements on the crisis and reported that
"Bush has been widely criticized for being slow to adopt a position on
Kosovo and then for making vague statements on the subject." Houston
Chronicle, 4/9/99

20. Bush: Discussing International Loans: "And there's some pretty egregious
examples recently, one being Russia where we had IMF loans that ended up in
the pockets of a lot of powerful people and didn't help the nation."

Fact: Bush's own vice presidential candidate, Dick Cheney, lobbied for
U.S.-backed loan to Russia that helped his own company. "Halliburton Co.
lobbied for and received $ 292 million in loan guarantees to develop one of
the world's largest oil fields in Russia. Cheney said: 'This is exactly the
type of project we should be encouraging if Russia is to succeed in
reforming its economy ... We at Halliburton appreciate the support of the
Export-Import Bank and look forward to beginning work on this important
project.." PR Newswire 4/6/2000.
The State Department, armed with a CIA report detailing corruption by
Halliburton's Russian partner, invoked a seldom-used prerogative and ordered
suspension of the loan. The loan guarantee "ran counter to America's
'national interest," the State Department ruled. New Republic, 8/7/00

21. Bush "There's a lot of talk about trigger locks being on guns sold in
the future. I support that."

Fact: When asked in 1999, if he was in support of mandatory safety locks,
Bush said, " No, I'm not, I'm for voluntary safety locks on guns." In March
of 2000, Bush said he would not push for trigger lock legislation, but would
sign it if it passed [Washington Post, 3/3/00;ABC, Good Morning America,
5/10/99]. When Bush was asked, "when two bills were introduced in the Texas
legislature to require the sale of child safety locks with newly purchased
handguns, and you never addressed the issue with the legislature, and both
bills died. If you support it, why did that happen?" Bush said, "Because
those bills had no votes in committee." When asked again if he supported the
bills, Bush said, "I wasn't even aware of those bills because they never
even got out of committee." NBC, Today Show, 5/12/00

22. Bush: "Africa is important and we've got to do a lot of work in Africa
to promote democracy and trade." Fact "While Africa may be important, it
doesn't fit into the national strategic interests, as far as I can see
them," Bush said earlier. When he was asked for his vision of the U.S.
national interests, he named every continent except Africa. According to
Time magazine, "[Bush] focused exclusively on big ticket issues ... Huge
chunks of the globe -- Africa and Latin America, for example -- were not
addressed at all." Time, 12/6/99; PBS News Hour, 2/16/00; Toronto Star,
2/16/00

23. Bush: "There's only been one governor ever elected to back-to-back four
year terms and that was me."

Fact: The governors who served two consecutive four-year terms (meeting
Bush's statement criteria are): Coke R. Stevenson (2 consecutive 4-year
terms) August 4, 1941-January 21, 1947. Allan Shivers (2 consecutive
four-year terms) July 11, 1949-January 15, 1957. Price Daniel (2 consecutive
four-year terms) January 15, 1957-January 15, 1963. John Connally (2
consecutive four-year terms) January 15, 1963-January 21, 1969. Dolph
Briscoe (2 consecutive four-year terms) January 16, 1973-January 16, 1979.
George W. Bush (2 consecutive four-year terms) January 17, 1995 to present.
Source: Texas State Libraries and Archives Commission.

24. Bush: "We spend $4.7 billion a year on the uninsured in the state of
Texas."

Fact: The state of Texas came up with less than $1B for this purpose. $3.5
came from local governments, private providers, and charities, $198M from
the federal government, and just less than $1B from Texas state agencies.
Source: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts.

Jerry Politex is the editor of Bush Watch


Bush2000

More Lies from Bush Watch

Bush Lies 2

Bush Lies 3

Repug Lies

Repug Mob

Too many Coincidences

Your Vote

Powerful alliance aids Bushes' rise

Does Dubya espouse Methodist values???

Dick Cheney's Voting Record

Bush Arrests

Bush Abortion

Iran Contra

Meet the Carlyle Group

Y2K election lies

100 Bush Profiteers

Quotes about George W. Bush



MORE BUSH LIES

a.. Bush's Broken Promises
b.. Bush Watch
c.. Failure Is Impossible
d.. Yucca Mountain Lies
e.. Environmental Lies
f.. Lies, Damn Lies and Bush's Statistics
g.. Scorecard Of Evil
h.. W. Bush's Accomplishments



http://pearly-abraham.tripod.com/htmls/bushlies1.html

 

[John Smith]

<zacks@construction-imaging.com> wrote in message
news:1186693044.898783.135310@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 9, 4:35 pm, "inkybla...@yahoo.com" <inkybla...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> The USA needs to assure the world that we have not gone insane, and
>> thus declaring we will not use nuclear weapons to fight a small scale
>> conventional war is a very good thing. Barack Obama said he would not
>> use nuclear weapons against Afghanistan or Pakistan and that reassures
>> those nations we are not total idiots and monsters. Obama was 100%
>> wrong, however, in saying he might break international law to launch
>> conventional military strikes inside Pakistan to get to terrorist
>> groups without permission from the Pakistan Government. That was a
>> stupid mistake, but even Hillary Clinton ruled out nuclear weapons in
>> our conventional war against the extremist groups. As usual, Hillary
>> has two faces as reports show she herself ruled out nuclear weapons
>> use one year ago.
>>
>> I like Denis Kucinich as the best candidate on issues, but he cannot
>> win. I will vote for Barack Obama because he is the best flawed
>> candidate that Democrats have that can win, and even the worst
>> Democratic candidate is better than any of the Republican insane
>> monsters running in 08. I will hold my nose and vote for Obama, but
>> it looks like he is making too many mistakes to win the Democratic
>> nomination. That means Fred Thompson will probably be our next
>> president because even in the best case Hillary Clinton cannot get
>> more than 45% of the vote, and she cannot win the general election.
>> If Democrats want to win the general election, they need to nominate
>> Obama. That is the only path to victory in 08. Independents will not
>> vote for Hillary and she will not get millions of Democratic votes
>> because so many people hate her lying guts. Her nomination will spur
>> 3rd party candidates on the Left, and the Right will be 100% unified
>> to defeat her. She is a dream come true for Republicans.
>>
>> --------see news story below---------
>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/09/AR200...
>>
>> Clinton Discussed Use of Nukes Last Year
>>
>> By BETH FOUHY
>> The Associated Press
>> Thursday, August 9, 2007; 2:53 PM
>>
>> NEW YORK -- Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton, who chastised rival
>> Barack Obama for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons in the war on
>> terror, did just that when asked about Iran a year ago.
>>
>> "I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table," she said in
>> April 2006.
>>
>> Her views expressed while she was gearing up for a presidential run
>> stand in conflict with her comments this month regarding Obama, who
>> faced heavy criticism from leaders of both parties, including Clinton,
>> after saying it would be "a profound mistake" to deploy nuclear
>> weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
>>
>> "There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the
>> table," he said.
>>
>> Clinton, who has tried to cast her rival as too inexperienced for the
>> job of commander in chief, said of Obama's stance on Pakistan: "I
>> don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements
>> with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons."
>>
>> But that's exactly what she did in an interview with Bloomberg
>> Television in April 2006. The New York senator, a member of the Armed
>> Services committee, was asked about reports that the Bush
>> administration was considering military intervention _ possibly even a
>> nuclear strike _ to prevent Iran from escalating its nuclear program.
>>
>> "I have said publicly no option should be off the table, but I would
>> certainly take nuclear weapons off the table," Clinton said. "This
>> administration has been very willing to talk about using nuclear
>> weapons in a way we haven't seen since the dawn of a nuclear age. I
>> think that's a terrible mistake."
>>
>> Clinton's views on the potential use of nuclear weapons appear to have
>> changed since then.
>>
>> Her campaign spokesman, Phil Singer, said the circumstances for her
>> remarks last year were different than the situation Obama faced.
>>
>> "She was asked to respond to specific reports that the Bush-Cheney
>> administration was actively considering nuclear strikes on Iran even
>> as it refused to engage diplomatically," he said. "She wasn't talking
>> about a broad hypothetical nor was she speaking as a presidential
>> candidate. Given the saber-rattling that was coming from the Bush
>> White House at the time, it was totally appropriate and necessary to
>> respond to that report and call it the wrong policy."
>
> So changing one's mind (like Romney has done on veritually every major
> issue) is not the same as lying?
>

Of COURSE not!

 

[zacks@construction-imaging.com]

On Aug 9, 7:39 pm, "John Smith" <bobsyoung...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> <za...@construction-imaging.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1186693044.898783.135310@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 9, 4:35 pm, "inkybla...@yahoo.com" <inkybla...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >> The USA needs to assure the world that we have not gone insane, and
> >> thus declaring we will not use nuclear weapons to fight a small scale
> >> conventional war is a very good thing. Barack Obama said he would not
> >> use nuclear weapons against Afghanistan or Pakistan and that reassures
> >> those nations we are not total idiots and monsters. Obama was 100%
> >> wrong, however, in saying he might break international law to launch
> >> conventional military strikes inside Pakistan to get to terrorist
> >> groups without permission from the Pakistan Government. That was a
> >> stupid mistake, but even Hillary Clinton ruled out nuclear weapons in
> >> our conventional war against the extremist groups. As usual, Hillary
> >> has two faces as reports show she herself ruled out nuclear weapons
> >> use one year ago.
>
> >> I like Denis Kucinich as the best candidate on issues, but he cannot
> >> win. I will vote for Barack Obama because he is the best flawed
> >> candidate that Democrats have that can win, and even the worst
> >> Democratic candidate is better than any of the Republican insane
> >> monsters running in 08. I will hold my nose and vote for Obama, but
> >> it looks like he is making too many mistakes to win the Democratic
> >> nomination. That means Fred Thompson will probably be our next
> >> president because even in the best case Hillary Clinton cannot get
> >> more than 45% of the vote, and she cannot win the general election.
> >> If Democrats want to win the general election, they need to nominate
> >> Obama. That is the only path to victory in 08. Independents will not
> >> vote for Hillary and she will not get millions of Democratic votes
> >> because so many people hate her lying guts. Her nomination will spur
> >> 3rd party candidates on the Left, and the Right will be 100% unified
> >> to defeat her. She is a dream come true for Republicans.
>
> >> --------see news story below---------
>
> >>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/09/AR200...
>
> >> Clinton Discussed Use of Nukes Last Year
>
> >> By BETH FOUHY
> >> The Associated Press
> >> Thursday, August 9, 2007; 2:53 PM
>
> >> NEW YORK -- Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton, who chastised rival
> >> Barack Obama for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons in the war on
> >> terror, did just that when asked about Iran a year ago.
>
> >> "I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table," she said in
> >> April 2006.
>
> >> Her views expressed while she was gearing up for a presidential run
> >> stand in conflict with her comments this month regarding Obama, who
> >> faced heavy criticism from leaders of both parties, including Clinton,
> >> after saying it would be "a profound mistake" to deploy nuclear
> >> weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
>
> >> "There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the
> >> table," he said.
>
> >> Clinton, who has tried to cast her rival as too inexperienced for the
> >> job of commander in chief, said of Obama's stance on Pakistan: "I
> >> don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements
> >> with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons."
>
> >> But that's exactly what she did in an interview with Bloomberg
> >> Television in April 2006. The New York senator, a member of the Armed
> >> Services committee, was asked about reports that the Bush
> >> administration was considering military intervention _ possibly even a
> >> nuclear strike _ to prevent Iran from escalating its nuclear program.
>
> >> "I have said publicly no option should be off the table, but I would
> >> certainly take nuclear weapons off the table," Clinton said. "This
> >> administration has been very willing to talk about using nuclear
> >> weapons in a way we haven't seen since the dawn of a nuclear age. I
> >> think that's a terrible mistake."
>
> >> Clinton's views on the potential use of nuclear weapons appear to have
> >> changed since then.
>
> >> Her campaign spokesman, Phil Singer, said the circumstances for her
> >> remarks last year were different than the situation Obama faced.
>
> >> "She was asked to respond to specific reports that the Bush-Cheney
> >> administration was actively considering nuclear strikes on Iran even
> >> as it refused to engage diplomatically," he said. "She wasn't talking
> >> about a broad hypothetical nor was she speaking as a presidential
> >> candidate. Given the saber-rattling that was coming from the Bush
> >> White House at the time, it was totally appropriate and necessary to
> >> respond to that report and call it the wrong policy."
>
> > So changing one's mind (like Romney has done on veritually every major
> > issue) is not the same as lying?
>
> Of COURSE not!

Of course it isn't.

Sorry, typo, "not" should have been "now".

 

[the_blogologist]

inkyblacks@yahoo.com <inkyblacks@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Obama was 100%
> wrong, however, in saying he might break international law to launch
> conventional military strikes inside Pakistan to get to terrorist
> groups without permission from the Pakistan Government.

These idiots get on TV with a voice that radiates utter confidence and
not have a freekin clue what they're talking about. Don't forget that
Bill and Hillary took Arkansas from 48th to 49th in the nation's health
and health care, yet these idiots thought they were qualified to reform
our nation's health care. And remember, Clinton sent our troops into
Haiti with only 20 bullets each "to prevent loss of life". We are sooo
lucky we didn't get in a big war with Bill Clinton as president.

Considering how long bill and hillary have been married, and how
dominate she's been in that relationship, I think they're going to be
about the same level.


> I will hold my nose and vote for Obama, but
> it looks like he is making too many mistakes to win the Democratic
> nomination.

We can get by with a senator or congressman making mistakes. A US
president can't afford too many mistakes.

If Obama was supposedly "a lecturer of constitutional law at the
University of Chicago Law School", how come he isn't out spoken about
the US Supreme Court seizing the states' right to rule over sex and
marrage?