Bill Maher asks Senator Hillary Clinton, "Why should Americans vote for someone who can be fooled by President Bush?" Senator Clinton responds, "It's a little more complicated than that."
Watch the video below.
Visit the Candidate Mashup here.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Democrats claim Gen. David Petraeus' report to Congress on the surge was a put-up job with a pre-ordained conclusion. As if their response wasn't. "Progressi
Their sepculations of 60,000 to 100,000 dead American troops if we invaded Iraq, warned of another al-Qaida attack in the U.S. if we invaded Iraq. Weeks before the invasion, in March 2003, they warned in a couple of columns that if we invaded Iraq, "the Turks, Kurds, Iraqis and Americans will all end up fighting over the oil fields of Kirkuk or Mosul."
We took Baghdad in about 17 days flat with amazingly few casualties. There were no al-Qaida attacks in America, no attacks on Israel, no invasion by Turkey, no attacks on our troops with chemical weapons, no ayatollahs running Iraq. We didn't turn our back on the Kurds. There were certainly not 100,000 dead American troops.
But liberals soon began with more pointless quibbles. They said the war was a failure because we hadn't captured Saddam Hussein. Then we captured Saddam, and Howard Dean complained that "the capture of Saddam has not made America safer."Nex
Their current talking point is that "there can be no military solution in Iraq without a political solution." But back when we were imposing a political solution, Democrats' talking point was that there could be no political solution without a military solution.
They said the first Iraqi election, scheduled for January 2005, wouldn't happen because there was no "security.
Now our forces are killing lots of al-Qaida jihadists and giving democracy in Iraq a chance -- and Democrats say we are "losing" this war.
Listen, all the Republicans were bitching and moaning that the bad Democrats were judging Petraeous before hearing him speak. Meanwhile, the Republicans were applauding Petraeuos's honesty - When? Before hearing him speak. So, they all decided to back him not because he's honest, but because if enough people believe his bullshit, the Republicans won't lose their jobs.
Republicans have proven their worth to the American people. They have none.
USAisOK, why do you hate America?
1. Petraeus' "plan" IS a put up job with a preordained conclusion as has been proved by reports of Petraeus' office being hardwired into the White House and George's subsequent affirmation of what amounts to something we all knew would HAVE TO BE DONE anyway last winter when the surge was first proposed.
2. As to "sepculations" (sic) of 60-100,000 dead American troops: I don't know where you get these numbers from, but you may have noticed that the two wars George has started are not over yet. Further, it would appear that he is not satisfied with merely two wars but wants to start wars with Syria, Iran and Pakistan as well. This could well devolve into a pan asiatic war of aggression by the United States against the better part of the Muslim world WITH NO ALLIES TO BACK US UP. We may find your numbers to be accurate before all is said and done.
3. We are only five years into the so called "War on Terror." Al Qaeda has shown that it routinely waits for ten years between attacks. And George's wars have only served to gain allies for Al Qaeda thus far. Next time they may come in clusters. We might be clusterfucked next time, if you will excuse the expression.
4. Dems never said the war was a failure because of (insert talking point here), Dems said the war was a failure because it diverts IMMENSE amounts of resources to things which initially had no bearing on those who actually attacked us and is actually counterproductive to the enterprise we are supposed to be engaged in.
Happy talk is fun, it does not, however, replace critical thinking.
"Al Qaeda has shown that it routinely waits for ten years between attacks. "
1993 - WTC van bomb
1993 - "Blackhawk Down"
1996 - Truck bombing of US military barracks at Khobar Towers
1998 - Simultaneous US Embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya
2000 - Bombing of USS Cole
2001 - 9/11
Those are the major Al Qaeda-related attacks against the United States (except maybe for Blackhawk Down, which could be construed as a retaliation). There are plenty of instances of attacks in the Central Pacific (like Indonesia and Malaysia) as well as throughout western Asia. To say that Al Qaeda, or Muslim terrorists in general (the two have come to mean the same in the political lexicon), is dormant for a decade at a time is either ignorance or self-inflicted delusion.
"Petraeus' "plan" IS a put up job with a preordained conclusion as has been proved by reports of Petraeus' office being hardwired into the White House"
Probably because Patraeus works directly for the White House as the top military commander? Could that be an all-to-obvious reason for him to be "hardwired" to Bush, particularly when there are two wars going on?
Yes superpatriot we are winning the winnable war in Iraq with almost five years of glorious winning so far.
Total victory is around the next bend, just give it another decade or two and we'll have it all wrapped up neatly with a pretty bow.
Well, if this is what winning feels like, I'd hate to be a loser...
Great points, to bad they address issues that you made up in your feeble mind.
The Progressive reponse to the betray us report was not "pre-ordained conclusion" we have 5 years of war that is is based on. rediculous strawman claim. Lets not forget ever other assesment done by every other group or agency, all in agreement, and all 100% counter to the lies betrayed us spews out for his puppetmaster.
NO one has EVER said " there can be no military solution in Iraq without a political solution." You simply made that up, It does not even make sense.
And who was it that claimed the troops could be wiped out with WMD'S that they KNEW, "a slam dunk" where there? Democrat George Bush?
No one said the election would not take place. These are the nonsense idiots like limbaugh feed you so they appear to have a rational argument. You can not defend the actual realities you have created in Iraq so you must make rediculous claims and then attakc your onw assertions as if they are facts. This is why the republican party has fallen into the shamefull, disgrace it is today.
We are not saying you're "lossing this war", you LOST this war long ago. There was a window and your lying, incompetant self delusional, party complety and utterly blew it.
Interesting comment from a War Supporter. As a conservative you are free to post here. I signed up at Red State, made a couple of very inoccuous posts presenting facts about the blood and treasure we are spending in Iraq and asking how the war benefits us Americans, and immediately got banned. Liberals truly believe in democracy. It appears that conservatives do not.
http://dem
Had same experience at Red State. With no response from moderators re the omission of my comments. But then, mine may have been more inflammatory than yours...
Wow, dude, what was your first clue?
KUSHINCH ALL THE WAY!!. He stands for truth and justice, he wont sell you out like Clinton and Obama will, he's actually helping people, and fixing this craphole of a country. If you dont VOTE for Dennis, you're wasting your vote.
One of the rules of romance is that when you're really hot for someone, you wanna learn to spell his or her name, otay?
IF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DISPLAYED POLITICAL MATURITY AND NOT THE ADOLESCENT OPPOSITE, THEN A MAN LIKE DENNIS KUCINICH WOULD BE NOMINATED BY A TRUE LIBERAL PARTY BY VOICE VOTE AND ACCLAMATION.
Senator Cankles didn't even read the intelligence report before she voted for the war. She wasn't fooled, she's fooling you.
Listen, she voted to authorize Bush and Bush took advantage.
Now Americans, because we're basically dumb, need someone to blame. Well guess what? It's not all on Hillary.
America, start reading. Our education system sucks based on how much we know about the world and its history.
Obama said he would have voted for the war and was against it from the beginning. Okay, he had a 50/50 shot and he won this round.
If his only claim to fame is that he was against the war, that's not enough to elect him President. Not enough for me, anyway.
oops, sorry - meant he would not have voted for the war...
He laid out his reasoning for opposing the war at the time.
Check it out -- that reasoning does give a good insight into how he might behave as president: clearly even that's not enough, but it is good data on the candidate.
I would agree with you except that is not his "only claim".
Hillary is totally to blame, now vote for someone good, please.
Speak for yourself, SouthpawSass. This American has never been stupid enough to fall for any lame right-wing political crap since Reagan was (choke) President. And the reason our educational system sucks can be directly traced to the fascists (since Nixon) cutting funding and dumbing down the curriculum and textbooks.
Earthlings Unite!
Reagan (choke) President is right Ken. But c'mon. How many people still hold him up to be one of our greatest presidents?
Christ, to name an airport after him, in light of the fact he fired 13,000 air traffic controllers because they wanted better working conditions, and only after they supported him in his run for president where he promised to do all he could for them... Ugh. I need Pepto.
Re Raygun: I was a college student in CA when Ronnie was elected governator. The very first thing he did was blue pencil funding for higher education.
Fellow graduates of Elgin must be proud of their alumnus.
Hillary blew it.
I think the biggest problem people have with Hillary is that she doesn't come across as having any core principles whatsoever. She appears to do and say whatever is politically expedient. When challenged, she appears to be obfuscating.
I am not anti-Hillary. And those might just be perceptions. But, for what it's worth, that's what she appears to be to many.
HomeSkeptic muses: I think the biggest problem people have with Hillary is that she doesn't come across as having any core principles whatsoever.
===
I think she comes across as having exactly ONE core principle.
And, by your post, you did not add or subtract anything whatsoever to what I said. In other words, your comment is worthless.
Ummm...was
Clinton: It's a little more complicated than that.
Translation: I don't have to answer to you.
We get it Gordo, you don't have to try so hard, most of us despise Hillary and her pandering, do or say anything to get elected shtick.
She has acknowledged that she did not read the official NIR on Iraq before voting, despite Bob Graham's having urged all of his colleagues to do so. (Very few did.) But she says it doesn't matter because she did her own research, among her own sources.
Two problems there: (1) Apparently the sources she relies on for foreign policy advice are not very good. (2) If everyone reads the same report, the best-vetted report, then there is a common ground for debate. If everyone reads her or his own reports, then you end up with nothing but a version of he said/she said. Our legislators need to do their homework.
She also rejected the Levin amendment but yet she then turns around and says that she authorized the war to give the admin further "diplomatic leverage" and didn't assume that the admin would rush to war.
Bush apparently fooled her TWICE.
He only fooled me once. Vote for me.
I don't know you but what the heck I'll vote for you. You certainly seem smarter than clinton.
It's clear that there's still a lot of the kind of thinking that got the Democrats into Vietnam in '65. We could speculate that Watergate distracted the Democratic party from a much- needed purge.
Good point. Watergate is another example of how well, and how bad, the system works. The lessons weren't learned...
Voila, Ronnie Raygun, Watts, Meese, Irangate..
...and the hits just keep on comin'.
The fact that HELLIARY'S intel "sources" were such COMPLETE AND TOTAL CRAP BACK IN 2003 ain't what I call a ringing endorsement of her "leadership" abilities.
Funny, she asked all these people "inside and outside" government and still couldn't come up with an answer that little 'ole me knew right from the start.
Say no more, all one had to do is read and listen a bit. Even George's farther got it right.
To me the big question what was Tony Blair thinking, guess he never studied British history, the Brits got their ass kicked in Iraq (before it was called Iraq) not to long ago...
Even competent Bu$h-Lite is absolutely both evil and unconstitutional. Come clean, reject the monstrous monied malevolent special interests and cutoff the clever corporate scamsters, to get my vote.
Clinton replies:
"You see Bill, it's complicated. I had to vote to authorize the war because it was the politically popular thing to do. I wanted to look tough on defense and I wanted to be on the ass-kicking team for my planned presidential run. I figured it would be a cake-walk too and I wanted to be able to tout my vote when I ran for president. That last thing my presidential campaign could have afforded was to vote "no" and then have this war succeed. It would have killed my credibility on national security. But I had the cover to vote "yes" because just about everybody else was behind it too. It was a political vote, Bill. It's very complicate
Gordon - no other political calculation makes any sense whatsoever. I agree with you totally.
Is Gordon a wigwam or a tepee?
When Gordon wakes up on the liberal side of his bed, he makes some very good points. When he is in his conservative mode, he usually fails. I'm sure Gordon will say that he's consistently right and I'm just prejudiced but I think he's full of contradictions.
I didn't watch the video, but this seems like the truthful answer, so I assume it's not the one she gave. Hillary is getting a free ride because she is a Clinton and a woman. Remember this prediction when election day rolls around: Hillary as the nominee guarantees another too close to call presidential election decided by republican dirty tricks, just like the last 2. And just like Gore and Kerry. when she loses by one state because of crooked tricks, she will not dispute it, and we will be swearing in one of those Republican a-holes on 1/20/09. Then we can kiss the USA's ass goodbye.
Exactly. And the amazing thing is that her supporters know this, too. They just don't care simply because she is Hillary Clinton.
What a joke.
The Dem party behaves like the Repubs did in 2000 when they voted for Bush just because he was a Bush.
Why is she laughing?
Nervous response.
it was a question meant to be funny - god folks get a clue!
Thompson and Foley 08'
I m presidential material and i ve sold out long ago !!!
But this thread isn't about you, is it?
It was a reasoned answer. So you got fooled by Karl Rove. Oh well. So did all those poor schmucks who voted Republican because they actually believed in what they were being told. I'm glad to see Hillary doing well and equally amused by HuffPo's bias against her as they cheerlead for Obabma.
Yes, I notice your slant and spin although you really should tune in to Fox to take some lessons, you are very sloppy about it.
BrianZ thinks "all those poor schmucks who voted Republican" just might be presidential material.
If you are going to quote me, quote the whole line: This isn't Fox News or the Fluffington Post talking about Obama.
If one voted Republican because one actually believed they mysteriously and spontaneously became the voice of the evangelicals and were suddenly clean and pure politicians ... well, we've clearly seen the results of that.
I'll vote for her in the primary and again in the general election.
And for those who are asking why she is laughing ... because she has a sense of humor and the phrasing of Maher's question WAS FUNNY.
If you are just looking for a reason to dislike her, shut up. It's apparent you aren't going to vote for her, so shut up. You aren't contributing anything to the discussion of the candidates or the platform of the party. So again, shut the hell up.
Fuck her. She was condescending and evasive in her response.
What a great comedian Bill Maher is! He just cracks me up with those one liners of his.
Kinda reminds me of Henny Youngman. "Take my wife, PLEASE".
And Hillary has such a silvery laugh! Delightful. Really!
Loading comments…
First Posted: 09-13-07 08:35 AM | Updated: 03-28-08 02:45 AM