9/11: Where Barack Obama and Condi Rice Sound Alarmingly Alike

Barack Obama appeared on MSNBC's Hardball last night and was asked about the way he would handle the 3 a.m. phone call.

The transcript:

MATTHEWS: Let me give you a scene that may face you in the next year or two, where the national security adviser calls you at 3:00 in the morning and tells that you a couple of jet -- commercial jets have been hijacked. And they believe it is al Qaeda. And, as we know, al Qaeda always tries a second time. They tried for the World Trade Center after '93. They came back in '01.

They're heading for the Capitol. What do you do?

OBAMA: Well, look, I am hesitant to engage in hypotheticals like that, because...

MATTHEWS: But it has been predictable.

OBAMA: Oh, well, the--I don't think anybody predicted 9/11. And, so, we don't know what kinds of circumstances are going to come up.

Yup. That's right, Barack Obama glibly stated that he didn't "think anybody predicted 9/11."

Some thoughts:

1. Maybe Obama needs a tutorial from former Vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, Lee Hamilton, who just endorsed him yesterday. Heck, even Hamilton knows and has to acknowledge that 9/11 was predictable.

Not that Obama conferring with Hamilton should give any of us warm, fuzzy feelings since Lee Hamilton is largely responsible for the 9/11 Commission's Final Report being a total whitewash.

To put it mildly, as Vice Chair for the 9/11 Commission, Hamilton was not interested in transparency, he was not interested in accountability, and he was certainly not interested in telling the truth to the American public. So why is a guy like Hamilton so interested in Obama being president?

Take further Hamilton's words of endorsement for Obama where Hamilton said, "Obama will strengthen our ability to use all the tools of American power, and relentlessly promote the American values of freedom and justice for all people. (Remember those words, folks, "power" and "relentlessly promote" and recognize that they have nothing to do with the sort of foreign policy Obama is currently trying to sell to the American public.)

2. Perhaps Obama might better strengthen his image of having a handle on national security issues by not sounding so much like the disgraceful, incompetent former Bush Administration National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice.

Recall that Ms. Rice stated that "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile."

In other words, that before 9/11 nobody in our (entire) intelligence community could have predicted that something like 9/11 could happen. (i.e. the Bush administration's 9/11 talking point)

I am not even going to bother listing the hundreds of cites/articles/studies/reports/military exercises, drills/testimonials/PDB's/SEIB's or even television shows that disprove Rice's statement. I will just mention my personal favorite -- the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing titled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the U.S."

The point is that when it comes to the "predictability" of the 9/11 attacks, it is fairly well known and accepted that the attacks were entirely predictable -- indeed, their very predictability is why our government (wrongfully or rightfully) spent millions of dollars overhauling, upgrading, and re-shuffling our entire intelligence apparatus post-9/11 -- because the attacks should have been prevented.

How could Obama have such a poor understanding of the 9/11 attacks and their subsequent impact on the US intelligence community? Has Obama even read the 9/11 Commission's Final Report that (even in its whitewash form) calls Rice to task for her "misleading" statement about the predictability of 9/11-style attacks? Or sets forth recommendations for intelligence community reforms?

When Obama says we need to end the war in Iraq and re-allocate some of the money spent on the war to hardening our homeland security apparatus, does Obama just say that glibly or does he really understand what he is saying and how desperately we need to pay attention to the vulnerabilities in our national security apparatus? His statement on Hardball makes me wonder.

3. One of the reasons I support Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama is because of the enormous help Senator Clinton gave to the 9/11 families who were fighting to create a 9/11 Commission.

My experience in Washington showed me that there were very few people who understood what needed to be done and even fewer people who had the courage, stamina, and ability to get those things done.

Hillary Clinton was one of those people. And without fail, anytime we needed help -- whether that was achieving bi-partisan consensus, strong-arming the White House and/or House Republicans, or cajoling reluctant and recalcitrant Democrats like Lieberman, Senator Clinton always took the call and helped solve the problem.

I might add that for someone whose husband, former President Bill Clinton, was a point of investigation for the 9/11 Commission, it certainly did not play in Senator Clinton's favor to have something like the 9/11 Commission impaneled. Yet, Senator Clinton was one of our biggest, fiercest, and most vocal advocates for the creation of a 9/11 Commission.

Unfortunately, I can't say the same about Barack Obama since he was still in the Illinois State Senate for the years that I was fighting for a 9/11 Commission in Washington.

But as a 9/11 widow who, along with other 9/11 families, fought very hard to learn lessons from 9/11 to not only make our nation safer but also to hold people like Condoleezza Rice accountable, it is wholly unacceptable for any presidential candidate to get such a simple, historical fact about national security -- that the 9/11 attacks were predictable -- so totally wrong.

Because to do so, means that you don't fully understand and appreciate all that has happened and everything else that needs to happen since 9/11 with regard to our national security.

So why did Obama say it? Because he was just being glib? Or does Obama actually mean it and genuinely not know what he needs to know to be the next president?

Comments

[Amadeo]

My most sincere sympathies for your loss! That is just more than anyone can bear! and my heart goes out to you and all in your situation.

In so far as the interview is concerned, What can anyone say in that situation, except the obvious, send in the Bombers and shoot the heck out of the the terrorists. Even then, that would seem rash and un thought through.
The bottom line, is he answered the question very well and how one would exactly expect someone reasoned, thoughtful and responsible would do. First have more information than what Matthews had provided, which would be the case in reality and make a decision.
as far as comparing Obama to Clinton, I am afraid, that is completely off-base,
Clinton was positioning herself for running for President and there was not an iota of what she did that was genuine and heart-felt (look at all the made up stories even about 9/11).
One may argue for the 9/11 commission, but in hindsight, it was a hollow exercise of PR.
What came out of it? Nothing got implemented, no real truths came out....
As to the point that people are accused of being racist if they criticize Obama, I am white, and the only people who feel that are the ones who are actually racists and don't want to show it.

[ntmessage]

Nothing ventured nothing gained. Obama did nothing about 911 or about Iraq. Regardless of the reason for Clintons action, (most would believe she acted because she was the senator of a state that was attacked and not as you cynically state), she did take action.

[LeftRight]

First, we shouldn't have attacked Iraq, and Hillary did vote for it!

Second, what did you expect a state legislator from IL to do about 9/11 and Iraq? Cause he didn't have ANY power to do anything about either one of them when they happened!

[JimR]

Yes, she took action. Action that has left 4000 U.S. troops dead and has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis from the civil war that erupted. Couldn't anyone have predicted the chaos and destruction that the invasion set off?

Oh wait, Obama did.

[Lindy222]

This is sad and embarrassing. Hillary supporters have gone completely over the edge and are falling apart before our eyes. I wish it would just be over.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

I get it. Obama dodging a legit question is fine by you.

[Lindy222]

Rats. Make that "fine" not "find."

[Schallvain]

These arguments are obviously very emotionally driven but the are flawed.

Hind-sight is 20/20. Using the rational that you bring to the table, we should all be abandoning US cities for small town America because most threats to our country are aimed at the cities. We have even made TV shows based around this prediction. I feel that Mr. Obama's (and Ms. Rice's for that matter is correct). It is very difficult to know the exact time and place an attack is going to happen. The only way to protect against all attacks would be to lock down the country, basically crushing all individual freedoms we currently have.

This argument has similar parallels to the argument that we should vote for Obama because he did not support the Iraq war. Since he was never put in the position to have to public ponder and vote for or against the war, the argument becomes academic. Any candidate who was not in Congress when these issues were at hand could say that would have voted this way or that way. To base a campaign on an academic discussion is very deceptive.

I would also commend Mrs. Clinton for the help she has provided to NYC and victims of the 9/11 attacks in NYC, but at the same time, we need to commend much of the residents of the US, and the rest of the planet, for the outpouring of support that was received.

[ntmessage]

This response attempts to deflect from the actual question and Obamas response (in a nice way, which is refreshing). Obama says that no one could have predicted 911 not that no one could have gotten the exact time and place. This is a distinction with a huge difference. The former is false and latter is just common sense.

In essence, to say without an embossed invitation with date, time, place and RSVP in advance is equivalent to *no one could have predicted* is incorrect on the facts, where there is no debate.

[sand252]

I think that this article is based on emotion. I too lost a family member on 9/11 at the World Trade Center, so I sympathize, but I respectfully disagree with the article and find the arguments to be flawed.

He did not say no one could have predicted 9/11. He said that no one did predict 9/11. That is true. Sure intelligence existed that terrorism was afoot; however, that particular attack (planes into the towers) had not been predicted. And when listening to the Q & A (even reading it), leads one to believe that he said that he could not respond to Chris Matthews hypothetical terrorist attack because one does not know how the next terrorist attack will come, but if in fact it does or that is intelligence that it could come, he then stated how he'd respond.

He responded to Chris Matthews assertion that a plane hijacking is predictable. I think not. Could it be predictable? Certainly. Should it have been predicted? Absolutely. However, I believe his answer was reflecting that we cannot speculate at the present moment what kind of terrorist attack will occur. Therefore, he could not give specifics on how he would react -- he had to be vague.

[PT]

Firsthand, leadership -- via the CIA operations along with other published NSA information had prior knowledge of potential national security threats to our infrastructure prior to 9/11. It is well documented along with the mismanagement of security operations historically. Both Rice/Obama are privy to this information. Take time to read CIA released reports that were generated before 9/11 and contemplate holding lawmakers /government officials responsible toward heeding these warnings and acting upon the same. This is not something to take lightly or to brush off with 20/20 hindsight analysis or lack thereof for sake of argument NOR is it something to essay academically --- although think tank rhetoric projects otherwise.

The very core of this issue lies in the service contract that leadership has with the American public.

I hold leadership -- regardless of party affliations-- that take the oath to "preserve and protect" our nation as responsible to carry out this service contract to/for the American public --- AND nothing less. I hold leadership ---, POTUS, Senators Clinton, Obama, et. al., responsible in conduct/actions, to represent this nation responsively, intellectually, etc. regardless of the assumed positions in government. I will not --- as a citizen/voter of this country -- accept less action, which includes leadership avoiding committing responsive thoughtful remarks that relate to preserving­/protectin­g this nation. That service contract has flowdowns that apply to every operable government/civil agency that directly/indirectly impacts the actions of our nation in time of any crisis -- particularly catastrophic.

[lunadove]

On national security,
How about the fact that Clinton voted for the Iraq war, against the Levin ammendment, and didn't read the NIE.
Clinton might have done some great things, but she also did some unforgivable acts that helped bring this country to the sad place in which it stands.

[ntmessage]

So what has this to do with Obama saying the same thing and Rice on 911?

[meanguy]

congratulations! not only did you make it past the infamous HUFFPO "screen of protection for obama"...c­all it the 'all spin zone'...bu­t you managed to write something that was not 100% in favor of the obamessiah without being called a racist-YET­...

[A Meat Beetle]

meanguy:

Don't worry. I'm sure that as soon as Randi Rhodes gets back on the air she'll make it one of her first orders of business to call Ms. Breitweiser a racist, just like she called the 81% of white democrats who voted for Clinton in Mississippi racists.

[MichaelTenery]

That's terrible. Supporters on both sides need to cut that krap out.

[jcwtts1]

While I feel sympathy for the authors personal loss her vitriol is perhaps misplaced. Rather than kick at obama for stating what I think is a fairly benign opinion that flying airplanes into buildings was not a percieved actionable threat, i.e. we didn't start arming pilots, adding marshals to every plane ect., shouldn't the widow be angry that Hillary and people like her allowed Bin Laden (sp) to escape. That Bush was able to turn her husbands death into an oil grab that makes the country less secure. While I understand she is happy that Hillary fought for a 9/11 commision isn't she missing the point that commissions have no power, and in the world of internet and 24 hour news cylces no relevance. How many people have actually read the report? Hillary's energy and time would have been better spent reading the intelligence that Bush ginned up to get us into Iraq. The first salvo in a war, pearl harbor for example, seems on hindsight to be predictable but in actuality isn't. I'm not an intelligence officer I'm a teacher. After Columbine I'm sure teachers in the school blamed themselves for not seeing it coming. But the sad reality is that until a paradigm shifts it is very difficult, almost impossible, to see it coming.

[ntmessage]

Projecting your anger with Bush and the Nation onto Hillary would be clinical in a different setting. Obama made a speech and stood by. The post is about Obama and you do nothing to defend him, only to criticize others and making false connections. Most senators voted for the resolution and had access to the report. You make a distinction without a difference.

Obama did nothing after a riskless speech that no one can find recorded anywhere, which does not mean it did not happened it means that I made that same speech myself in the office and it had the same impact on the war.

Also, check your facts on the so-called paradigm shift since that is complete rationalization just let Obama off the hook and is false. Many knew what was going on in advance and that is without debate.

[Passenger57]

jcwtts1, behind every tragedy is a huge hunk of the real story. What we see-or what we're allowed to see-is the chunk of 'berg above the surface-as you know,the rest of the berg is under the surface is MUCH BIGGER.
-The invasion of Iraq? Bush wanted to invade Iraq before he got into office,and all they needed was some "catastrop­hic,cataly­zing" event to convince the American People.It'­s likely that the administration PURPOSELY IGNORED THE EVER-SPECIFIC INTELLIGENCE FROM OTHER COUNTRIES -at the very least.
- Pearl Harbor? Like 9/11, full of "coincidences",like FDR sending extra medical supplies to Pearl Harbor BEFORE the attacks. A Japanese mini-sub is sunk in the Harbor before the attack,and the message 'doesn't get to the right people in time". Some things about Pearl Harbor are STILL classified.
- Columbine? Many witnesses talk about a THIRD shooter. There were reports ofBOMBS set around the school.Don­'t take MY word for any of this - Check it out for yourself,I insist.
All I'll say about Breitweiser's question about Obama is that she can support whomever she wants - that's the American Way-but she should FIND OUT what Obama knows about 9/11 ; he may very well not know about it, and I think she should "school" him on it.

[jcwtts1]

As a final example, a year ago, Hillary thought she'd be unbeatable. She thought she would raise more money than Obama and that the media would love her. Further that the black community would embrace the clinton's and that Obama would come at this process without a base. But there was a paradigm shift, money comes not from bundlers but from the internet, candidates gain traction through grass roots not from the top down anymore. Small states matter. There was a shift and Hillary missed it, this author missed it, and that is why Obama is going to be president of the united states.

J

[ntmessage]

Do not be so ridiculous in rewriting history and framing what others thought when. Axelrod and Emanuel gamed the democratic primary since it is riddled with flaws and no other reason. This primary has brought unelectable nominees to the general time after time. Once the DNC changes their primary system to something that remotely resembles the general, I would say they could win. Right now Clinton runs better against McCain that Obama in the general so this system has put the weaker candidate in the general compounded by the dopey rules.

So far the DNC is concerned, we have seen this all before. Stealing defeat from the jaws of victory - again.

And btw how about some comments about the post?

[FirstShirt]

"...you don't fully understand and appreciate all that has happened and everything else that needs to happen since 9/11 with regard to our national security. "

With respect, the fact you are a victim does not make you an expert on anything other than your own personal tragedy. I respect your insights into the effects of this horrible nightmare. I do not accept that you or anyone other than those who had access to intelligence at the time has anything of value to add other than to denigrate the service of a good woman like Ms. Rice.

[Passenger57]

FirstShirt,you are wrong about Condoleezza Rice...she is no damned good. She LIED under oath before the 9/11 Commission­.She should be in jail.
-At the Commission hearing,she said that she(earlier she said "we",but apparently she got a phone call in the interim) never imagined that terrorists would use planes as weapons. Did she forget the G8 Summit held in Italy that summer so quickly? Intelligence was gathered that indicated bin Laden might try to hijack a plane and crash it into buildings at the Summit-that's why they had such extraordinary security : surface-to-air missiles , closed airspace,the leaders staying on a luxury ship instead of a hotel,etc. - Bush reportedly slept on an aircraft carrier!
- Besides,of course, the tidal wave of warnings from other intelligence agencies worldwide that got MORE SPECIFIC as "Zero Hour" approached,she should have taken more decisive action considering how her job title was NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR. She should have been the first to lose her job.Instea­d,she got a promotion.
There should be a new investigation. There is a mountain of circumstantial evidence that has NOTHING to do with the buildings. If this mountain of evidence was presented at Joe Schmo's trial,he was already be under the prison by now.
You don't need to be an "expert",just look at the facts.

[darcy]

Well said, Passenger57.

[knighthowl]

It is good to know what a good senator Hillary has been. She will continue to serve well in that position.

[rrafiringa]

I'm from NY. Do you know under what circumstances she became senator of my state?

Here's why she can't release her tax records before doctoring them a little first, and why she cannot drop out of the race, and why she will twist the superdelegates' arms to vote for her nomination:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7007109937779036019

There a many more out there if you do your research. Don't even think this is lost on the Republicans.

[knighthowl]

My point was that she remain your senator and not become our President.

[ntmessage]

Thinking that the Pubs will not attack Obama, which they are doing now is wishful thinking. Look at FOX, Its variations on the Pastor Disaster 7x24.

From an empirical perspective, they also now see that Clinton runs stronger against McCain than Obama in the general due to what will be the new swing states and Obama exaggerations on how many Red states he may flip.

New swing states like OH,PA,NJ,A­K,TN,FL,WV (105 EVs out of 270) that Hillary can win while Obama may bring in CO and WA (20 EVs) is a difference of 85 EVs.

If you look at the DNC fiasco in FL and MI where Obama fought to keep these states disenfranchised, seating those delegates after the primary meaning they were irrelevant will not fix anything and McCain is working FL as we speak.

SO far as MI and FL, Obama starts out 16% IN THE HOLE (44 EVs) fully 16% of what is needed to win right out of the box.

[lucky54]

Let's just hope Kristen will have a guts to open this link, well Kristen as well as other people. I already send this to my friends - thank you.

[LunaNik]

(font="sarcasm)
Wow, just look at the amazing number of credible journalists and sources this video cites. FauxNews and Chris Matthews are, of course, beyond reproach in their journalistic objectivity. And one can always trust the word of a convicted felon, right? Naturally, the "Clinton Impeachment Manager" had no agenda when he "testified" on this video.
(/font)

The paper "evidence" in this video was blurry and illegible. Any moron with a video camera and the appropriate software could have cobbled together the alleged phone call video. This is a typical Republican smear campaign, and badly done at that.

Maybe you failed to notice that the judge ruled that she was not involved. Or maybe you just belief whatever FauxNews tells you.

[Cougarkj]

Good to who? Clinton is always good to those she finds politically expedient and she's been running for this contested office since before Bill left. It doesn't take a rocket/politician to see the political expediency of taking on the 9/11 victim issues. Clinton tied herself as closely to the loss as possible to garner sympathy in her run for the Senate office; she even went as far as telling a bald faced lie about her daughter's proximity to the attack to make New Yorkers embrace her as an insider. And while she was focusing on politically expedient issues we not only didn't get the 200,000 new jobs she promised Western New York, we had a net loss of employment to the tune of 30,000+.

[clevelandchick]

Kristen,

You support a woman who:

Voted against a ban on using clusterbombs in civilian areas to please her Defense Contractor benefactors

Voted for Kyl-Lieberman, giving the OK for Bush to hit Iran

Voted to invade and occupy a nation that neither threatened or attacked us

Sat down with the Daddy of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, Richard Mellon Scaife

Took some big campaign checks from the Daddy of American Pravda, Rupert Murdoch

Hillary has no credibility on foreign or domestic policy for that matter. She's bowed to and followed the Republican majority her entire Senate career. And this feeble attempt at using a Chris Matthews interview (of all things, the guy is a tool) are just sad. No thinking person would give old Tweety any ammo by answering his 'gotcha' questions. Obama handled the man correctly and to compare that interview to Condi Rice's testimony in front of the 9/11 Commission is beyond a stretch and the mark of someone who is truly desperate to find fault where none exists.

[ntmessage]

Black and White comparisons on complex Bills are overly simplistic naive and miss every point on judgment and credibility. Just like making, a speech during an uncontested election until Keyes parachuted in could ever be equivalent to a real vote in the Senate on a real issue.

Obama never put his ass on the line for anything and that speech is no exception. You may not always agree with Clinton, but she will put her ass on the line and take action. It is simply this, do you want Barney in the foxhole with you watching your back; or do you want a complete leader that demonstrates unabridged depth and understanding?

Obama supporters can only cowardly attack a long record because there is one with Clinton compared to Obama who has only a couple of years experience of any kind on the national level and almost none on the Global level.

This duplicity is identical to Obama, arrogantly stating that Clinton does not have experience but then attack her disingenuously on, yes her experience. It is this kind of shallow PR rhetoric that Obama mirrors since the true man is superficial and a lightweight not only on the Global stage, but also against anyone who every put their ass on the line for any worthwhile but risky purpose.

[A Meat Beetle]

ntmessage:

"Obama supporters can only cowardly attack a long record because...­"

...because Republicans tricked them into doing it. Few people are easier to hoodwink than those who have stars in their eyes.

[MrWinky]

Yeah, like when she voted against most of her democratic colleagues for the war, just so she could bow and scrape fo the Repubs, get some good contractor donations, and pander to the American public.

Say what you want, the Clintons have always voted with what is politically expedient.

[LunaNik]

So, why didn't Obama bother even being present for the Kyl-Lieberman vote? Oh, wait. But he would have voted against it, right? Just like he would have voted against the war had he been there?

But he HAS voted for about $300 billion in war funding since entering the Senate in 2005. So, really, he's in the same boat as Clinton, isn't he?

But wait! As Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee subcommittee, he has not chaired a single substantive oversight hearing. So, he's not even doing his job as Senator and you want him to be President? Brilliant.

[marlee]

I caught that comment, also, but, thought it was glib and he didn't have enough time to explain his answer to a dumb question.

You say Hillary fought for the 9/11 widows...t­hat is great...by why did she support invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11?
Don't tell me she didn't know...tho­se of us STILL protesting this war on Iraq knew it.

[meanguy]

what, exactly, is 'dumb' about a quiestion involving our security? and at least hillary didn't take 3 or 4 positions on the war and toss earlier positions down the famous obama 'memory hole'...

[LiberalDemIda]

Mrs. Breitweiser, I understand you're supporting Hillary and must feel frustrated your candidate, bar a coupe d'estat by cowered superdelegates, will lose, but before doing your best to discredit the inevitable Democratic Nominee, Sen Barack Obama for his lack of rhetoric regarding Matthew's "gotcha" question, you need to remember something.

Obama has always maintained that he was against the Iraq War Resolution. Your candidate voted for it {most likely for political expediency with an eye on the 2008 Pres. race}. Your husband's death has not yet been avenged. Bin Laden is still at large thanks, in part, to the vote of your candidate.

If that isn't adding insult to injury, what about Hillary's vote to invade IRAN now? This woman is not helping your cause. She is helping herself and her career. Sen. Obama, who you've chosen not to support, voted AGAINST the Iran resolution, just like he said he'd vote against the IWR. Unlike your candidate, that's not rhetoric.

Also, over 4000 troops are DEAD because of her politically expedient vote for the IWR. I sympathize with the loss of your beloved husband, I also hope you sympathize with all those families who have lost their sons and daughters for a foolish, unnecessary war.

A war Hillary voted for without even reading the NIE report with the result, 4000 American troops are dead, bin Laden is still at large and now she's voted for a resolution to attack Iran as well.

How can you support her?

[JWLANDSCAPES]

I support because she WAS at ground zero and because SHE was there in the 90's when Hussein used a vial of nerve gas to take out 10,000 Kurdish men, women and children. How easy would it be to hide a vial in a country of IRAQ with the lethal potential to thousands of New Yorkers. New York was exposed as being vulnerable, and AL QAIDA is not our only enemy that poses a terrorist threat. She had an OBLIGATION more pronounced than any of you here can imagine, certainly not Senator Obama. He himself said, even he couldn't say with absolute certainty how he would vote.

We are ALL at fault for this continued debacle in IRAQ and the 4000 plus deaths, not just Senator Clinton. WE ARE ALL RESPONSIBLE! Quite subscribing motives to a public servant with a track record of caring for women, children, the sick, and the poor and focus on the real challenges at hand. Senator Clinton is WAY out of your league.

[rrafiringa]

She better be president if she wants to avoid blowback from this one:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7007109937779036019&q=Hillary+scandal&total=213&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=5

[jcrubens]

You know what? I'm not responsible for the debacle in Iraq. In fact, I'm going to say anyone who opposed the war is not responsible. Those who voted against it or took public stands are heroes. Anyone who bothered to read a newspaper published outside the United States knew it was a dumb idea. Anyone in the Senate who read the intelligence report knew it was a dumb idea. People in New York who let themselves get scared into supporting the war bear mixed responsibility. People who actually voted for it are responsible and need to deal with their guilt. But, no, we're not all responsible for the continued debacle. Talk to your priest.

[Melkor]

Sorry, no. We are not all responsible. People who weren't blinded by their fear or rabid patriotism, who listened to the real experts and not the partisans, and those of us who believed a war of aggression is inherently immoral are not responsible. Don't try to minimise either Clinton's or perhaps your own guilt by submerging yourself in the crowd. Back when it was a popular cause I took my blows for being against the war, now you and your candidate have to take yours. Its called retribution.

[Heidfeld]

Wow, a wonderfully typical answer from an Obamabot.

Firs of all, what does ANYTHING that you wrote have to do with the argument made in the main post?

And secondly, can you be any more uninformed about reality? About what Hillary really did in the Senate?

I'm finding it more and more upsetting that the Dem nomination process is being hijacked by ill-informed people fueled by blind hatred.

If you have a difference of opinion, and support a different candidate.­.. fine with me. But do so ligically and with be informed in your decision. The alternative only leads to a presidency like the one we have had for the past 8 years.

[ntmessage]

You act as if Clinton alone invaded Iraq and forget that the Obama speech not only had had no risk, he did nothing about Iraq in the meantime while all those things occurred.

Why did he stand idly by when as the war progressed? Simply because he is also a coward and has never risked putting his ass on the line for anything or any reason. This proves that Obama was simply lucky, given that he has not brought anything to the table on the global stage that contradicts the actions of Clinton. He has voted identically to Clinton, so the on the record Iraq decisions between Obama and Clinton are identical, and she has a better plan and more capability to get out and can beat McCain in the general.

So please next time you way the flag, do it with someone that deserves it.

[A Meat Beetle]

ntmessage:

"...he did nothing about Iraq in the meantime while all those things occurred. "

You are wrong, my friend. Senator Obama has voted to continue funding for the war (thereby continuing the suffering) every opportunity he has had. In fact, as long as he has been in the Senate his voting record on Iraq has been virtually identical to Senator Clinton's.

[MichaelTenery]

No Risk? He was running for United States senator at a time when most Americans were for the war. That's hardly no risk. He risked his Senate run on it. What you say when you are running for office is often more scrutinized then what you say when your in it. When your running that's when the press is paying attention.

[researcher]

vote for hil so she can remake nafta and really screw the middle class.

folks in ohio love to be screwed they voted for her in large numbers.

they have a secret desire to be wal mart greeters.

may make that a reality soon if hil wins.

she has more negatives than a long complicated math problem.

maybe all those minuses add up to a positive like in algebra.

at least she is proving to others what the nation thinks about her. she is willing to take down the demo party for her desires to be pres. why do you think she stuck with slick.

[ESerafina42]

Funny how people who were once hailed as American heroes on this site suddenly become the epitome of evil when they disagree with the Obamabots.

[BigSid]

So true.

[knighthowl]

So not true and ridiculous.

[knighthowl]

The order of these comments has distorted the meaning. BigSid's comment came immediately after ESerafina's, not rrafiringa's, when I made my comment. The reordering of these comments has completely distorted their meaning.

BigSid was actually agreeing with the comments of ESerafina, not rrafiringa.

I was disagreeing with BigSid.

[rrafiringa]

Heroes lay their lives down for other people at the peril of losing it. The people who died from the twins were all victims of a terrorist attack. The people who tried to save them were the heroes, as well as those who donated blood and tried to help in any way they could.

It's not nice that you are trying to play on words like that. I'm sure you're a Hillary supporter. She'll need your support becoming president to get out of this one:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7007109937779036019

[FreedomLoverX]

More pure crap from Kristen - the only woman in the US who lnew there would be an attack on 9/11. Great the way you twist words, and then distort things, for what purpose? Aren't things distorted enough? You must be a supporter of that perpetual LIAR Hillary, no?

[yoyo1959]

THE INSENSITIVITY AND RIDICULOUSNESS OF THIS SO-CALLED freedomLov­erx....is scary.

[ntmessage]

Dude, I think it is you that has issues.