digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at huffingtonpost.com

Clinton 2005: I Agree With McCain On Long-Term Iraq Presence

huffingtonpost.com — Three years ago, during an appearance on CBS, Sen. Hillary Clinton stated that she agreed with overarching premise of John McCain's Iraq policy: that America's commitment to the war shouldn't be based on time frames but rather the level of troop casualties.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • suezach08, on 05/05/2008, -10/+38She is so unbelievable
    • wonderlandpr, on 05/05/2008, -16/+6HILLARY CLINTON, THREATENING TO "OBLITERATE IRAN"...agrees with John Mccain. Between that & hijacking this bogus gas holiday from Mccain...maybe she should run as McCain's Veep. CAN THIS COUNTRY TOLERATE AND VOTE FOR A PRESIDENT WHO TELLS THE TRUTH OR JUST LIES AND WINS AT ALL COSTS? Are YOU ready for Barack Obama, a leader for this vital time in our international and national, economics and healing shared lives.

      HILLARY WANTS MORE WAR? Of course, this is why she voted for the Bush Iraq War. She is not going to pull troops out...or if she does, they will be fighting in Iraq OR HILLARY WILL FORCE US TO RE-INSTATE THE DRAFT.
    • LukasSmith, on 05/05/2008, -22/+8Whats unbelievable is you Obama fanatics making a big deal out of something she said 3 years ago. This is pure propaganda.
      • zepher5150, on 05/05/2008, -3/+5Hillary Clinton is so fickel-It's hard to believe anyone can take any of HER propaganda seroiusly.

        Hillary seems to go with anything she thinks is the right thing at the time...Need I remind you Mr.s Hillary Clinton VOTED for October 2002 Iraq War Resolution...You know the war that is the cause for this WHOLE mess that we all sit in today.

        For the love of God, let's hope people of this country nominate Obama.
      • Mejari, on 05/05/2008, -2/+7If you get to bring up stuff tha people from Obama's past that he barely knew said, so why can't we bring up what Hillary herself actually said?
        • jabberwolf, on 05/06/2008, -3/+1A PRESENCE is not the same thing as a War doofus!

          We have one in South Korea for a good reason.
      • LukasSmith, on 05/05/2008, -14/+2I don't care what Obama said 3 years ago. I don't care what Hillary said 3 years ago. So yeah doesn't interest me.
        • youareretarded, on 05/05/2008, -0/+9You don't? But you care about what someone who is not Obama said? (speaking of the wright "controversy")
        • LukasSmith, on 05/06/2008, -5/+1Umm because until a few weeks ago Wright and Obama were buddy buddy? not three years ago.
        • MisterFreeze, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4That's funny because I don't give a ***** about anything you've ever said you repetitive *****.
      • TrojanGuy, on 05/05/2008, -1/+4Why wouldn't you care about what a presidential candidate said 3 years ago? I mean, no matter WHO the candidate is, I'd think it'd be relevant if they said it 3 years ago. Now, if you want to drag up something they said when they were 25 years old then you could make the argument convincingly that it was irrelevant. But 3 years? Come on.
    • fromonesource, on 05/05/2008, -1/+1OHHHHHHHHH
    • ChickenFight, on 05/05/2008, -2/+2hoe needs a slap...thats for sure
    • WillisRR17, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2We'll be there for a long time regardless of who's elected.
    • Kautylia, on 05/06/2008, -2/+7Oh my god. Did any of you people even read the article and not just the deceptively misquoted title of this post?
      "As both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama have noted, the situation in Iraq has dramatically deteriorated since 2005 and now we are in the midst of sectarian violence. While she has always supported a limited number of residual forces to protect our embassy and go after terrorists, unlike Senator McCain, Senator Clinton will start bringing our troops home when she is President and end the war."
      That is her position now. The situation has changed. In 2005, it looked like one thing. It looks like something else now. That's all there is too it.

      He told the Chicago Tribune in July of 2004, that "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage."
      That was from Obama. And he supports withdrawl now. So both candidates have changed their positions.
      • JulianLouis, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Thank you
      • gwolf, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Trouble is, given her habit of saying anything it takes to get elected, I am not sure I believe her.
    • jabberwolf, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1So we should not be in Germany or Japan?
      Maybe we should just leave South Korea because we all know how trust worthy N. korea is. Having a PRESENCE is not a bad idea!

      And no Kautylia they aren't bright enough to read ENTIRE articles.
      • greenm1981, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1North Korea doesn't pose the threat they once did. Military prowess depends upon economic strength. They can't even feed themselves, let alone finance a war. Besides, a war on the Korean peninsula would disrupt trade throughout Asia. That is something that China will not allow.
        Again, why are we in Germany? If you can make a good case for it I'll dig you up.
      • gwolf, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Of course we shouldn't, there's no longer a need.
  • angie828, on 05/05/2008, -10/+32OMG! Not again, first Iran and now this! In her desire to show how tough she is, she sounds like she is willing to go to war with the world!
    • elhaf, on 05/05/2008, -5/+2"she -strike-sounds like she-strike- is willing to go to war with the world"
      fixed.
      • t0x2c, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0I like the idea... (like baseball strikes), but it was rather poorly implemented.
    • LukasSmith, on 05/05/2008, -11/+1Yeah because we are so at war with the world. Sarcasm.
    • diggrnumber1, on 05/06/2008, -3/+1buried for being about something she said 3 years ago. she is no longer for the iraq war.
      • MisterFreeze, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4Unless being for the Iraq war will get her elected, then she's for it again.
    • goonnoodles, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1If it gets her elected
    • h1forlife, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Does she even want to win the nomination anymore?
      It seems that every day something like this shows up on digg.
  • Lukester38, on 05/05/2008, -8/+80Stop her now Indiana!
    • LukasSmith, on 05/05/2008, -22/+2Vote For Hillary!
    • Ryanr14, on 05/05/2008, -2/+11I'm stopping her Lukester
    • WehrisMike, on 05/05/2008, -2/+5Will try our best. Lots of Hillary signs around town here in Lafayette.
      • Danktolker, on 05/05/2008, -3/+2Well then, you know what you must do...tear them down!
      • LukasSmith, on 05/05/2008, -5/+2yeah thats supporting democracy. Tearing down signs.
        • Spottswood, on 05/05/2008, -1/+3You're right, instead they should set up call centers and circulate emails that spread lies about Hillary's positions. Thats far more in tandem with democracy
        • Danktolker, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2sorry, I thought it was obvious. ^/s are you happy?
        • Velvolver, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2I'd be a cleaner job than what Hillary does on a daily basis.
    • Velvolver, on 05/06/2008, -2/+4Why would someone in Indiana still vote for her even after her advisor called them all White *****?
    • mozert, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3Only Chuck Norris can stop her now
    • wishninja, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3nah! screw all of this garbage I'm still voting for Ron Paul. The only one with the balls to end these wars. I can not vote for any willing to stand up for the Iraq or Drug wars!!!1
  • CommonSense121, on 05/05/2008, -6/+9HERE IS THE TRANSCRIPT!!
    (IT'S ON PAGE 2)

    http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/face_22005.pdf
  • loftyendeavors, on 05/05/2008, -11/+9Send this one to the top!
    • fromonesource, on 05/05/2008, -1/+4We'll assume you meant this submission and not this candidate.
  • wonderlandpr, on 05/05/2008, -12/+46Hillary Clinton is dangerously close to GW Bush and John McCain on pre-emptive saber shaking. SHE WANTS TO "OBLITERATE IRAN!". She said that on three different occasions. IF YOU WANT MORE WAR, MORE TRILLIONS GOING TO A FOREIN COUNTRY NOT OUR OWN, then take Hillary's lies and make a president out of her phony policies and politics. THIS NATION CANNOT AFFORD ANOTHER COWBOY DIPLOMAT. She is a misguided leader who lies on gas prices and on bringing troops home. Dang it was her vote that SENT 4,000 TO DIE IN IRAQ AND NOW SHE BOASTS OF GOING INTO IRAN. Get ready for....THE DRAFT!
    • masterm1nd, on 05/05/2008, -8/+5YOU WILL BE DRAFTED IF YOU DON'T VOTE OBAMA!

      /end of fearmongering
    • StealthMonkey, on 05/05/2008, -5/+8I hate to break it to you. The next president of the US will not withdraw from Iraq. Hear me out before you digg me down.

      Not John McCain. Not Hillary Clinton. Not even Barack Obama. Here is what is going to happen if Hillary or Barack end up in the oval office: After a few weeks or a few months, whenever the cries for withdrawal get loud enough, he/she will come out and say, "I originally intended to withdraw the troops from Iraq. However, now that I have been fully brought up to date on all information regarding Iraq, I believe it is in the best interest of the country that we stay in Iraq. The Bush administration withheld vital information regarding the war in Iraq. In lieu of this new information, we will maintain our present troop level for the time being."

      Neither of them intend to end the war, just as the democrat congress that took power over a year ago doesn't intend to end the war. Here's why: Regardless of what you believe regarding the war, withdrawal will be seen, in general, as defeat. The democrats were more than willing to hang defeat over Bush's head, that is why you heard so much about ending the war from democrats in congress before they won. However, now that they are in control.... nothing. They don't want defeat hung over their head. With a democrat in the White House, that is even more the case. The war in Iraq isn't going to end, no matter who is elected.
      • theaceoffire, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3Someone better plan on getting us out, because we can not (Financially) stay in without destroying what little is left of our economy.

        What would be worse? Admitting defeat and blaming Bush, or pretend we are winning until someone else has to make a very similar choice?
      • harmil, on 05/05/2008, -2/+5I can't agree with that. I honestly think that Obama has his head around the fact that this is not a war, and that when you approach a nation that needs to be rebuilt, there is only so much that you can do for them as a distant power, especially when the rest of the region literally thinks you're there to put an end to their way of life.

        Instead, I think he got it exactly right when he said that we need to engage the powers in the region including those that don't like us. We need to create an atmosphere where diplomacy can win out against armed insurgency. It will take years to resolve, but it does not require massive military force. That's why we're failing. We're trying to figure out how to solve a diplomatic problem with force, and that just can't be done (without literally becoming an empire).

        • ASeventhSign, on 05/05/2008, -4/+2That is why you're duped. You've been bamboozled! StealthMonkey has it exactly right. Neither of the Dems are going to pull out of Iraq.
          Engage the powers in the region? That is precisely what we are doing. We just need to engage them a little more vigorously.
          Do really think you be diplomatic with someone who wants saw your head off?
        • johnfn, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3>> Do really think you be diplomatic with someone who wants saw your head off?

          Yes. Yes I do. Because it's much better than us sawing their heads off first. War is a last solution, not an option that should be utilized wherever possible.
    • Wargalas, on 05/05/2008, -6/+2Oh save the fearmongering ***** for the weak minded. Let's not forget that John Kerry, which many of you voted for in 2004, threatened voters with a draft in the closing days of the election. IT NEVER HAPPENED.

      So save it. You're simply dugg up because the weak minded have been fooled by your rhetoric.
    • silverharbinger, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2I don't think that a new president withdrawing our forces from Iraq would be looked at as a defeat by most rational Americans. What it would be seen as is an admission that the previous administration made a serious mistake and it needs to be corrected instead of stubbornly clung to. It would be a major sign to the rest of the nations of the world that we are no longer going to be the kind of nation that will attack and occupy them if they have resources we need. It would show some level of fiscal prudence, not throwing away billions (possibly trillions) of dollars fighting a war with little in the way of allies or assistance, when our country is already deeply in debt and in need of infrastructural improvements. Most importantly of all, it would show that we value the lives of our armed service people more than we value having them die fighting over drummed-up reasons that most of the rest of the world (wisely) did not accept.

      By having our forces stay in the Iraq it may be delaying a civil war in the region that could end up involving more than just that country, but this same situation could have happened if Saddam Hussein had died or was assassinated. On the other hand, the tensions in the region may be able to be resolved by strong international diplomacy. If worst comes to worst and our forces do have to go back for a third time, let's at least do it for the right reasons!
  • xtrachrisbee, on 05/05/2008, -6/+11unbelievable!
  • playuhh, on 05/05/2008, -8/+26Obama needs to call her out on this. Like... NOW.
    • blackinthmiddle, on 05/05/2008, -1/+8Unfortunately, it really doesn't matter. Hillary has bee caught in one gaffe after another, yet was still able to win Pennsylvania handily. The bottom line is that far too many people vote for superficial, ***** reasons. I've heard too many women say they're voting for Clinton because "I just want to see a woman in the white house before I die." When one attempts to use logic and you're confronted with that as an answer, there's really nothing that can be done.
    • poopdigger, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2There are so many reasons why Obama is better than you.
      Firstly, he's not a douchebag enough to call her out on a 3-year old interview, when he's already made a clear point about her vote 5 years ago. If you want your politicians to play dirty and use the same negative ***** over and over, whats the point in supporting Obama?
      Secondly, he and his campaign are smart, and they know this isn't a story. Everybody already knows she changed her mind. People who are voting for CLinton either don't care, or have accepted the fact that she, along with a lot of other Americans, was pulled into the patriotic death march started by Bush and supported by fake intel. Going around and bragging that Obama is cooler because he knew the war was going to fail isn't going to change anybody's mind.
      Thirdly, all Obama needs to do is to not ***** up, and he's going to win. Rather than reading Digg and the HuffPost looking for new pointless attacks, he can spend his time doing something worthwhile, like talking to superdelagates.
      • playuhh, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1I was just being like... you know that... OMG LET'S USE THIS AND DESTROY THE BITCH... type of attitude... you know like those plans that are retarded and pointless... but tempting to the fed-up guy who is on edge?

        Yea I know this would be pointless... and not-Obama-like.

        But yes I hope for the success of Obama, and just wish I could go and say "long as he doesn't ***** up" but there's still the possibility that Hillary could ***** it up for everybody... I think it's looking bleak for her though so I'm in good spirits.
    • phybere, on 05/05/2008, -1/+3I live in PA. After Hillary won, a local TV station was polling individuals to see why they voted for Hillary. Out of 15 or so, there was only ONE who didn't say it was because of the name "Clinton."
  • FukUrCouch, on 05/05/2008, -9/+6She'll do ANYTHING to win!! Don't call her out on her lies because Bill over here is going to come out and dick slap you...
  • elhaf, on 05/05/2008, -4/+12Finally this obvious truth comes into the mainstream. She is, was, and ever shall be pro-war. She's owned by the lobbyists and defense contractors. Duh.
    • ASeventhSign, on 05/05/2008, -4/+0ooooh spooky conspiracy theories! She's not pro-war. Either is Bush. She just understands that some fights must be fought.
      • Velvolver, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4And Iraq wasn't one of them, BURIED
      • greenm1981, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Didn't Bush start that war? Don't say Al Qaeda did, because prior to our occupation they didn't exist in Iraq.
  • kenedamick, on 05/05/2008, -6/+10Well she did vote for the war. She's a lieber-woman - neo con in dem's clothing.
    • masterm1nd, on 05/05/2008, -5/+5Arent neo cons and dems basically the same thing? Socialist, interventionist, globalist?
      • kenedamick, on 05/05/2008, -2/+4Both parties have their neo con ways, I agree.
      • Infidelcastr0, on 05/05/2008, -5/+2Yes, democrats are socialists, we all have Marx and Lenin on our bedside table, we want to round up and disappear anyone who disagrees with us, make no mistake, world domination is our ultimate goal no matter what it takes, we're going to force all of you to be tolerant of others and help people, we're going to force you to watch gay pornography and undergo sex changes, we're going to make you include Allah in all your prayers and only allow interracial marriages, we're going to make you pick up the groceries in vehicles weighing less than 6000 pounds and if you don't like it we'll send you "up north" to work in the mines, and if you commit investment fraud we're going to take a small portion of your ill-gotten gains and use them to *gasp* make this country a disgustingly nice place to live. And of course we all know how jingoist, xenophobic, and nationalistic we are... Give me a break, how stupid can you people be. The neoconservative agenda is polar opposite to the democratic agenda, the ONLY exception is NAFTA, I'll give you that, it was an obvious appeal to Reagan democrats. The neocons want to morally sanitize the country and wage another crusade which we want NO PART OF. Have there been democrat hawks? sure, but guess what, they were trying to STOP COMMUNISM, you know, that thing that's like socialism, except worse...
        • Zarchon, on 05/05/2008, -1/+0And here I thought Neocons were New Conservtives. I believe the term was originally used to identify Democrat that left the Democratic party and joined the Republican party. However, it seems Neocon is used here and elsewhere to mean anyone who is pro war.
    • greenm1981, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Neocons: An ideological faction based on a fundamental belief in the infallibility of free markets, unrestricted trade, the absence of regulation, and state's only role is to enforce contracts and provide defense. All public goods should be privatized, including primary and secondary education. The use of force is applied when necessary if the public rejects the application of its ideologies.

      Democrats: A US political party which traditionally advocates a larger role for the state. Areas of primary concern are regulation of industry, human rights advocacy, equitable wealth distribution, access to public goods, social safety nets, and free education.

      Socialism: The state owns mode of production and the economy is centrally planned. Susceptible to fraud and corruption.
    • itstodd, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1got to admit. the dude has the copy and paste thing down. You dont suppose his job has him repeating "you want fries with that?"
  • patpl22391, on 05/05/2008, -11/+16Obama and Hillary have agreed on I think it was 85 out of 86 votes in the Senate. You are deluding yourself if you think there is any real difference between them.
    • blackinthmiddle, on 05/05/2008, -3/+6I disagree. He realized it was a mistake to go into war in the first place at a time when few had the balls to go against the majority. Once in office (and us already at war), he voted for funding. As he himself said, "Once you've insisted in driving the car in the ditch, we've gotta get it out now." You can't put our troops in Iraq and, for example, vote against funding them. Then they're just ducks in a barrel, waiting to get picked off.

      I'll vote for the guy with the sound judgment and balls to recognize that we were going in the wrong direction at a time when most were backing dubya.
  • jlebrech, on 05/05/2008, -8/+10Clinton = WWIII
    Obama = Self sufficiency: less reliance on foreign goods. (unhappy arabs, then some small insignificant war somewhere)

    Not that I'm American or anything.
    • oblique63, on 05/05/2008, -3/+3Im not pro Clinton or anything, but I think it would be a safer bet to say McCain = WWIII...

      but I don't know, maybe that's just me...
  • robotto, on 05/05/2008, -4/+2we should all vote for her /sarcasm
    • Velvolver, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1usually you break line before doing that,
      but it's ok; you won't get buried for it or anything
      /sarcasm
  • mach32, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2you people ase so far behind the power curve.
  • Hetman, on 05/05/2008, -5/+7Am I the only one thinks that this stuff actually helps her. I mean if you are truly anti-war you would vote for Ron Paul. But if you believe in a phased withdrawal at this point Barak Obama would be the person to go with. Either way after the primaries are over democrats are going to at least need the appearance of a strong leader to sway Republican pro war voters to vote democrats. Either way it looks more and more like a McCain presidency. But I still have some hope that at least Obama will be elected.
    • TrevaLVF, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1As far as all Democratic presidential primary candidates that ran in this race, two of them were against unnecessary wars. Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel. Those two candidates were also the only ones in this race that want to defend our civil rights.
      Wheres, Ron Paul is the only Republican presidential candidate that shares Kucinich's and Gravel's position on war and civil rights. They do part ways where opinions on certain domestic issues and ideas are concerned, but I think that if we had a majority of lawmakers like all of these guys, plus ones like Bob Barr and Cynthia McKinney, we wouldn't be having the problems existing today, because these people I've named would actually bring real checks and balances in our government. Any compromises would most likely be in our best interests, not an elite few.
  • ralphodog, on 05/05/2008, -19/+7Can you Obamaspamtards at least keep things in the right topic so the rest of us don't have to be subjected to your circle jerks?
  • damnyooneek, on 05/05/2008, -2/+14She says anything for a vote.
  • LukasSmith, on 05/05/2008, -15/+9OMG three years ago Hillary said something. Who gives a *****. 3 years ago all kinds of politicians had different positions. Especially the Democrats who voted for this war which was most of them.
    • Pulch, on 05/05/2008, -2/+13Good call man. And what's with all these people picking Bush apart. He started the war over 6 years ago! It was a long time ago, you can't hold that against him.
    • LukasSmith, on 05/05/2008, -8/+2No actually the congress allowed it. I hold this war against congress not Bush. Really how can you people for one second not be insulted enraged as anti war as you are that your congress did nothing. Even democrats were silent for a couple of years. There is no one guilty party here. Though your democrat party would like you to believe thats the case. Their silence and their vote in 2002 should have opened eyes. Instead it was buried and tucked away in a closet by the liberal media. We don't know what Obama would have done because he was only elected in 2004. His record so far has only shown he is very very leftist. America is not Leftist. That is why I fear Obama is not the right candidate. Now when I ask a democrat why they think a party that did nothing for a couple of years after the invasion is superior they tell me "Democrats never supported this war." The propaganda machine is good.
      • zepher5150, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Maybe if you investigate some you will realize Obama was one of the ONLY ones to stand up against Bush and the Iraq war.

        Obama was an early opponent of the Bush administration's policies on Iraq. On October 2, 2002, the day Bush and Congress agreed on the joint resolution authorizing the Iraq War,[124] Obama addressed the first high-profile Chicago anti-Iraq War rally in Federal Plaza,[125] speaking out against it.

        On March 16, 2003, the day President Bush issued his 48-hour ultimatum to Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq before the U.S. invasion of Iraq,Obama addressed the largest Chicago anti-Iraq War rally to date in Daley Plaza and told the crowd "It's not too late" to stop the war.

        Obama sought to make his early public opposition to the Iraq War before it started a major issue in his 2004 U.S. Senate campaign to distinguish himself from his Democratic primary rivals who supported the resolution authorizing the Iraq War,
      • LukasSmith, on 05/05/2008, -5/+2Obama wasn't a Senator at that point. His majority of his party voted for war and remained silent for a couple of years. And If you really understood how Obama got elected in the first place you might realize that he isn't that great and his message wasn't that respected. When he ran for senate he was running against a senator who just was hit with a sex scandal that ruined his political career. He dropped. Obama won. He didn't win on the issues then. He won't win on the issues now. Then it was a sex scandal. Now its a war. Hopefully Americans realize there are other issues to be dealt with that they may not appreciate a leftist hand guiding. Reason enough to pause before just electing a president because he says he will get us out of Iraq.
        • zepher5150, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2Are you saying Obama didn't make a stand when a majority of the Democrats like Hillary rolled over...well he did. Maybe he was not a senator yet, but he stood up for what he believed in and in hindsight he was 100% right.

          That is exactly why he is the best candidate left to help turn this mess that the Bush adminstration created.

          There is no bigger issue then the cause and effects of the Iraq War on America...The dollar...the cost of oil..the housing crisis.

          Like it really matters how Obama got elected senator....Look it Hilllary...claiming she is the better candidate with vast amounts of experience...yet in 2002, when she was a senator he backed Bush and October 2002 Iraq War Resolution...not to mention she also backed Bush's Patriot Act.

          There is reason enough for you to realize Obama is the right person to be America's next president.
        • tidu, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1You're saying war is more important than a sex scandal? This is America, you know.
          • zepher5150, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Allright..I admitt Hillary has better sex scandal stories.
      • mc_hambone, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Yeah, I agree with you even though I blame Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld mostly for twisting the intelligence to attain that goal. I was disgusted when I found out that only a couple of senators read the intelligence report that basically discounted their theories right before the vote.
    • calantus, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3This has to be the worst logic ever. She just changed her position just to get votes, she will show her true colors if she gets into office. Just look at bush, he ran on a no nation building policy, see how that worked out. Ha. I support no candidate btw.
      • Velvolver, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Then don't bitch when someone you don't like gets elected.
    • flintmecha, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3Yeah, you're right! Why are we picking apart something she, a person running for presidential nomination, said three years ago, when we could be picking apart something Reverand Wright, somebody not even involved in the political process, said six or seven years ago?
      • LukasSmith, on 05/06/2008, -3/+1His political views have not changed though. Thats the difference. He still hates America. In fact I think he gave a few speeches lately that rilled Obama by basically NOT changing his position and hitting out at Obama for changing his tune because he is running for office.
  • FATEorFORTUNE, on 05/05/2008, -9/+4This was three years ago people. Put it in perspective. The war was a different situation back then. It can't be judged by today's situation. Do you people just believe everything you hear without thinking? Seriously you Obamaphiles are like sheep.
    • meamog, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2I - an Obama supporter - agreed with you 100%, up until the "Obamaphiles are like sheep" comment. Seriously - I realize some of you think none of us actually analyze things that are happening and are caught up in a message of hope, but I'd wager quite a few of us simply agree with him on the issues at hand, and think he'd be an excellent person to represent the country at this incredibly complicated time.
    • jimjacks, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2The bottom line is that she will say anything for a vote. The was was a good thing to promote politically back then, its not now. So she is against it. She is the Status Quo.
    • flintmecha, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Different situation? Hardly. It's no excuse.
    • jfoxbox, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1I would just like to know what Obama stands for. He only speaks in the most general themes. Not one concrete idea! But he does repeat nothing well!
  • FENWAYFREAK, on 05/05/2008, -12/+4Big deal, she said she agreed with the war 3 years ago. Politicians change their minds on things 10 times a day. I am sick of the anti clinton news here. I hater her as much as the next guy, but its become "the cool thing to do."
    • phybere, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3No, the "cool thing to do" seems to be to spam pro-clinton propaganda under several different usernames.
  • SSCrow, on 05/05/2008, -2/+9Where are these psychopaths who are supporting her?
    I hear nothing positive about her in the media or from people I know. How has she not dropped out yet?
  • crushtheenemy, on 05/05/2008, -11/+9this is yet another reason why Ron Paul gets my vote.
  • nigirimon, on 05/05/2008, -4/+0Yikes!
  • ralphthemagi, on 05/05/2008, -8/+10Where is the news? This is not news—it's The Huffington Post. I used to believe that the Huffington Post just had its own Digg army like The Raw Story, but now I'm starting to think people actually consider The Huffington Post a legitimate source of news. It's not news. It's fabricated *****. There is never any news to be found. Every article is the equivalent of ,"I know a guy who said..." They don't have journalists or editors. Just a bunch of people who sit around and decide what to write in order to best get on Digg and Reddit in order to drive traffic and increase ad revenues. Every day Digg rails the MSM for being biased and generally inadequate, and then you go and Digg every HP article?

    I consider myself something of a liberal hippie douche, but The Huffington Post is *****.
    • AWBoy666, on 05/05/2008, -1/+1You may become the first hippie liberal douche on my friend's list on Digg for this comment......Huffington is an opinion site like anywhere else. IT IS NOT NEWS.
      • ralphthemagi, on 05/05/2008, -1/+1It's really amazing. You look at section "Political News" and it's all The Huffington Post, The Raw Story and Crooks and Liars. Then you look under "Political Opinion" and it's all The Washington Post, The Economist, and CNN.

        Internet reality is a whole new reality.
    • MariaEspanol, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Blogs and link sharing sites are not the place to go for news. You'll just get sensational stories that play to the bias of the masses (or niche). Sites like HP aren't any more useful than Fox News. Editors and journalistic standards, I would hope, are not dead yet.
    • darkciti2, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Huffington Post has never proclaimed to be "Fair and Balanced" like Fox news does.
      Huffington Post is what it is. If you don't like it, don't RTFA !
  • AdHavoc, on 05/05/2008, -8/+1RamsesII 2008: I am hip so I vote Obama because it is the cool thing to do.
    • RamsesII, on 05/05/2008, -2/+3I'd reply to this post if I wasn't so busy sipping lattes and buying Apple products.
  • gthrank, on 05/05/2008, -4/+8She will stop at nothing to try to ***** Obama over.
    • serif69, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1...that's kind of the point of a campaign. Obama will stop at nothing to try to ***** her over. He's slinging mud. What's the difference?
      • jfoxbox, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1That IS the state of politics. It has been that way for a long time. Read history. Most politicians say whatever to get elected. A few believe what they say, but you never hear from them. Remember, the winner is the one who from your point of view is the lessor of two (or in this case three) evils.
      • darkciti2, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Name ONE thing Obama has attacked ANYONE about... He's 100% positive and that's what the MSM and the pundits hate.
        His nose is clean and it's killing them to have nothing to warchant about.
        It's about time we had someone like him run for office. After the past 8 disastrous years, we certainly need it.
  • carlos259, on 05/05/2008, -5/+6To which i say....

    Obama '08
  • Stevanoski, on 05/05/2008, -12/+2Good for her, at least someone on the Left has some common sense and wants to protect America, not just win the Presidency.
  • poopdigger, on 05/05/2008, -4/+6This is not a story. Five years ago she voted in favor of the war. This interview was three years ago. Of course she's since changed her mind about Iraq, along with a lot of other Americans. Naturally, Obama supporters think this is an epic case of bad judgement, but it's not going to change anybody's mind because everybody who supports Clinton either doesn't care or has already accepted that she was fooled by Bush and the CIA's made-up intel. Seriously, diggers need to stop trying to out-blasé each other on how much they know Clinton is a dirty politician. It's not going to change anything, and Obama is still going to win.
    • Shuukyoku, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2You know, I do think it is a story. Not in the "look look she changed her mind, how awful" way, as is so often the mainstay argument in these campaigns. My issue here is that she is running on a message of "look at all this experience I have, look how good I am at this". Which is true, Hillary has been a player for a long time and has a great deal of political experience. But despite this experience, she keeps making the wrong choices. See here: Iraq, NAFTA, claiming to be shot at, the gas tax holiday, and her previous positions on censorship in schools. I'll grant, Obama isn't perfect. But he's genuine (at least, I think so, feel free to believe whatever you want). I mean, we've set up a system of political selection that won't let viable candidates get out clean. Americans WANT to see their candidates beat each other bloody, break each other down, and hurl insults back and forth because this is what passes for a debate these days. Its not what you say, but who drops the soundbite. If you're quote shows up on the headline, you win. Whether or not you're right. While I like Ron Paul personally, and love his foreign policy, he's just not ready to lead in the modern world. Obama's most powerful quality is his eye to the future. He keeps his finger on the pulse of progress and development, and I think he's honestly aware that we need to spend more time on rebuilding our nation. He just came into the theater right after the fratboy administration had their way with the nation, so whoever gets in is going to spend their first two to four years at least in cleaning up the mess.
  • BuzzFriendly, on 05/05/2008, -3/+5Why does this surprise anyone? Why is this news? Obama, McCain, Clinton. The only thing different about these spoon fed choices is color, gender and age, other than that just expect more of the same. One will add a program to appeal to its base while eliminating another but in the end Mr. Taxpayer will still be on the losing end. If you really really want change to begin you do have options if you seek them out, but one thing is certain these three people are not good for anyone, unless that is your happy with things and you want more of the same.
    • darkciti2, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Only one of them voted AGAINST the WAR IN IRAQ. I'll leave it as an exercise to the readers to figure out which one is most like Bush and which one SHOULD NOT BE ELECTED. Hint: He's the elderly "War Hero" guy.
      • BuzzFriendly, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Obama is the only one of those three that voted against the war, but he is not the only candidate that voted against the war. The war is certainly an huge issue but I am not a one issue person. Obama illegal alien "idea" is more in line with Bush so while Obama was on target voting against the war he is more in line with Bush on immigration. So like I said more of the same. It just a shell game with these candidates no real differences no real ideas.
  • caleb4mj, on 05/05/2008, -3/+3I disagree, the wars should be based on financial objectives.
  • mrgreg, on 05/05/2008, -6/+5As if Obama's Iraq policies are much better:

    "While his shift is not as stark, Sen. Barack Obama has also moved towards a more aggressive anti-Iraq war position since announcing his intention to run for the Oval Office. Shortly after entering Congress, for instance, he said he "believed that U.S. forces are still a part of the solution in Iraq." He told the Chicago Tribune in July of 2004, that "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." His voting record since becoming a senator, moreover, has been almost identical to Clinton's.

    In fact, observers note, the transformation of both Clinton and -- to a lesser extent -- Obama's war criticism is not simply a product of their White House bids, but also a political and public opinion shift that took place over the past few years. "

    Ron Paul is still the only true candidate who is absolutely anti-war and interventionism.
  • URnotheonly1, on 05/05/2008, -5/+2So, I support it too. Still ignoring Kosovo, Bosnia, Germany, Hati, Japan, Korea
  • DEIx15x8, on 05/05/2008, -5/+5Still more Huff spam. How many crappy stories can that site make in a day? Even more importantly how can you people fall for every single one? At least this story says something positive about Clinton even if it doesn't realize it. I don't want a president that is clueless about how a war works while we're in the middle of one. When a war is over we remain for years, 50+, and that is a fact. You can't just say that we're leaving one day, that just screws everyone involved.
    • GrodyChamp, on 05/05/2008, -3/+3Sad thing is you'll get buried for not sucking Obama's *****.
    • darkciti2, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Do you know what Spam is? Have you read the RFC?

      Just because a majority of people trend toward an opinion jointly, doesn't mean it's spam. It's called a trend in small waves, and a movement in large ones.

      Just because you don't agree with something doesn't make it "spam".
      (Difference in opinion || majority favor) != SPAM
  • EugineMW, on 05/05/2008, -1/+2Video?
  • zenithmbr, on 05/05/2008, -8/+1there's a simpler reason not to vote for hillary.
    she has hairy ***** and a wrinkly, wrinkly vagina.
  • GrodyChamp, on 05/05/2008, -5/+2Is there a contest to see how many huffingtonpost stories you assholes can get on the front page at once?
    • darkciti2, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1You don't have to be here, du mass.
  • AWBoy666, on 05/05/2008, -4/+4We should just direct digg.com to huffingtonpost and save people the trouble.
  • Spoomeister, on 05/05/2008, -3/+2What are the odds at Bodog.com on Hillary being McCain's veep if she doesn't get the Dem nomination? I can't see that site from work...
  • kihadat, on 05/05/2008, -3/+0so, hf and digg, when's the wedding?
  • samy26, on 05/06/2008, -4/+1She needs to get ***** up the ass to understand.
  • sbritner, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1Anyone who wants an immediate pullout of troops is going to put America at risk.
    McCain (and Clinton) are talking about having troops in Iraq the same way we have troops in Japan or Germany. Both of those are War countries where we still have bases. In fact these are some of the most requested tour of duty spots in the world.
    Come on... I thought Obama supporters were suppose to be 'educated'.

    • jfoxbox, on 05/06/2008, -2/+0You are right, of course. War is not nice. America don't like war. We don't want anyone killed. But we were attacked. A study of war is a study of mistakes. That is history. We try to go slow, for some too slow, for others you can never go slow enough (think Chamberlain). Pray for our soldiers.
      • darkciti2, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Praying to a false God like Jesus is what got us into this mess.
        • jfoxbox, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0I am sorry you believe that that has got us into this mess.
    • darkciti2, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1The Bush/McCain administration that lied to us so they could invade Iraq put America at risk.
      Hitting a beehive with a baseball bat because we were pissed a one bee was a VERY BAD IDEA. We'll be paying for George Bush's mistakes for decades to come.
      • jfoxbox, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0If you repeat a lie long enough, do you imagion that people will beleave you more. Bush lied is a lie. But you have shut your mind. Step back and look at the facts. Almost every intellegence agency in the world thought he had those weapons. Our own intelligence had been crippled but the huge cut backs in funding and power. We though (under Clinton) that electronic spying would do the job better and cheaper. So we didn't have feet on the ground. There were countries which did say that iraq didn't have those weapons. Germany, Russia, and France who both had huge economic reason and contracts to protect.
        But I expect you to reject that idea simply because t you want to reject it.
        Sorry, you can be delustional, it is a free country.
  • omegaredIX, on 05/06/2008, -2/+4Meanwhile Mr. Obama has the EXACT same foreign policy as McCain and Clinton.
    http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401 ...
    Do you guys understand that just because a politician says, no permanent bases, does not mean that we wont be there for a VERY long time.
  • moomeep, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3h.r.c. = vile and disgusting.
  • g00dETH3R, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Sorry guys, i'm confused has she still got a chance of winning? There's so much contradicting news on this topic i just don't know who to believe.
    • darkciti2, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2It is technically IMPOSSIBLE for Hillary to win the nomination because there are not enough remaining delegates. It's like playing Chess or Connect-Four and knowing that you've lost. You still play so your opponent can have his victory.

      Getting up from a Chessboard before your opponent has won fairly is more along the lines of how Republicans play games. If they lose, they change the rules (look at the Florida election in 2000). Catherine Harris was George W. Bush/McCain's campaign adviser, and she happened to "decide" that the vote count be stopped in 2000.

      That, or they just get up from the table and deny their opponent their due propers, which is just plain rude. It results in more insecure Republicans and more Republican lying, cheating, and stealing. Either way, it's very unhealthy for her to act like a Republican crybaby.
  • mlirblur, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4Cmon people, how long will it take you to realize that moderate democrats and republicans like Hill and McCain and sometimes even Obama are EXACTLY THE SAME?!??!?! Vote third party and represent what you truly believe, not what you're told to believe!
  • LeeSoong, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4100 more Years of Mission Accomplished !
  • RSTaichi, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2hate to tell all of you this, but any candidate that tells you we're going to be out of iraq in less than 20 years is lying to you. the time to avoid a long-term presence in iraq was beforehand.
  • Halbermunken, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3Do not be surprised. The plan has all along been for a more permament presence in the middle-east. This agenda, by "think thank" PNAC was formed before 9/11. It is available for all to read, called "Rebuilding Americans defences". And it is really not as much about defence as it is imperialism.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 63 of 63 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.