Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Hillary Clinton wants Congress to to repeal the the authority it gave Bush. For which she voted. For a war that has already happened. In related news, Hillary Clinton apparently has a time machine   (nytimes.com) divider line
164
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

275 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 May 2007 at 3:00 PM (15 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



164 Comments     (+0 »)


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
bulldg4life
2007-05-04 1:29:29 PM  
Is freaking Lou Gehrig typing Fark headlines now?

The dumbest dumbest submitter-mitter on the face of the planet planet.
 
albo
2007-05-04 1:31:38 PM  
she wants her war virginity restored.

there is nothing this woman would do to become president. i think she feels she deserves it, and if she loses she'll hulk out and destroy DC.
 
albo
2007-05-04 1:32:18 PM  
correction: "wouldn't do"

/fudge me running
 
zn0k
2007-05-04 1:32:33 PM  
if she loses she'll hulk out and destroy DC.

i don't think green is really her color.
 
newmoonpuppyhead
2007-05-04 1:34:54 PM  
Awesome. Smart move. Better late than never.
 
Mordant
2007-05-04 1:35:00 PM  
So why did the "conservatives" who love their war so much still hate Hillary when she was apparently in complete agreement with them at some point ?

Even if she eventually flip flopped they never stopped hating her for even a second. And now they curse her for having been on their side.

Strange.
 
Eddie Adams from Torrance
2007-05-04 1:37:55 PM  
Her vote for giving Bush the authority to go to war was a "Mistake". (Albeit one based on given bogus information from the administration)

Saying you'd like to correct that mistake is tantamount to admitting that you made a mistake in the first place. I realize that this is an unknown idea in current Republican circles, but responsible adults actually do this all of the time.
 
Diogenes [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2007-05-04 1:38:44 PM  
Hillary aside, I fully support this. As long as BushCo. keeps shifting our goals, it is the only way to get closure on this dark episode of our history. The initial goals, under which the authority was originally granted, have been achieved. What we are now dealing with is an entirely different situation, where we have to consider (like it or not) the consequences of withdrawal or reallocation. The Constitutional checks and balances need to be reapplied, and new authority should be sought for new action/goals. Lest we continue this open-ended attempt to insert democracy into cultures that seem to revile the very idea.
 
Sleeping Monkey
2007-05-04 1:38:57 PM  
Sorry Hillary , you voted for it , now you have to take responsibility for it.

/just like the rest of America
 
2wolves [TotalFark]
2007-05-04 1:39:21 PM  
"current Republican circles, but responsible adults"

See, there's your problem.
 
newmoonpuppyhead
2007-05-04 1:39:24 PM  
Mordant

It's Hillary. There's no logic and reasoning involved with these people. Of course, there never was. Because of one of the companies I owned, I used to be on right wing mailing lists in the 90's and would receive a new piece of "Hillary is the Anti-Christ" mail every day.
 
Mordant
2007-05-04 1:40:51 PM  
Sleeping Monkey: Sorry Hillary , you voted for it , now you have to take responsibility for it.

/just like the rest of America

does that mean she gets some of the credit if we win ?

Heh, obviously just kidding.
 
kingMountain
2007-05-04 1:41:18 PM  
the only reason she has that time machine is because she's courting the morlock vote.
 
Dancin_In_Anson
2007-05-04 1:48:18 PM  
i97.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2007-05-04 1:49:10 PM  
Eddie Adams from Torrance: Her vote for giving Bush the authority to go to war was a "Mistake". (Albeit one based on given bogus information from the administration)

Saying you'd like to correct that mistake is tantamount to admitting that you made a mistake in the first place.

In related news, I don't like the new toothpaste I just bought. In fact, I feel confident in saying that choosing this brand was a mistake.

I will therefore put it all back in the tube and return it to the store.
 
Sleeping Monkey
2007-05-04 1:49:35 PM  
Mordant
does that mean she gets some of the credit if we win ?

That credit would go to whomever restores the draft, puts 400,000 troops there for 10 years, raises taxes to pay for it and demonstrates that the commitment of a generation will be needed to fix the massive problem that this incompetent administration has caused.

And as much as I loath Bush, if he had told the American people this when he chose to go to war instead of selling it to us as a 3 week war for a $1.49, then it probably could have been his credit.

Now, however, the credit will go to whomever fixes it.
 
itazurakko
2007-05-04 1:51:07 PM  
Heaven forbid someone actually turn the car around when they realize they've driven into a box canyon, y'know? How stupid would that be?
 
Dancin_In_Anson
2007-05-04 1:51:40 PM  
Mordant: does that mean she gets some of the credit if we win ?

Absofarkinglutely.
 
orrinbloquy
2007-05-04 1:54:16 PM  
if we win ?

Win what? "Terror" is a concept. Does it have officials who can sign a truce or a declaration of defeat?
 
albo
2007-05-04 1:56:43 PM  
those of you who think this isn't a calculated political sop to the progressive left and believe passing this would get the troops out of Iraq are, well, high. the troops are going to be there for a while, even if a D's elected in 2008.
 
bulldg4life
2007-05-04 1:57:04 PM  
I was under the distinct impression that this was not a war we were fighting to win.

Granted, I have no idea where I got that from...
 
Eddie Adams from Torrance
2007-05-04 1:58:19 PM  
MyNameIsNotMervGriffin: I don't like the new toothpaste I just bought. In fact, I feel confident in saying that choosing this brand was a mistake.

That would be OK if like in the case of this war the packaging said "Mint Flavored" but it was really "Shiat Flavored"
 
bulldg4life
2007-05-04 1:59:06 PM  
those of you who think this isn't a calculated political sop to the progressive left and believe passing this would get the troops out of Iraq are, well, high. the troops are going to be there for a while, even if a D's elected in 2008.

FULLSPEED AHEAD AND DAMN THE TORPEDOES!

I mean, it's pointless, so who cares if the current administration runs the war in to the ground unrestricted. It's all a political ploy anyway...those silly democrats.
 
flaEsq
2007-05-04 2:02:01 PM  
About time, Hillary, and congress. The AUMF's been used for everything from domestic warrantless wiretaps to shiatting on habeas. War powers aren't a presidential matter. The chimperor can suck it, this'll come down to more obstructionism from the 50 knuckleheads in the Senate.
 
Mordant
2007-05-04 2:03:34 PM  
orrinbloquy: Win what? "Terror" is a concept. Does it have officials who can sign a truce or a declaration of defeat?

I'm guessing that if we're driving Iraqi luxury sedans and using their high end electronics 40 years from now the war will be considered another win.

Although, even if I thought I'd still be alive then I doubt I would be betting all my chips on it.


In reality, the "conservatives" will have a win under the more likely outcome. Start transferring the blame now so that people forget who actually started it all, and then when the next Dem takes office blame him/her for ruining the victory that was "just around the corner".

20 years from now the most venomous Fox News talking point on our holographic TVs will be how the "Libs" took us to war and then lost it for us... those bastards.
 
Shut........UP
2007-05-04 2:03:47 PM  
Meaningless gestures from congress seem to be all the rage.
 
ArcadianRefugee
2007-05-04 2:04:53 PM  
Sleeping Monkey: Sorry Hillary , you voted for it , now you have to take responsibility for it.

I thought that was what she was doing by asking it to be rescinded? Or is allow a mistake to continue "taking responsibility"?

submitter: For a war that has already happened.

Good, that means they can all come home. Right?
 
bulldg4life
2007-05-04 2:06:24 PM  
20 years from now the most venomous Fox News talking point on our holographic TVs will be how the "Libs" took us to war and then lost it for us... those bastards.

I think it'll be the failed country to be, Iraq. How it is still a shiathole with no hope of getting better. Those stupid democrats cut and run to leave a country to suffer.

Those bastards.
 
BooBoo23
2007-05-04 2:09:04 PM  
Mordant: "conservatives" will have a win under the more likely outcome. Start transferring the blame now so that people forget who actually started it all, and then when the next Dem takes office blame him/her for ruining the victory that was "just around the corner".

Stabbed in the back! (p)
 
Turing_Machine [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2007-05-04 2:09:51 PM  
Christ, that's a stupid headline.
 
albo
2007-05-04 2:10:39 PM  
Good, that means they can all come home. Right?

we're still in germany and japan 60 years later, to deter their remilitarization, protect them as new allies, and for our own strategic military deployment purposes in those regions. what makes anyone think we're not going to do the same in Iraq? islamist terror is going to be the major defense issue of the 21st century (assuming russia doesn't backslide to fascism and china behaves).
 
Dancin_In_Anson
2007-05-04 2:19:02 PM  
albo: we're still in germany and japan 60 years later, to deter their remilitarization, protect them as new allies, and for our own strategic military deployment purposes in those regions. what makes anyone think we're not going to do the same in Iraq? islamist terror is going to be the major defense issue of the 21st century


GAH! Forward thinking based on previous events! That is not allowed here!
 
thamike
2007-05-04 2:21:07 PM  
I'm gonna go get the papers get the papers.
 
itazurakko
2007-05-04 2:22:54 PM  
Germany has an army.

Japan is planning to get an army by 2011.

The US is in Japan because it is strategic for them to be there. The US is happy about rearming Japan, as long a Japan will only fight as a little brother in the US wars.

But you're absolutely right that the plan in Iraq is for the US to get more bases there. They need bases in Iraq because they left Saudi Arabia. Whatever happens to the Iraqi people, who cares really, as long as there can be the secure base (or "embassy", if you insist).
 
flaEsq
2007-05-04 2:25:55 PM  
They need bases in Iraq because they leftfled Saudi Arabia after Bush surrendered to bin laden.

FTFY
 
Mordant
2007-05-04 2:26:22 PM  
albo: we're still in germany and japan 60 years later, to deter their remilitarization, protect them as new allies, and for our own strategic military deployment purposes in those regions. what makes anyone think we're not going to do the same in Iraq? islamist terror is going to be the major defense issue of the 21st century (assuming russia doesn't backslide to fascism and china behaves).

I have to say, if TF had an award for post of the week/month/year... I would travel any distance to watch you accept the trophy for that one.

I'd also pay for a first class ticket (round trip) for DIA for the assist.
 
newmoonpuppyhead
2007-05-04 2:29:35 PM  
albo

Where you're thinking goes wrong is to think that terror is a 'defense' or military issue only. Not so. There are many underlying causes for its existence, age old causes, and guns and bombs have proven to be incredibly shortsighted ways to deal with it. It's ironic that you bring up history when it has shown us time and time again the real problems and solutions.
 
dogdaze
2007-05-04 2:35:08 PM  
It sure is hard to put the toothpaste back in the tube, isn't it?
 
albo
2007-05-04 2:35:18 PM  
There are many underlying causes for its existence, age old causes, and guns and bombs have proven to be incredibly shortsighted ways to deal with it

how, then, does the west stop islamic fundamentalist terror against it? the problem is the autocracies in the muslim world where this hatred is bred and sanctioned by the government. how do we do anything about that short of another iraq-style invasion?
 
newmoonpuppyhead
2007-05-04 2:39:21 PM  
albo

Let me ask you this. Who's more of a threat to us? Iran? Or Saudia Arabia?
 
Lionel Mandrake
2007-05-04 2:39:37 PM  
Or you could look at it this way, subby: [DUMBASS] George W. Bush is so horribly inept that even Senators who authorized his war are looking for a way to stop his seemingly endless string of farkups.

Yeah, that seems a little closer to reality to me.
 
albo
2007-05-04 2:41:57 PM  
Let me ask you this. Who's more of a threat to us? Iran? Or Saudia Arabia?

the one developing nuclear technology--Iran and that hates us and the west with a passion.
 
newmoonpuppyhead
2007-05-04 2:44:06 PM  
albo

No, it's Saudia Arabia - the one funding islamic terrorism.
 
albo
2007-05-04 2:47:21 PM  
No, it's Saudia Arabia - the one funding islamic terrorism.

just about all the muslim countries of the middle east contribute to terrorists--and iran is just about the worst, with their puppet Hezbollah the most prominent and nastyexample. but at least we have some measure of control over, and input into, the saudis, who are strategic allies. not the most optimum allies, of course
 
itazurakko
2007-05-04 2:47:27 PM  
Heaven forbid anyone disagree with the Washington Consensus.
 
Lionel Mandrake
2007-05-04 2:47:50 PM  
Iran and that hates us and the west with a passion.

You're confusing the government of Iran and the people of Iran, much as people confuse what Americans believe and what the Idiot-in-Chief does.
 
albo
2007-05-04 2:52:08 PM  
You're confusing the government of Iran and the people of Iran, much as people confuse what Americans believe and what the Idiot-in-Chief does.

yeah, i was talking governments. lots of saudis no doubt hate us with a passion, and iran does have tons of younger folks who don't hate us and are sick of their uptight theocracy.
 
Mordant
2007-05-04 2:52:42 PM  
Oops, we're off Iraq and on to Iran now.

Which one is Germany and which one is Japan in our cherry picked example of how American history will certainly repeat itself ?
 
TheConvincingSavant
2007-05-04 3:00:57 PM  
albo

we're still in germany and japan 60 years later, to deter their remilitarization, protect them as new allies, and for our own strategic military deployment purposes in those regions. what makes anyone think we're not going to do the same in Iraq? islamist terror is going to be the major defense issue of the 21st century (assuming russia doesn't backslide to fascism and china behaves).

Damn, glad some here see the big picture.
 
BooBoo23
2007-05-04 3:01:18 PM  
albo: how, then, does the west stop islamic fundamentalist terror against it?

Saturate the middle east with booze, pr0n, and reality TV. It may take a few years to work, but the success rate is very high. :)
 
Displayed 50 of 164 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all



Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

If you like these links, you'll love

TotalFark

$10 a month since 19 aught diddly.

learn more | sign up
On Twitter

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.