Hillary to Iraq: “Screw You!” Obama Supports Preemptive Strikes?
January 21st, 2008 at 08:14pm Matt Margolis
Those may not have been her exact words, but that’s pretty much what she said just a few minutes ago during the Democrats’ debate.
UPDATE, 9:59 PM: Barack Obama just said he would not hesitate to strike against anyone who would do us harm… Sounds like he supports preemptive strikes.
In the end, I have to say, this was a very nasty debate… Aside from the Democrats’ lack of common sense, it was clear that they were not holding back punches tonight. Edwards wasn’t kissing up to Obama tonight. And the attacks from all three were just brutal. I’ve never seen the Republicans get that nasty. Hillary even played the Rezko card on Obama.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats
38 Comments
1. neocon | January 21st, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Embarrassing.
2. AAR | January 21st, 2008 at 9:36 pm
So that’s what tactless Democrats mean when they say they’ll change America’s image abroad!!!
AAR
3. Casper | January 21st, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Clinton’s actual comment was;
“I’m looking to bring our troops home, starting within 60 days of my becoming president,” she said. “There is no military solution, and our young men and women should not remain as the referees of their conflict.”
4. Jeremiah | January 21st, 2008 at 9:53 pm
“I’m looking to bring our troops home, starting within 60 days of my becoming president,” she said. “There is no military solution, and our young men and women should not remain as the referees of their conflict.”–Casper.
Proof positive, that she is dangerous.
Pray America!! Pray!!
~ Jeremiah
5. neocon | January 21st, 2008 at 9:55 pm
How does Hillary propose to rebuild our image and/or build new allies if she is opposed to refereeing?
And in fact, she stated previously in an earlier debate that she could not committ to 100% withdrawal of troops by the year 2013, the last year of the next presidency.
Among all of the leading Democratic candidates for president, none was willing to commit to a promise in a campaign debate that all of the U.S. combat forces deployed in Iraq will be gone by 2013, the end of the next president’s term in office.
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/09/democrats_allow_unable_to_prom.html
6. Casper | January 21st, 2008 at 10:16 pm
You will find the transcript for the entire debate here:
http://www.cnn.com/
7. Casper | January 21st, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Jeremiah,
Explain to me what she said that was so dangerous. You also might want to read the quote. It’s about two thirds of the way through part 2 of the transcript.
8. Jonathan | January 21st, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Proof positive, that she is dangerous.
Pray America!! Pray!!
Proof positive, you hear only what you want to hear.
9. Jeremiah | January 21st, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Jonathan,
Hillary needs help! And so does Casper, and so do you, and so does anyone who would defend or support her insane actions.
~ Jeremiah
10. Kahn | January 21st, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Casper, I may not always agree with Jeremiah, but he posted EXACTLY the same quote you did. He interpreted as a commitment to abandon or allies (Just like we did in Viet Nam and the Bay of Pigs) and damn the consequences.
Isn’t THAT a correct reading of the position? We’re talking about 14 months from now. The situation is improving. Wouldn’t a reasonable and prudent position be to evaluate the situation on the ground - in a year? And with a stated and committed action and no room for evaluation - isn’t it “damn the consequences” as I’ve stated?
I mean hay, she can have any position she wants. Lets just understand what it is. Clearly a certain number of people WANT a damn-the-consequences withdrawal, right?
Oh - Jonathan - did I “not hear correctly”? You know, it IS possible to listen to a statement and draw a different conclusion than someone else. Does require that thought be applied, and not just the repeating of the chant-of-the0day.
11. Jonathan | January 21st, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Hillary needs help! And so does Casper, and so do you,
This coming from a paranoid, Bible-thumping loon who thinks that gays are an abomination and liberals are a tool used to carry out Satan’s work???
It’s like a fat man criticizing you for going on a diet.
12. liberalT | January 21st, 2008 at 11:50 pm
ah you can always count on the wingnuts here to bring out the craziness. Hillary has the “insane” plan of brining our troops out of a war that both the Iraqi people and the American people want us out of. Hillary also supports health care for all Americans - another insane plane. Yet Jerry can’t go five seconds with out quoting the bible and screaming profanities at ethnic minorities. Good to know who the crazies are…
13. Kahn | January 22nd, 2008 at 12:10 am
Well, I know what you CAN eat Jonathan. I mean, since you have nothing to add but derision and insult - no real contribution to make.
And libT - everyone want the war over. WE want it over in a way that leaves the area stable and safe. You apparently just want it over and don’t care about the consequences. That was the subject of this blog entry, by the way.
We do not want socialism. We are nor evil for not wanting socialism. If you insist on putting it in “moral” terms, we believe in individual responsibility and see this as an effort to steal our money to give it to someone else. 80% of the Federal budget (oh feel free to correct me liberal nitpickers) takes the form of wealth and income redistribution at this time. Collectively, these are called “entitlements”.
The top 5% of income earners pay 80% of the taxes. That means that we (yes, I barely make it) 5% pay for ALL the health insurance, ALL the welfare, ALL the veterans benefits, ALL the farm subsidies, ALL the education grants, ALL foreign aide, ALL the social security and other retirement benefits, and on and on. Get it?
You are thieves. I had a janitor father who stopped school at 8th grade. I went in the Marines and learned computers. I went to college while working full time. I learned and became expert at several technologies. I learned to write and draw and do illustrations. I learned how to explain things to customers to get them to buy things. And I have a house, kids in college, cars, a mortgage and all the rest. And I’m sick and tired of liberal Democrat assholes trying to take my money and give it away.
You want to pay more in taxes? Do it.
14. Mark Noonan | January 22nd, 2008 at 12:39 am
liberalT,
You’ll have to find a quote from Jeremiah where he screamed profanities at ethnic minorities - if you can’t find such a quote, then I’ll expect you to apologise to Jeremiah.
15. Diana Powe | January 22nd, 2008 at 12:40 am
Kahn,
No, you are NOT paying “ALL the health insurance” or “ALL the social security”. Medicare and Social Security taxes are paid at the same rate by every covered non-exempt employee who receives a paycheck, even if they make the current minimum of $5.85/hour ($0.08/hour + $0.36/hour). Those two programs are not only examples of a flat tax but, for Social Security, you stop paying that tax if your income exceeds that year’s designated cut-off amount. Those two programs alone, funded equally by all workers who don’t make too much money, comprise over 50% of the federal budget. Throw in the budget of the Department of Defense and interest payments on the national debt (the principal is too large to pay off on under current conditions) and you’ve accounted for roughly two-thirds of the entire federal budget with about half of that being taxed at a flat rate.
16. Mark Noonan | January 22nd, 2008 at 12:41 am
Casper,
In her desperation to appeal to the leftwing base which is going more and more to Obama, Hillary is placing herself in a position grossly irresponsible for a President of the United States of America - it would be one thing for her to say that her first task would be a complete review of America’s overseas commitments, quite another to state that she’s going to start getting us out by March of 2009 regardless of the circumstances…
Of course, she’s also relentlessly dishonest, so there is the prospect that she’s just bald-faced lying to the left…
17. Kahn | January 22nd, 2008 at 1:00 am
Oh for cying out loud Diana, I know that. But we pay all the entitlements. And in a 1 Trillion dollar budget that is 800 billion freakin dollars. 800 billion. I knew that you would nitpick something from my post rather than address the real issue. That the VAST bulk of the Federal budget is simple income redistribution called “entitlements” and that it is my money being given to someone else.
But the RATE that people pay social security is kind of a dodge, isn’t it? I mean, people making under a certain amount never max out - do they? I max out every year. I pay the full allowable amount into social security EVERY year. Think I’ll get it back? WE are paying for people who paid a fraction of their current retirement into the plan decades ago.
And LibT want more. More more more more. Liberals basically want to control other peoples money. Isn’t that it in a nutshell?
But how much extra did YOU pay in taxes last year Diana? How much extra you think LibT paid? How much extra you think the Clinton’s (top 1%) paid? Or the Kerry’s (top 1/10th of 1%) paid?
You want to pay more? Sooooo - pay more. You didn’t, and you won’t will you? So, get off my back. Literally, you thievin’ socialist control freaks - get off my back.
Thanks for the meaningless nitpicking though. THAT really convinced me. Duche.
18. Diana Powe | January 22nd, 2008 at 1:30 am
Kahn,
If you didn’t mean “ALL the health insurance” or “ALL the social security” then why did you write that, especially considering the fact that you’re the one who capitalized the word “all”. For 2008, the budget proposes outlays of $2,902 billion with $717 billion for defense (which I assume you’re okay with), $608 billion for Social Security, $386 billion for Medicare, $358 billion for Non-Military/National Security Discretionary spending (another category I assume you’re in favor of) and $261 billion on interest on the national debt. That adds up to $2,330 billion or 80.3% of the budget with the remaining portion, 19.7%, being $572 billion, not $800 billion.
You complain that you “max out” on your payments to Social Security. What that does is reduce the effective rate that you pay into Social Security once the dollars paid are spread over your entire income. You get a better tax rate for Social Security than the minimum-wage earner. As to the bugbear that Social Security is going to vanish, if that happened, that would be the least of your worries. Social Security borrows money in the form of Treasury notes which are the “pieces of paper in a filing cabinet” that the President Bush famously disparaged in seeming violation of the 14th Amenment:
For Social Security to disappear, the United States would have to repudiate its own debt issuance (much of which is currently nervously held by China) which would mean that our status as a financial power in the world would quickly descend to Third World status.
19. keefer | January 22nd, 2008 at 4:55 am
Hillary also supports health care for all Americans - another insane plane.
Insane plane? WTF?
Yes, it’s insane, to those of us who would have to pay for it. You, living in mommy’s basement, wouldn’t have to worry…
20. TiredofLibBullShit | January 22nd, 2008 at 8:33 am
Despite what these leftists may want you to believe … and what most voters will believe to be true … a recent report shows that the tax burden on the wealthy has increased more than their incomes. The National Center for Policy Analysis says that Bush tax cuts actually made the tax code more progressive. It concludes that every major tax change over the past two decades has increased the share of taxes paid by the wealthiest Americans (AKA the evil rich).
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=prnw.20080121.DC12012&show_article=1&catnum=3
Michael D. Stroup, a Stephen F. Austin University economist who authored the NCPA report says, “It is politically popular to say that tax cuts benefit the wealthy … The accusation does not match the reality.”
If you have read in other posts before, you would have seen similar statitistics. But how about a little refresher, just for the sake of angering the liberal left.
The top 1 percent of income earners pay more than one in every three dollars the IRS collects in taxes. From 1986 to 2004, the total share of the income tax burden paid by the top 1 percent of earners grew from 25.8 percent to 36.9 percent, while the total share of the tax burden paid by the bottom half of earners fell from 6.5 percent to only 3.3 percent.
During the same period, the percentage of income the top 1 percent of tax filers paid in federal income taxes rose from 18.3 percent to 19.6 percent. By contrast, the percentage of income the bottom fifth of tax filers paid in federal income taxes dropped from 0.4 percent to zero.
The income share of the top 1 percent rose 7.7 percentage points, from 11.3 percent to 19 percent, while their income tax burden rose even more, by 11 percentage points, from 26 percent to 37 percent.
If you bring the figures forward from 2004 you’ll find that the total income share of the top 1% has fallen somewhat, while the percentage of taxes they pay has risen.
The liberal left know the truth here. They also know two other things: (1) About 99% of Americans have no awareness at all of these figures; and (2) The leftist media isn’t about to rat her out on this. So they will continue to lie, and it will continue to work.
Well, yesterday Hillary Clinton is saying that when she is president, the federal government will take a more active role in the economy. She wants government to get involved because she believes this is the only way to curb the “excesses of the market.”
Excesses, huh? What excesses would she be talking about. No problem .. she’s all to willing to share that with us. Excess number one would be executive-pay packages. She says that these executive pay packages are offensive and wrong.
Wrong? What’s the criteria that this woman-who-wants-to-be-president uses to say that these executive pay packages are wrong? In the case of privately owned businesses the executive pay packages are determined by the owners of the business. In the case of a corporation the board of directors, elected by the shareholders, makes that determination. Then here comes Hillary to say that these pay packages are wrong? Would someone please tell me what role our government should have in determining just how much a private business should be able to pay its executives? Here’s a little wager for you. If Hillary (God help us) manages to convince enough single women in this country to vote for her that she actually becomes president; and if she then starts working on some sort of government intervention scheme to make sure executives don’t make what she determines to be a “wrong” salary, she will totally ignore the sums raked in by Hollywood stars, liberal supporters like George Soros and pro athletes.
Uh, how about curbing the “excesses of a government with excessive entitlements” or “a party that has an excessive socialist agenda”?
Now USEFULL IDIOTS, let the talking points spew forth.
21. Kahn | January 22nd, 2008 at 8:33 am
All the social security and health insurance that is funded by Federal and Virginia taxes then. Jeeezzz. You can’t see the forest for the trees can you?
22. Sunny | January 22nd, 2008 at 10:04 am
I’ve never seen the Republicans get that nasty.
Matt
You have got to be kidding. How soon you forget the Bush campaign tactics in SC against John McCain in 2000. Now, that was NASTY!
23. TiredofLibBullSh** | January 22nd, 2008 at 11:31 am
Kahn,
That is all Diana can do is cherry-pick, dodge and deflect. Pretty much what the Clintons are doing now with Obama.
I mean look at her figures. You claimed that 800 billion was for entitlements - she says: “…19.7%, being $572 billion, not $800 billion.”
In the same paragraph, she says: “…$608 billion for Social Security, $386 billion for Medicare….”. That’s 985 billion, last I checked that is greater then $800 billion you said and more that what she said later in the paragraph “being $572 billion, not $800 billion” that you said were roughly for entitlements.
Now either she just screwed up with the facts, or she refuses to see the truth vs. what her party is telling her and has trouble accepting it.
Obviously, she need the facts to fit the “facts” she gets from ? and has to cherry-pick in order to accomplish that no matter what.
Don’t bother deflecting Diana, I am not playing along.
24. Diana Powe | January 22nd, 2008 at 11:53 am
TiredofLibBullShit,
If Kahn and you want to deem Social Security and Medicare as entitlements that are stealing the bread from your hungry mouths, then, absolutely, go tell your over-65 family members, friends and coworkers that you’re sick and tired of them living high off your hard-earned dollars and that the Republican Party is sick and tired of their being parasites on your income. Do, please. Good luck with that.
However, if Kahn’s non-delusional point was to talk about the portion of the budget which wasn’t promised to all those Social Security and Medicare recipients for decades by all the Congresses and all the Presidents, then my point still stands. However, as I said, feel free to agitate to do away with Social Security and Medicare because of how unfair it is to you. I’m sure the Republican National Committee will be ready to jump on board.
The source of the numbers I used came from here:
http://www.thebudgetgraph.com/site/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=1&zenid=b1948922c7b34817ecfebcbda7051e57
25. Ricorun | January 22nd, 2008 at 12:10 pm
ToLBS, wasn’t it you who pointed out in an earlier post that one should consider ALL taxes a person pays, not just federal taxes? If you just count federal taxes, isn’t that a form of cherry-picking?
26. Joe | January 22nd, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Funny how the title of this post is Hillary to Iraq: “Screw You!”
The first line Matt says is Those may not have been her exact words, but that’s pretty much what she said just a few minutes ago during the Democrats’ debate
So I have a subheading for this thread:
Kahn to the middle class and low income: Screw You!
You may not have said that in so many words, but it was OBVIOUS that is what you meant. Great, congrats, you are in the top 5% and you hate all middle class, all low income, all people that haven’t made their millions. Not to mention Soros and everyone in Hollywood and Sports.
Good for you. You made your millions and you are paying Social Security on just 104k of that. Meanwhile…. I pay $104k of my $110k salary. So percentage-wise I pay as much Social Security Taxes as you! I would have no problem if they upped that $104k to $304k. I wouldn’t complain if that is what it would take to keep this solvent. Obviously you would blow a gasket if that ever happened!!
By the way, how the hell did you make millions being a cartoonist? I learned to write and draw and do illustrations.
27. Joe | January 22nd, 2008 at 2:21 pm
TiredofLib:
…she will totally ignore the sums raked in by Hollywood stars, liberal supporters like George Soros and pro athletes.
You really seem to hate the Hollywood types. Did you see this?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/8013.html
So hey, at least McCain got money from Rip Torn and Dick Van Patten!!!! Can’t get any better than that! LOL
28. sleepygene | January 22nd, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Rip Torn is the best!!!!!! I loved him on “The Larry Sanders Show.”
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/mugshots/riptornmug1.html
29. Kahn | January 22nd, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Diana - Over 80% of the massive Federal budget goes to entitlements. Yes, we understand that YOU think YOU should control OUR money. We get it.
Thats why we don’t like you.
30. Diana Powe | January 22nd, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Kahn,
Fine by me. How often do you tell those people around you that are recipients of Social Security or Medicare that you think they’re blood-sucking leeches on your money and you want to put an end to it? Often?
31. Kahn | January 22nd, 2008 at 4:30 pm
I wonder Diana, if Social Security is so important to YOUR party, why they refused to fix it? Bush put forward a plan almost identical to Clinton’s with a negotiable private investment option. It was killed. You party cheered their accomplishment at the State of the Union Address.
Yet, in the YEARS since they have not put forward a plan of their own and have refused to do anything. GREAT. Doesn’t that disgust you? Or are you going to prove that 5=4 and 5+3=12?
32. Joe | January 22nd, 2008 at 4:45 pm
The private investment option was crap. That was not a benefit to anyone but the top 5%… oh wait, you are there. So OF COURSE you liked the idea.
Meanwhile… back on planet earth if that was in place and people are trying to retire now and the markets are down 20% this month, they are screwed.
I know… I know your feeling Kahn. If they aren’t well off financially, then who cares about them. Let them fend for themselves and not suck money from YOUR account!!
33. Diana Powe | January 22nd, 2008 at 4:49 pm
The problems with Social Security have been wildly overstated by some who consciously hold the motive that they want to it eliminate because they are against social welfare programs entirely. Many others worry about it because they don’t know enough about how it works to see through the “Social Security is in crisis” smokescreen. Social Security needs adjustments but there is no crisis except in some fevered imaginations.
What Democrats cheered about in Congress was the death of President Bush’s attempts to privatize Social Security, a move which would be even less popular today as the financial markets tank. The fact is, as I already pointed out in Comment # 18, that Social Security can never be allowed to fail unless the United States Congress is willing to repudiate our national debt. If they do that, the entire notion of “sound as a dollar” (a phrase that sounds more old-timey than ever) will truly be meaningless and our economy will rapidly contract to Third World status as other countries refuse to buy our debt at anything like rates that we can tax ourselves to pay.
The problem is not Social Security. Adjustments to it can make it sound. The problem is Medicare and the failing “free-market” health care system in the United States.
34. TiredofLibBullShit | January 22nd, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Diana,
Again you can’t read. I never alluded to no such thing. I never said to eliminate SS or Welfare.
Your delusions about SS are just that. If you don’t believe SS is in trouble, well that would explain a lot.
You talk about repudiating the national debt. Let me tell you, your party has bitched and moaned about solving the national debt, fixing SS and improving Medicare, etc. etc. etc. But when push comes to shove, THEY DO NOTHING!!! They may talk about it. You know, the “lock box” or “trust fund”. They had the opportunity when Clinton was President, when they took control back in 06. THEY DID NOTHING! NO PROPOSED LEGISLATION, NO NOTHING! BUT THE DID PACK ON THE PORK AND EARMARKS! Rather than whittle away the debt, increment improvements to SS etc. etc. They refuse to do anything if they can’t get 150% of what they want.
What sort of “adjustments” are you talking about? Are you talking the same old “soak the rich” taxes? It has been proven time and again the tax revenues have increased after cutting taxes (JFK proved that!). But then again, no liberal would admit to it. Nor would they solve it, because if they do, there would be no need of them and they can’t give up the power.
It’s not the free market that is the problem. It is government involvement, lack of reform for lawsuits, which really do get out of hand (how do you think Edwards made his millions?). A whole miriad of things but the lib solution is just government take-over. After seeing the job they did with SS and Medicare, why would you want them to touch it?
Now stop deflecting, by claiming something I did not say and actually think for yourself. Get away from the talking points and the lies about SS not being in trouble.
35. TiredofLibBullShit | January 22nd, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Joe, why do you even try?
Perfect example of doing the same thing 1000 times hoping for a different outcome, only to be disappointed.
36. iNDIgO | January 22nd, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Kahn got pwned!
37. Kahn | January 23rd, 2008 at 11:18 am
??? It was the same plan Clinton put forward. There was an OPTIONAL private investment component. But there was never even a negotiation to take it out. It was killed and that was that. No attempts by the Democrats to fix it have been made since.
iNDIgo got fkd upda pooper!
38. Peggy McGilligan | April 17th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Hillary – Leadership You Can Almost Trust! Hillary, who, according to her only recently joined the middleclass, frames last night’s debate as if both she and Obama both said things that weren’t true. Barack says his words got mangled, it happens. Hillary says she out and out lied, it happens. We’re even. His was a faux pas, a social blunder, to which he admits. On the other hand she tells falsehoods, gets caught by (video) the most powerful evidence there is, next to DNA evidence, but continues to lie. Her husband gets into the act, by lying about the lying. Making them both big fat liars. She finally says okay, I lied. Although lost in the dialogue (bickering) is Hillary’s record of dishonesty. And, Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther, and goes much deeper than anyone realizes: http://theseedsof9-11.com
On Southern working class whites: “Screw ‘em,” [Hillary] told her husband. “You don’t owe them a thing, Bill. They’re doing nothing for you; you don’t have to do anything for them.” -Hillary Clinton, 1995