Comments on: Pres. Clinton: Edelman Is An ‘Ideological Holdover’ From Cheney’s Inner Circle http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/22/bill-clinton-edelman/ Thu, 26 Nov 2009 01:53:58 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Bjobotts http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/22/bill-clinton-edelman/comment-page-2/#comment-3955425 Bjobotts Mon, 23 Jul 2007 08:10:32 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/07/22/bill-clinton-edelman/#comment-3955425 #92****You aren't really thinking. The NIE reports that the 5-7% attacking us in Iraq as al qaeda would be thrown out of the country by the Sunni, Shiites and Kurds if the US withdraws. The terrorists don't have and army, air force or navy to attack us. And handfulls of terrorists can just as easily attack us here by sneaking into our country whether we have troops in Iraq or not. Our men are getting killed there because it's the only place where we are close enough for them to kill us on a routine basis. The terrorists have bullied Bush into staying in Iraq for exactly that reason, it makes it easy to kill us and it bolsters their recruitment efforts. Bush's policies do more to build up and supply the terrorists than anything else they've tried. Iraq has gotten nearly 4000 American troops killed, it has drained our treasure and gave us the reputation of being just as bad as Sadam because we now torture people , and our soldiers are on video raping 14 y/o girls. We are less safe now than ever before because of our occupation of Iraq where we are refereeing a civil war. The terrorists that attacked us are in Pakistan and Afghanistan, not in Iraq. They have incited Sunni extremists to kill us there. They are neither distracted nor do they have their "offense" on the field. They are actually standing back laughing at how easy Bush is to manipulate. They got him to act like General George Custer and chase them right into an ambush called a civil war and keep Bush there by calling him 'chicken" so they can continue to kill us with little effort other than sabotage and getting Sunnis vs Shiites to shoot anything in between like US forces. The terrorists like al qaeda don't brag look at what we did to the Americans,...they brag, "Look at what we made them do to themselves". Get smart and get our troops out of the turkey shoot. The Iraqis will come to their own agreements our of necessity. Our troops should go after the real al qaeda and our national guard should be home protecting our docks protecting us here from all disasters, natural or not. Stop this stupid occupation, where soldiers are "forced" to fight and die for a mistake. 5 kids killed everyday and 10-15 wounded and that is not counting the innocent Iraqi men, women and children caught in the crossfire or the 12billion/mo we are paying to continue the occupation. If you care, if you really care about our soldiers then protect them and bring them home now. Hell, we held the Russians with all their nukes off for 50 yrs without giving up our personal freedoms, I'd say we can handle a handfull of terrorists who have no army, air force or navy to attack us. We are pretty smart Americans after all. Think about it. #92****You aren’t really thinking. The NIE reports that the 5-7% attacking us in Iraq as al qaeda would be thrown out of the country by the Sunni, Shiites and Kurds if the US withdraws. The terrorists don’t have and army, air force or navy to attack us. And handfulls of terrorists can just as easily attack us here by sneaking into our country whether we have troops in Iraq or not. Our men are getting killed there because it’s the only place where we are close enough for them to kill us on a routine basis. The terrorists have bullied Bush into staying in Iraq for exactly that reason, it makes it easy to kill us and it bolsters their recruitment efforts. Bush’s policies do more to build up and supply the terrorists than anything else they’ve tried. Iraq has gotten nearly 4000 American troops killed, it has drained our treasure and gave us the reputation of being just as bad as Sadam because we now torture people , and our soldiers are on video raping 14 y/o girls. We are less safe now than ever before because of our occupation of Iraq where we are refereeing a civil war. The terrorists that attacked us are in Pakistan and Afghanistan, not in Iraq. They have incited Sunni extremists to kill us there. They are neither distracted nor do they have their “offense” on the field. They are actually standing back laughing at how easy Bush is to manipulate. They got him to act like General George Custer and chase them right into an ambush called a civil war and keep Bush there by calling him ‘chicken” so they can continue to kill us with little effort other than sabotage and getting Sunnis vs Shiites to shoot anything in between like US forces. The terrorists like al qaeda don’t brag look at what we did to the Americans,…they brag, “Look at what we made them do to themselves”. Get smart and get our troops out of the turkey shoot. The Iraqis will come to their own agreements our of necessity. Our troops should go after the real al qaeda and our national guard should be home protecting our docks protecting us here from all disasters, natural or not. Stop this stupid occupation, where soldiers are “forced” to fight and die for a mistake. 5 kids killed everyday and 10-15 wounded and that is not counting the innocent Iraqi men, women and children caught in the crossfire or the 12billion/mo we are paying to continue the occupation. If you care, if you really care about our soldiers then protect them and bring them home now. Hell, we held the Russians with all their nukes off for 50 yrs without giving up our personal freedoms, I’d say we can handle a handfull of terrorists who have no army, air force or navy to attack us. We are pretty smart Americans after all. Think about it.

]]> By: Bjobotts http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/22/bill-clinton-edelman/comment-page-2/#comment-3955419 Bjobotts Mon, 23 Jul 2007 07:35:50 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/07/22/bill-clinton-edelman/#comment-3955419 How long was it that traitors to Hitler's regime were eventually considered heroes by the rest of the world ?. At what point did the decision to sell out the Nazis to their enemies become the moral thing to do rather than being acts of treason? When did pentagon personnel become partisan political lobbyists? Clinton asked for the plans for withdrawal and redeployment and got a political assessment on her judgment from a hack working at the pentagon. Kind of like asking where the bathroom is and getting a lecture on bladder control from an plummer. Some one should slap him. And Gates is just the man for the job. How long was it that traitors to Hitler’s regime were eventually considered heroes by the rest of the world
?. At what point did the decision to sell out the Nazis to their enemies become the moral thing to do rather than being acts of treason?

When did pentagon personnel become partisan political lobbyists?
Clinton asked for the plans for withdrawal and redeployment and got a political assessment on her judgment from a hack working at the pentagon. Kind of like asking where the bathroom is and getting a lecture on bladder control from an plummer. Some one should slap him. And Gates is just the man for the job.

]]> By: Jane E. Schneider http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/22/bill-clinton-edelman/comment-page-2/#comment-3955385 Jane E. Schneider Mon, 23 Jul 2007 05:28:53 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/07/22/bill-clinton-edelman/#comment-3955385 "...That is the way I see it." Comment by No named — July 22, 2007 @ 4:59 pm Then maybe you ought to get new glasses. Senator Clinton went to bat for herself by re-addressing her concerns to Gates himself, and did so in the right way, by not dignifying Edelman's attack on her. President Clinton did the right thing by NOT immediately commenting on Edelman's nasty letter when Senator Clinton received it. He was asked a question, and answered it appropriately and reservedly. “…That is the way I see it.”
Comment by No named — July 22, 2007 @ 4:59 pm

Then maybe you ought to get new glasses. Senator Clinton went to bat for herself by re-addressing her concerns to Gates himself, and did so in the right way, by not dignifying Edelman’s attack on her. President Clinton did the right thing by NOT immediately commenting on Edelman’s nasty letter when Senator Clinton received it. He was asked a question, and answered it appropriately and reservedly.

]]> By: Devil's Advocate http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/22/bill-clinton-edelman/comment-page-2/#comment-3955336 Devil's Advocate Mon, 23 Jul 2007 03:22:39 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/07/22/bill-clinton-edelman/#comment-3955336 Edelman went too far. The prick seems to believe that Cheney's umbrella is enough to cover his outrageous statements. Wrong! Gates definitely did not endorse the arrogant sycophant. Go f... yourself, Edelman. You are a nothing, and hopefully, you will be relagated to official nothingness in 2008. Edelman went too far. The prick seems to believe that Cheney’s umbrella is enough to cover his outrageous statements. Wrong! Gates definitely did not endorse the arrogant sycophant.

Go f… yourself, Edelman. You are a nothing, and hopefully, you will be relagated to official nothingness in 2008.

]]> By: hterrya http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/22/bill-clinton-edelman/comment-page-2/#comment-3955328 hterrya Mon, 23 Jul 2007 03:12:52 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/07/22/bill-clinton-edelman/#comment-3955328 "...it was my understanding that the neoCons were mainly Jewish..." Comment by Mr. Kalashnikov — July 22, 2007 @ 8:18 am Funny, the current corrupt, crooked president and his president-in-charge-of-Vice, SiCKO DiCKO, don't <em><strong>look</strong></em> Jewish. However, those two impeachment candidates <strong>perfectly</strong> fit my earlier description of NeoCons: When it comes to policy, NeoCons seem to prefer: > property over people > the status quo over progress > war over peace > rich over poor > white (Aryan) over people of color and > their global conglomerate Pimps over <em><strong>EVERYTHING</strong></em>! When it comes to political tactics, NeoCons consider every encounter with those who disagree with them to be “war” (e.g., the cultural “war”), so they take no prisoners. When it comes to personal humanity, by and large, NeoCons strike me as priggishly smug, arrogant, selfish, unyielding to reason, lacking in compassion, power-hungry, out of touch with the majority of Americans, and warmongering. Whether Ãœber-Under Secretary Edelman is Jewish or not seems to be beside the point. Remember the part about NeoCons being "slavishly subservient and acquiescent to the current corrupt, crooked president and his president-in-charge-of-Vice, SiCKO DiCKO?" Edelman is following the NeoCon screed set down for him by those to whom he is a lackey. “…it was my understanding that the neoCons were mainly Jewish…”
Comment by Mr. Kalashnikov — July 22, 2007 @ 8:18 am

Funny, the current corrupt, crooked president and his president-in-charge-of-Vice, SiCKO DiCKO, don’t look Jewish. However, those two impeachment candidates perfectly fit my earlier description of NeoCons:

When it comes to policy, NeoCons seem to prefer:
> property over people
> the status quo over progress
> war over peace
> rich over poor
> white (Aryan) over people of color
and
> their global conglomerate Pimps over EVERYTHING!

When it comes to political tactics, NeoCons consider every encounter with those who disagree with them to be “war” (e.g., the cultural “war”), so they take no prisoners.

When it comes to personal humanity, by and large, NeoCons strike me as priggishly smug, arrogant, selfish, unyielding to reason, lacking in compassion, power-hungry, out of touch with the majority of Americans, and warmongering.

Whether Ãœber-Under Secretary Edelman is Jewish or not seems to be beside the point. Remember the part about NeoCons being “slavishly subservient and acquiescent to the current corrupt, crooked president and his president-in-charge-of-Vice, SiCKO DiCKO?” Edelman is following the NeoCon screed set down for him by those to whom he is a lackey.

]]> By: muckdog http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/22/bill-clinton-edelman/comment-page-2/#comment-3955231 muckdog Mon, 23 Jul 2007 01:22:43 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/07/22/bill-clinton-edelman/#comment-3955231 Ah, Wayne. You're either dumb or naive. Fortunately for all of us, you're not calling the shots. Ah, Wayne. You’re either dumb or naive.

Fortunately for all of us, you’re not calling the shots.

]]> By: Karim http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/22/bill-clinton-edelman/comment-page-2/#comment-3955179 Karim Mon, 23 Jul 2007 00:32:18 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/07/22/bill-clinton-edelman/#comment-3955179 another incompetent hack...*yawn*...so what else is new? another incompetent hack…*yawn*…so what else is new?

]]> By: big papa http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/22/bill-clinton-edelman/comment-page-2/#comment-3955174 big papa Mon, 23 Jul 2007 00:25:11 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/07/22/bill-clinton-edelman/#comment-3955174 it was my understanding that the neoCons were mainly Jewish, so unless I’m mistaken, the above comment about the neocons having “Aryan” preferences would not be accurate. Comment by Mr. Kalashnikov #59 WRONG! ...there are plenty of Jewish al Ceeracka wannabes... ...just like there are Black, Asian,and Latin al Ceeracka wannabes... ...they're all TRAITORS under the banner of... ..."conned'self-servatism"... it was my understanding that the neoCons were mainly Jewish, so unless I’m mistaken, the above comment about the neocons having “Aryan” preferences would not be accurate.

Comment by Mr. Kalashnikov #59

WRONG!

…there are plenty of Jewish al Ceeracka wannabes…

…just like there are Black, Asian,and Latin al Ceeracka wannabes…

…they’re all TRAITORS under the banner of…

…”conned’self-servatism”…

]]> By: Wayne A. Schneider http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/22/bill-clinton-edelman/comment-page-2/#comment-3955157 Wayne A. Schneider Mon, 23 Jul 2007 00:05:41 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/07/22/bill-clinton-edelman/#comment-3955157 <i>Our troops are over there fighting on their home field. We’ve distracted them. Diverted their attention. They can’t put their offense on the field when we’ve got our offense on the field. They’re playing defense. If we remove our troops, then they will be able to go on offense again. If you were running Al Qaeda, would you attack US interests in the Far East? And where? Comment by muckdog — July 22, 2007 @ 1:45 pm</i> Sorry, pal, but you've been listening to Giuliani too much. Your entire "offense-defense" scenario is completely delusional and overly-simplistic to have any validity. And they can attack us <i>here</i> from the far East the same way they got to us from the Middle East, or are you too limited in your thinking to see that? BTW, if what they <i>really</i> wanted was to kill as many Americans as possible, and if they really do have "sleeper cells" in the US already, then why haven't they ever loaded up a small plane with explosives and flown it in to a stadium filled with people? Wouldn't be that hard. Small aircraft don't go through the same security checks as big airplanes do. Shea Stadium is just a few hundred yards from the runways at Laguardia. They could be in the air and into the stadium before anyone knew something was amiss. And yet, they haven't even attempted this yet. I wonder why. Our troops are over there fighting on their home field. We’ve distracted them. Diverted their attention. They can’t put their offense on the field when we’ve got our offense on the field. They’re playing defense. If we remove our troops, then they will be able to go on offense again.

If you were running Al Qaeda, would you attack US interests in the Far East? And where?

Comment by muckdog — July 22, 2007 @ 1:45 pm

Sorry, pal, but you’ve been listening to Giuliani too much. Your entire “offense-defense” scenario is completely delusional and overly-simplistic to have any validity.

And they can attack us here from the far East the same way they got to us from the Middle East, or are you too limited in your thinking to see that?

BTW, if what they really wanted was to kill as many Americans as possible, and if they really do have “sleeper cells” in the US already, then why haven’t they ever loaded up a small plane with explosives and flown it in to a stadium filled with people? Wouldn’t be that hard. Small aircraft don’t go through the same security checks as big airplanes do. Shea Stadium is just a few hundred yards from the runways at Laguardia. They could be in the air and into the stadium before anyone knew something was amiss. And yet, they haven’t even attempted this yet. I wonder why.

]]> By: No named http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/22/bill-clinton-edelman/comment-page-2/#comment-3954905 No named Sun, 22 Jul 2007 20:59:58 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/07/22/bill-clinton-edelman/#comment-3954905 Clinton should stop pre-empting his wife. Cannot she speak nfor herself without the aid of an ex president? To me it is proof--Bill wants back in the White House. He cannot be elected, so he seeks to use his wife to get back in. She, flush with the idea of becoming president, and the first woman president at that, is willing to let him bat for her, because she just cannot make it on her own.That is the way I see it. Clinton should stop pre-empting his wife. Cannot she speak nfor herself without the aid of an ex president? To me it is proof–Bill wants back in the White House. He cannot be elected, so he seeks to use his wife to get back in.
She, flush with the idea of becoming president, and the first woman president at that, is willing to let him bat for her, because she just cannot make it on her own.That is the way I see it.

]]> By: muckdog http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/22/bill-clinton-edelman/comment-page-2/#comment-3954861 muckdog Sun, 22 Jul 2007 20:25:50 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/07/22/bill-clinton-edelman/#comment-3954861 So you'd rather have them blowing up buildings, schools, and shopping malls in New York, San Francisco, Chicago, etc? So you’d rather have them blowing up buildings, schools, and shopping malls in New York, San Francisco, Chicago, etc?

]]> By: dbadass http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/22/bill-clinton-edelman/comment-page-2/#comment-3954655 dbadass Sun, 22 Jul 2007 17:50:22 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/07/22/bill-clinton-edelman/#comment-3954655 They’re playing defense. No they aren't they are playing covert offense by draining our resources in a stupid misguided trap which are "cowboy" raised mentalities respond to all too easily. Once we have been financially and emotionally broken they will have won. They’re playing defense.

No they aren’t they are playing covert offense by draining our resources in a stupid misguided trap which are “cowboy” raised mentalities respond to all too easily. Once we have been financially and emotionally broken they will have won.

]]> By: muckdog http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/22/bill-clinton-edelman/comment-page-2/#comment-3954651 muckdog Sun, 22 Jul 2007 17:45:16 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/07/22/bill-clinton-edelman/#comment-3954651 <i>What’s stopping them from coming over here in the first palce? </i> Our troops are over there fighting on their home field. We've distracted them. Diverted their attention. They can't put their offense on the field when we've got our offense on the field. They're playing defense. If we remove our troops, then they will be able to go on offense again. If you were running Al Qaeda, would you attack US interests in the Far East? And where? What’s stopping them from coming over here in the first palce?

Our troops are over there fighting on their home field. We’ve distracted them. Diverted their attention. They can’t put their offense on the field when we’ve got our offense on the field. They’re playing defense. If we remove our troops, then they will be able to go on offense again.

If you were running Al Qaeda, would you attack US interests in the Far East? And where?

]]> By: dbadass http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/22/bill-clinton-edelman/comment-page-2/#comment-3954649 dbadass Sun, 22 Jul 2007 17:44:45 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/07/22/bill-clinton-edelman/#comment-3954649 If we decided to remove the troops and declare the war is over, they won’t. They’ll come over here. Comment by muckdog — July 22, 2007 @ 11:22 am Maybe we can hire them to build a fence to keep the scary Mexicans out. Actually maybe we better start some shit in Mexico. Better to fight them there don't you think? Oh and what about those Indians and their skills our kids lack, and the Chinese, and those Europeans what with their better taste in food and culture. Damn we need to get going before they invade our trailer parks and reality tv shows. If we decided to remove the troops and declare the war is over, they won’t. They’ll come over here.

Comment by muckdog — July 22, 2007 @ 11:22 am

Maybe we can hire them to build a fence to keep the scary Mexicans out. Actually maybe we better start some shit in Mexico. Better to fight them there don’t you think? Oh and what about those Indians and their skills our kids lack, and the Chinese, and those Europeans what with their better taste in food and culture. Damn we need to get going before they invade our trailer parks and reality tv shows.

]]> By: Wayne A. Schneider http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/22/bill-clinton-edelman/comment-page-2/#comment-3954478 Wayne A. Schneider Sun, 22 Jul 2007 15:57:17 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/07/22/bill-clinton-edelman/#comment-3954478 <i>If we decided to remove the troops and declare the war is over, they won’t. They’ll come over here. Comment by muckdog — July 22, 2007 @ 11:22 am</i> Oh, please, that's such a laughable argument to make. What's stopping them from coming over here in the first palce? For that matter, since al Qaeda is supposed to be a "world wide organization" (personally I believe it is less that than a bunch of people pledging support to a common cause), why hasn't al Qaeda in the Far East launched any attacks against us? They're all supposed to be one and the same people, right? If we decided to remove the troops and declare the war is over, they won’t. They’ll come over here.

Comment by muckdog — July 22, 2007 @ 11:22 am

Oh, please, that’s such a laughable argument to make. What’s stopping them from coming over here in the first palce? For that matter, since al Qaeda is supposed to be a “world wide organization” (personally I believe it is less that than a bunch of people pledging support to a common cause), why hasn’t al Qaeda in the Far East launched any attacks against us? They’re all supposed to be one and the same people, right?

]]> By: dlet http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/22/bill-clinton-edelman/comment-page-2/#comment-3954460 dlet Sun, 22 Jul 2007 15:47:14 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/07/22/bill-clinton-edelman/#comment-3954460 muckdog, Thanks for agreeing with me on the priciple that MAYTAG's statement about Clinton was idiotic. muckdog,
Thanks for agreeing with me on the priciple that MAYTAG’s statement about Clinton was idiotic.

]]> By: muckdog http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/22/bill-clinton-edelman/comment-page-2/#comment-3954412 muckdog Sun, 22 Jul 2007 15:22:23 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/07/22/bill-clinton-edelman/#comment-3954412 <i>I see a lot of Muslims around the world in the streets burning effigies of Bush and Co. screaming death to Bush and America. so what’s your point? Are you saying things will be the same?</i> Before President Bush they marched around with Death To Clinton signs. They just want to kill us. Doesn't matter who is President. If we decided to remove the troops and declare the war is over, they won't. They'll come over here. I see a lot of Muslims around the world in the streets burning effigies of Bush and Co. screaming death to Bush and America. so what’s your point? Are you saying things will be the same?

Before President Bush they marched around with Death To Clinton signs.

They just want to kill us. Doesn’t matter who is President.

If we decided to remove the troops and declare the war is over, they won’t. They’ll come over here.

]]> By: Jane E. Schneider http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/22/bill-clinton-edelman/comment-page-2/#comment-3954363 Jane E. Schneider Sun, 22 Jul 2007 14:18:14 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/07/22/bill-clinton-edelman/#comment-3954363 Hey, OBGYN, nice to see you again! Hey, OBGYN, nice to see you again!

]]> By: Guido the Lovesick OBGYN http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/22/bill-clinton-edelman/comment-page-2/#comment-3954356 Guido the Lovesick OBGYN Sun, 22 Jul 2007 14:01:35 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/07/22/bill-clinton-edelman/#comment-3954356 Yeah when the Viet Nam Hawk generation finally dies off America can get about the business of facilitating real peace in the world. Yeah when the Viet Nam Hawk generation finally dies off America can get about the business of facilitating real peace in the world.

]]> By: Jane E. Schneider http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/22/bill-clinton-edelman/comment-page-2/#comment-3954341 Jane E. Schneider Sun, 22 Jul 2007 13:40:43 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/07/22/bill-clinton-edelman/#comment-3954341 How is a hugely popular policical figure like Bill Clinton going to avoid commenting on matters concerning his wife? He will be asked…should he just say NO Comment.?? Comment by Badger — July 22, 2007 @ 7:05 am Badger, that's the first thing I thought of when I read the article. If Bill responded with "No comment", that would certainly imply (to idiots/right-wingers) that Bill believed that Edelman was correct. Just because Senator Clinton is running for President does not mean that former President Clinton can't answer questions. Notice that he kept out of this fray until directly asked about the subject! Smart guy! How is a hugely popular policical figure like Bill Clinton going to avoid commenting on matters concerning his wife? He will be asked…should he just say NO Comment.??

Comment by Badger — July 22, 2007 @ 7:05 am

Badger, that’s the first thing I thought of when I read the article. If Bill responded with “No comment”, that would certainly imply (to idiots/right-wingers) that Bill believed that Edelman was correct. Just because Senator Clinton is running for President does not mean that former President Clinton can’t answer questions. Notice that he kept out of this fray until directly asked about the subject! Smart guy!

]]>