She will, reports AP, when the Tuesday's dust settles tonight with the final round of primaries in MT and SD.

Read

A report from 'USA Today'

I know he was against the war from the beginning and is still against the war, i was talking about "particular point'"where he thought was worthwhile,i don't remember where i saw it, i believe i heard from his mouth.  He shouldn't even think about it, if the war were to go smoothly who knows what would have come from his mouth.
I don't believe in polls right now, its too far to guess who is going to win the election.

ss,
may be it was his book that you're talking about where i heard he wrote that he thought saddam had chemical and biological weapons. i haven't read the book myself and i am not sure when and in which context he said that.

yeah time to chill captain hahaha..i feel like hitting the bar already. that pic is really tempting (weekend is around the corner and add to that the scorching heat of 92+ degrees :P). damn, my mouth is watering hahaha :D

Its too damn hot and humid here also, when it comes to summer i hate South.

really ss? you're in south too? didn't know that. always thought you're in the east coast. boston or some weird place hahaha...

where in south? if i may ask?

Loote,

Great Speech. But i just see the assertions not the reasoning part. Where is it? How did he know if it was dumb war then?

Haddock,

it should have been "being a obama supporter would be great on ur resume to get the job on mathew's...

mavE,
ever heard of the site by the name www.barackobama.com? too much into hillaryclinton.com eh? or xxx.com? HAHAHAHA...jk

here's an excerpt from his speech back in Oct 2002.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

Yup i am somewhere in the South too,i have never lived in the east, have lived in north west. Let me keep my location secret

Loote,

Again 100% correct.  But i just see the assertions not the reasoning part. Where is it? How did he know if it was dumb war then?

Mav,
I am surprised that you didn't "see" the reasoning part in the post posted by Loote. Hint: the reasoning part is in bold and is in the last paragraph. It should not have been a surprise afterall since Hillary was the favorite among those without a college degree. hehe..jk

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

We can go over it at length if you still don't see the  reasoning part.

Guest4,
Before coming out making condescending remark about my no-college degree, an erudite like yourself should have read my previous posts. If a highbrow like yourself  possessing all the epistemological truth won't care to read the hillbillys' posts, then its a different thing.

The last highlighted paragraph started with a phrase - "I also know that Saddam poses no imminent". The main stream media, Commander in-chief, defense secretary, and the chief of cia were giving the opposite messages then what Obama told in that speech at that time. Now, when i said the reasoning part, i meant how he knew it.
There are three scenarios:
1. Either he must have secret sources for infos which we don't have (may be u with ur vaunted college degree).
2. He is an omnipotent.
3. He just pulled that out from this ass as no empirical evidences or report at that time supported what his guts told or there was any?

Mav,
I don't think Obama doubted the intelligence, which we now know was packaged in a misleading way to make the case for the war, but he doubted the necessity of this war. Even if Saddam had the WMDs, he never made any direct threat to the United States. Quite possibly though, Iran is way more vocal in that regard than what Saddam was. I think even Dick Cheney would agree to that.

Of course, Obama with his "vaunted college  degree" probably had much better reasons. I can't speak for him.

Personally, I don't think Obama candidacy revolves around that one decision, which, I agree, very well could be his pure luck; it is a movement that has excited millions of people not just in the US but around the world.
---
I apologize if my remarks were condescending in the earlier post.

I have always been vocal ot Obama presidency. Hillary supporters are a sore loser as she is sore loser.

There is no way to compare anybody with Obama. He will knock down McCain like a kid.

mav,
you surprised me this time. i am sure you read the whole speech. how could you only see assertions ? jeez..

let me expalain...

he didn't blatantly deny that iraq didn't possess chemical or biological weapons, or the CIA and the defense secretary were lying (which they were). what he said was iraq could not be an imminent threat to the US or to its neighbours.

the two main reasons being...
1) faltering iraqi economy
2) weakening iraqi military

and he also pointed out the consequences of the war, if the US were to go for it. i took them 2 years to realize that his 'reasonings' were right. it did prove to be a dumb war!

all in all, the US was in a dire need to fight back after sep 11. the incumbent, inept bush government and their pathetic politics chose iraq and saddam hussein. very few people voted against the approval (for various reasons--to resonate with bush's decision, for political advantage or failure to judge).

barring dennis kucinich, none of the democratic presidential candidates voted against it and that included edwards, clinton, joe biden and chris dodd.

you may argue obama was in a safe side not being in senate. but as i mentioned in the other post, he was not completely. he knew he was running for the senate. he was able to make the right judgment and most importantly be clear and vocal about it unlike many others. he didn't shy away, for various political reasons, from speaking his heart out. that makes a difference and it eventually did.

what's cooking? do you smell something non-veg or is it just me?

Obama, Clinton hold talks in Feinstein's living room

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Dianne Feinstein said she left Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton alone in her Washington living room Thursday night with nothing other than water and comfortable chairs for what she called a positive meeting.

"They talked. I went upstairs and did my work," Feinstein said Friday. "They called me when it was over. I came down and said, 'Good night, everybody, I hope you had a good meeting.'

"They were laughing and that was it."

The meeting began at 9 p.m. and lasted about an hour, said Feinstein, who has supported Clinton's candidacy.

"I think the opportunity to sit down, just the two of them, was positive," she said.

No one else was in the room, and no one is giving details of what was discussed.

More

Maverick repeatedly asked Loote "How did he know if it was dumb war then"

First off, I think you are asking the wrong person. Loote, as charismatic and eloquent as he might be, is not Barack Obama and did not make those comments. Neither am I nor any of the others who have spoken up to support him. The way you have chosen to frame that question, and I feel you have done so deliberately,  it's a rhetorical question or sorts that only Obama can answer.

However, there is a similar question that can be answered and that is: was the Iraq war a "dumb" war or the wrong war to fight? The answer is positively YES. It has clearly been established that Bush lied/misled about the war  because he selectively chose facts to suit his arguments for going to war. This has been established through the memoirs of Dick Clark, McCullen, many others who have spoken up since and even this piece in the NYT. I would recommend you read it.

I thought the Iraq war debate was over but if you want to re-live it, even back then the weapons inspectors (both US and foreign)  said there were no WMDs, the IAEA said there were no WMDs but  Bush chose to ignore their advice and  go to war claiming to rely on the CIAs assement. Talk about judgment there. It has now been established that the administration forced the hand of the CIA to come up with intelligence, however flimsy, to back up their case. It was Bush  saying I have decided to go to war with Iraq, now help me make the public case for it.

I believe both Obama and Hillary knew the case for war was bogus - even though she wont admit it. As did most governments outside the US and many within the US. Those who were not NeoCons or ones to be intimidated by them, did not fall for it. She supported the war for political reasons, which is fine, as politicians do things for all kinds of reasons, but that legitimately brings into question her judgment and character along with Bush's. If Bush showed poor judgment in not vetting out the intelligence, then why can't the same thing be said of those who supported him almost every step of the way (McCain) or large part of the way (Hillary)?

Obama may not have McCain's resume (and I think he has as good a resume as Hillary) when it comes to foreign policy but on this one issue, whether it was made easier by the fact that he was not in the Senate, or whatever else it was, he can legitimately claim he had better judgment than Bush, McCain or Hillary. Heck, many people on Sajha opposing the war back then had better judgment it seems. Alas, such people were not in government. The Democratic primary voters  agreed the war was a bad idea. Now it's for the rest to decide who has the best judgment to lead. We wont know the answer till November.

Loote,

Its really suprising for me too to see you to satisfied with the reasoning part. I thought Colin Powell showed the anthrax (or may be white chalk powder)or did he show the laser propelled missile costing millions of dollar, which cant be afford by a faltering economy. Talking about weakening army, even with a full strength Saddam's army cant do anything to US.

So basically let me sum it up what i want to say, incase of Iraq, Obama just shot the bullet in the dark, he got it (may be he took a risk to be different for the senate race). Empirical thought processes would have supported it. If you take decisions from ur instinct like Bush did (clearly the truths were fabricated if not a blatant lie)then you can be hit or miss (not a great sign to lead 300 million people).

 

(.dint want to put this in or as an argument,just trying to guess the thought process. I am not a psychologist. Just came in head... his ex church may have helped him to make his decision; its apparent that, for them aids was made to destroy the poor and blacks and they might have felt that anthrax or other bio weapon was also a sign of white intelorance, which the govn may use against them saying saddam did it. What ever the case there apprehensions turned out to be true)

have a good day ya'll. i am out from this thread. Congrats to all Obama supporters for their hard work. Though I am not backing off of my first post.

 

Guest4 bro, i guess i over reacted too. Sorry for that.

I missed the Haddock's comment.

Its funny to judge the decisional process just by the outcome. Its also funny that you guys claim this n that like "I believe both Obama and Hillary knew the case for war was bogus". really?? You also believed Hillary was Hitler-on-making, dont u?

About the question thingy, if asking for the reasons of a decision which Obama's supporter has used it more than a gazillion times to prove his candidacy is a rhetoric in any sense then what is not?

Anyway...Happy posting :)

"You also believed Hillary was Hitler-on-making, dont u?"

No. Why, did you?

"About the question thingy, if asking for reason for decision which Obama's supporter has used it more than a gazillion times to prove his candidacy is a rhetoric in any sense then what is not?"

You lost me again. Another rhetorical question - this one perfectly fitting the dictionary definition.

If your objective is to have a conversation, I think it would help if you stated what you stood for and argued why. You haven't done that and for most part have gone off on a tangential hypothesis of how does Loote know what Obama knew. Trust me, if you coherently presented what you stood for, even if people disagreed with you, they would respect the points you were making. I certainly would. I am have been scratching by head and scratching beneath your words to understand what exactly your point is in the larger context of this thread.

That's all really.

I think Hillary was Hitler-on-making.

She was willing to nuke Iran out just so that she could get some jewish votes. I don't think she would actually nuke Iran in her first term, but she probably would consider it if that meant she would get re-elected for the second term! She is a shamless panderer!