MyDD :: We'll see your half-second "Bin Laden hiking"

We'll see your half-second "Bin Laden hiking"

by Trickster, Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:02:33 AM EST

And raise you a "Bin Laden's terrorist network is all your fault."

I kid you not.

Senator Clinton's "Kitchen" ad, which debuted in Pennsylvania today, features a series of brief action shots, including a glimpse of Osama bin Laden walking in some indeterminate locale. The ad is apparently an attempt to evoke the depth and seriousness of the problems that Presidents face.

This is what Obama's national press secretary Bill Burton said in response to the ad:

When Senator Clinton voted with President Bush to authorize the war in Iraq, she made a tragically bad decision that diverted our military from the terrorists who attacked us, and allowed Osama bin Laden to escape and regenerate his terrorist network.

OK, let's work the grammar on this sentence.

The subject of the sentence is Senator Clinton's tragically bad decision. The verbs are diverted and allowed. It was Senator Clinton's decision that diverted and allowed. President Bush is mentioned in the sentence, but only as part of a temporal phrase modifying the adverb when. President Bush is not gramatically linked with the action verbs diverted and allowed, as is Senator Clinton's tragically bad decision.

In other words, it was Senator Clinton's decision that "diverted our military from the terrorists who attacked us, and allowed Osama bin Laden to escape and regenerate his terrorist network." It doesn't even say something like "partially" or "contributed to." No "aided Bush," nothing like that. No, it flat out says that it was her decision that allowed bin Laden to regenerate his terrorist network.

If you have criticized Clinton's ad as over the top because it shows a brief glimpse of bin Laden--then please ask yourself: what is this?

Tags: politics, security, advertisements, Al Qaeda, bin Laden (all tags)

Permalink :: 20 Comments :: Post a Comment

It's simple (2.00 / 1)

Senator Clinton broke with 23 of her colleagues and decided (against her better angels) to authorize the president to go to war, diverting our resources from Afghanistan to Iraq, allowing Qaeda in Iraq to materialize and grow, and allowing Qaeda in Afghanistan to rebuild and strengthen their network. What's so hard about understanding that

_____________
PUMA: Perverse Undemocratic McCain Adherents

by lizardbox on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:52:53 AM EST

Re: It's simple (2.00 / 2)

Apparently Senator Obama didn't have a problem when Kerry voted to authorize the war, as he did fail to endorse Dean.

Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008

by zcflint05 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:58:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's simple (none / 0)

That was a very weak argument. I don't even know what you're trying to tell me. We're not talking about Senator Kerry. You want to show some intellectual honesty? Why not talk about those 23 who voted against the AUMF?

There is no way you can justify this aside form saying it was the wrong vote. People make mistakes. Some mistakes bigger than others, yet there's nothing we can do about it now. So we move on. But trying to justify the vote is sheer madness. Trying to defect by bringing up other Democratic senators who voted for it, is sleazy. And trying to say "Obama voted like I did since he got to the Senate" is like saying "we both suck".

_____________
PUMA: Perverse Undemocratic McCain Adherents

by lizardbox on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:06:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's simple (2.00 / 3)

I think the idea that one speech in 2002 denouncing the war counts for entire war vote is kind of silly. Obama was not on the spot as he was running for a State Senate spot in a really liberal district, and Senator Obama himself has stated on multiple occasions that he's not sure how he would have voted in Hillary's shoes, and conveniently only started condemning her vote instead of defending it when he decided to become a Presidential canidiate. The bottom line is that he had no accountability, so I don't buy his whole "oohhhh...I've been against the war the WHOLE TIME"! I will repeat myself one more time--OBAMA HIMSELF SAID HE HAS NO IDEA HOW HE WOULD HAVE VOTED WITH THE INTELLIGENCE THAT HILLARY WAS PRESENTED.

Then again, considering his record, I guess he probably would have just voted "present".

Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008

by zcflint05 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 06:36:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This is just wrong. (none / 0)

Obama spoke out vociferously against the war. Only Al Gore probably had a stronger voice at the time. Sen. Clinton triangulated that voting for the war would "toughen up" her image, and thousands of people died because of it.

John McCain supports privatizing Social Security.

by Travis Stark on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 07:07:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's simple (none / 0)

It's already very convincing when you repeat yourself, but it's even more so when you do it in all capital letters.

by username2 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:31:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's simple (2.00 / 1)

On July 27, 2004, Barack Obama told the Chicago Tribune on Iraq: "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage."

by moevaughn on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 09:27:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Again? (none / 0)

He has been repeatedly been criticised for this remark in July 2004, days before his convention speech, that 'There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage.' but if one considers the context of the 2004 election campaign and his full statement, not so much:

...Obama, the U.S. Senate candidate from Illinois, said he believes the Bush administration has lost too much credibility in the world community to administer the policies necessary to stabilize Iraq.

"On Iraq, on paper, there's not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry administration as there would have been a year ago," Obama said during a luncheon meeting with editors and reporters of Tribune newspapers. "There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who's in a position to execute."

David Mendell and Jeff Zeleny - Chicago Tribune 24 Jul 04

Clearly he had closed ranks with a Democratic party who had nominated a ticket which had voted to authorise the war and the platform was that Democrats would bring the war to a prompt and successful conclusion. Obama's position, however, remained consistently opposed to the decision to invade, from an interview on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer:

OBAMA: You know, I didn't have the information that was available to senators. I know that, as somebody who was thinking about a U.S. Senate race, I think it was a mistake, and I think I would have voted no.

BLITZER: You would have voted no at the time?

OBAMA: That's correct.

BLITZER: Kerry, of course, and Edwards both voted yes.

OBAMA: But keep in mind, I think this is a tough question and a tough call. What I do think is that if you're going to make these tough calls, you have to do so in a transparent way, in an honest way, talk to the American people, trust their judgment.

CNN Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer Transcript 25 Jul 04

Another contemporary interview with the NYT has led to the wide circulation of another quote, 'But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,' Mr. Obama said. 'What would I have done? I don't know.' but again when that out-of-context remark is examined we see him as outspoken as the platform of a Kerry and Edwards campaign allows:

In a recent interview, he declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time.

'But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,' Mr. Obama said. 'What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.'

But Mr. Obama said he did fault Democratic leaders for failing to ask enough tough questions of the Bush administration to force it to prove its case for war. 'What I don't think was appropriate was the degree to which Congress gave the president a pass on this,' he said.

Monica Davey - NYT 26 Jul 04

Well?

by Shaun Appleby on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:10:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We'll see your half-second "Bin Lade (2.00 / 2)

Hey his campaign has already blamed her for the death of her friend Bhutto in Pakistan ,

so whats new ?

When I speak I have a southern drawl.. When you come down here Stop and say hello I'm an American from south of the Mason Dixon line

by lori on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:41:57 AM EST

He has never done this so quit the crap. (none / 0)

John McCain supports privatizing Social Security.

by Travis Stark on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 07:08:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

axelrod (2.00 / 1)

vote blue in 2008

by sepulvedaj3 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 09:21:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't buy it. Your link please. Or shut up. (none / 0)

John McCain supports privatizing Social Security.

by Travis Stark on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 09:36:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't buy it. Your link please. Or shut up. (none / 0)

http://thepage.time.com/axelrod-on-bhutt o-assassination/

The implication being, part of the reason Bhutto was assassinated is Senator Clinton 'didn't have the good judgment' to keep us out of Iraq and diverted security in Pakistan.

It's a stretch to link pretty complex issues, but it's also a stretch to say that he said Clinton is directly responsible for her death. He does imply she is indirectly responsible, and he links the two, so he should have expected this.

"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."

by VAAlex on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:01:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

That's it? That's what she's talking about? (none / 0)

So Axelrod says that Bhutto's death will refocus attention on Pakistan and that when you look at Pakistan you see that the war in Iraq took our attention away from Al Quaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan and that decision won't reflect well on Clinton, and from THAT the commenter gets that Obama said Hillary was responsible for Bhutto's death? How despicable.

John McCain supports privatizing Social Security.

by Travis Stark on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:53:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's it? That's what she's talking about? (none / 0)

Not sure if that's exactly what she's talking about, she may be talking about some other quote, but this is the only one I found.

"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."

by VAAlex on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:58:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The quoted sentence is CORRECT. (2.00 / 2)

The subject of the sentence is "she" It's been years since I took grammar, but I remember that much.

Everything in that quoted sentence is absolutely correct and needed to be said. I could have written it myself. Many of us have said it before, in one way or the other.

When Hillary Clinton voted to give George W. Bush the AUTHORIZATION TO USE MILITARY FORCE, she gave him authorization to use military force... against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and where Osama Bin Laden didn't exist. She did that while our forces were still in Afghanistan trying to mop up Al Qaeda and find Bin Laden.

The fact that George W. Bush was the ringmaster of this circus doesn't change the fact that he needed, asked for, and got the approval of members of the Senate, including Hillary Clinton. You may not feel her vote was consequential in that, but those of us that have been mad as hell about it for years certainly do.

And to remind us about Bin Laden only reminds us of that vote all over again. She let us all down, tragically.

How many times over the past several years have we had to hear Republicans defend the quagmire that they got us into by saying, "But Hillary Clinton and John Kerry voted for it, too!"

by Dumbo on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:50:29 AM EST

Re: (2.00 / 1)

Bush couldn't invade Iraq alone, EVERY single senator who authorized the AUMF played a part. I also supported it, but i only had what Bush told me, she actually HAD the NIE, and she voted for it.

anyone want to tell me why she voted for it but 23 senators, like mine Sen. Paul Wellstone knew enough to vote against it?

1 side was right 1 was wrong. I think by now we all know which side was which.

those of us who wanted this war was wrong, and had I been in the senate, I probably would have voted for it, yes, but it would be because of triangulation, the fact HRC supporters can't admit that is just wow.

it was the popular thing at the time, thats why she voted for it and defended it untill it was unpopular

Obama has nothing to apologize for here.

Congratulations to Barack Obama, the presumptive Presumptive Democratic Nominee

by TruthMatters on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:05:28 AM EST

It is a shallow criticism (none / 0)

because Clinton alone was not responsible for this. He should also be critiquing every dem that went along with Bush, including those democrats who have supported and endorsed Obama (Warner, Kerry, Dodd, just to name a few).

Where Obama is now vulnerable, after everyone realizes this is a silly immature response to Clinton's ad (blame hillary! she got us into this mess!) is to charges of "being against the war before he was for it"....because he has voted exactly like Clinton in the continued support of the war, and himself has said things like "not much difference between me an dGWB on this now, and that he doesn't know how he would have voted if he was in the senate at the time".

A speech is one thing. The credit, however, actually belongs to the person who is in the ring.

I don't think Obama's argument is going to work against McCain, especially now since he has basically said McCain would be better than bush (ha!).

I would say the Obama team's response, and the hyper sensititve comments from supporters on this thread, just demonstrate the lack of depth in even criticising this vote.

Why not talk about the real criminal? And fight this properly? It just sounds like he is pissed and can respond only with misplaced blame, not a substantive critique of who was actually to blame for the lie that is Iraq.

by 4justice on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 09:50:58 AM EST

Unbelievable (none / 0)

I don't see a single Obama supporter here taking exception to the declaration that Hillary Clinton is 100% responsible for bin Laden's terrorist network: which is exactly what Burton's statement means.

People, you need to open your eyes. I'm not trying to talk to you about which candidate to select. Be for Obama, if you think that's best. But don't reject truth when it's inconvenient. Don't spout lies just because they hurt your candidate's foe.

Bush had a little something to do with it, don't you think?

by Trickster on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 12:37:17 PM EST

Call a spade a spade... (none / 0)

The blame isn't solely Clinton's, but the comment is pretty much true.

Donate to Obama, Today!

by freedom78 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:05:55 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.