So doesn't that make a complete hash of Obama's primary lines of attack against both Hillary and McCain?

What am I missing here?

You are missing the fact that, while Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton, did provide the necessary authorization for Geroge W. Bush to consider the use of force, they did not authorize rampant incompetence, deceit in the reasons for going to war, halting the weapons inspectors before they could report that there were no WMD's and retention of a Secretary of Defence years beyond the time when his damage was evident. And, by the way, if you check the facts (as opposed to Conservative spin), John McCain never called for Donald Rumsfeld's removal. he both supported and criticized Secretary Rumsfeld, and always said that it was "President Bush's decision" when asked if Secretary Rmsfeld should stay or go.

Anyone who tries to tell you that Jphn McCain ever called for Secretary Rumsfeld's removal is lying to you.

<link>

Biden acknowleges that that support was a genuine mistake, an unequivical wrong.

Hillary was unwilling to acknowledge that, but at least now supports ending our occupation.

McCain still thinks it was the best thing since sliced bread.

Part of "Judgement" is correctly assessing situations and making decissions; and the other part of Judgement is evaluating past decisions honestly and learning from them.

That said, I wouldn't support Biden for president. I think he would do fine as VP though. Unlike the situation the republicans face, there is not a substantial likelihood that the VP will be called to take over for Obama anytime within the next 4 years.

[You are missing the fact that, while Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton, did provide the necessary authorization for Geroge W. Bush to consider the use of force, they did not authorize rampant incompetence, deceit in the reasons for going to war, halting the weapons inspectors before they could report that there were no WMD's and retention of a Secretary of Defence years beyond the time when his damage was evident.]

And that makes Biden different from Clinton how?

[And, by the way, if you check the facts (as opposed to Conservative spin), John McCain never called for Donald Rumsfeld's removal. he both supported and criticized Secretary Rumsfeld, and always said that it was "President Bush's decision" when asked if Secretary Rmsfeld should stay or go.

Anyone who tries to tell you that Jphn McCain ever called for Secretary Rumsfeld's removal is lying to you.]

Well, I happen to like Rumsfeld.

Biden voted for war then, and he called for war last night. He has no intention of bringing troops home, and neither does Obama. They just want to shift them to Afghanistan.

The military industrial complex wins and peace loses no matter which of the major party warhawks you vote for and whether they claim to be liberal or not. Get used to it. Just like we try to get used to both of the big government spenders expanding the federal government whether they claim to be conservative or not.

Vote for more bureaucracy and more war, or vote for more bureaucracy and more war. Have fun pretending that's a real choice. Biden flat told you last night it isn't.

How does that make Biden different from Clinton?

Biden and others have admitted that they made a mistake on Iraq while Clinton has not. She did not see it as a mistake; she just justified it with "if I knew then what I know now," not taking any responsibility for her decision. Which means, in the face of future misjudgments or mistakes, Clinton might be less likely to make reversals or adjustments on policy when it becomes necessary-- perhaps out of pride, or to not appear indecisive or weak as a woman commander-in-chief, or to save face, or for whatever reason she had for not admitting her mistake in voting for the war.

I believe Bush, himself, knows he made a mistake, but won't publically admit it.

In anycase, I think any criticism of Biden, Hillary, Edwards or others regarding their intitial decision is minor compared to the criticism one can level against Bush and McCain who have no regrets whatsoever. McCain is even worse than Bush in preferring an indefinite large troop presence in Iraq; whereas Bush is working with Iraq's preference for a responsible time-table (as Obama has been advocating).

I like Rumsfeld as a person, but even Republicans were openly critical of his inability to listen to other points of view, and blame him decisions leading to the escalation of conflict in Iraq and neglect/resurgence in Afganistan/Pakistan.

the true conservative:

What am I missing here?

The ability to form a sophisticated thought that extends beyond bumper sticker jingoism.

The main difference I see between Clinton and Biden is that Biden announced last night on national television that he and Obama will not end or even wind down our wars, but merely move them north. Clinton didn't.

Acptulsa-- Al Qaeda are in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and are busy plotting more attacks against America and against many other targets around the world. You think America should just leave them there for the sake of "peace"? Yes, many troops may be relocated, but the military priorities will be correct at that time. Afghanistan is justified, Iraq was not.

Christine, do you really think bin Laden is still alive? Many experts do not. If he is, it is almost certainly because he has quietly slipped back home to Saudi Arabia where his family (the royals) have the resources to ensure he can get the renal dialysis he needs to survive.

Saudi Arabia is the other way. It is south of Iraq. Afghanistan is north.

So, no, I'm sorry but I don't buy that line of reasoning.

Re: "ll, I happen to like Rumsfeld."

So did George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Through about four "We are Turning the corner in Iraq" fairy tales that kept the party faithful, such as yourself, in line.

Re: "Christine, do you really think bin Laden is still alive?"

He issues statements to his troops every five or six months, just as he always has.

I know that "bin laden is dead, but no one knows it" is the story line that FoxNews puts out on a weekly basis, just to give George W. Bush cover for his failure to capture the main symbol. of the 9/11 attacks, despite his "Dead or Alive" speech (Conservatives have also been parsing that statement, letter by letter, to provide further alibis for President Bush: Who needs more alibis than anyone else who has bver held the office).

Within four years of the attacks on Pearl Harbor, all of the Japanese leaders who perpetrated the attacks were dead or in Jail: Confirmed. Seven years after the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin laden is still issuing communications to his followers and his groups are safe on the Afghanistan/Pakistan Border.

And, George W. Bush has this to say about bin laden:

<link>

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

- George W. Bush, 3/13/2002

And every single Conservative, including yourself, are working your tails off to make alibis for George W. Bush over this. And you will, forever by pretending he is dead, despite the evidence to the contrary, by demanding “Proof” from others. I believe that bin Laden is alive when I see/hear his tapes broadcast. If a Democratic president had presided over this mess, FoxNews would have a counter on their screen, showing on a daily basis “Number of Days Free” for bin laden since 9/11. Since it is George W. Bush, the automatic Conservative Free Pass is in effect, as always.

P.S. Those "Number of Experts" who believe Osama bin laden is dead spend all their time on FoxNews, reassuring the faithful such as yourself that Geroge W. Bush is really "on the job", don't they?

What part of the Kush are you posting from?

Philadelphia Steve:

P.S. Those "Number of Experts" who believe Osama bin laden is dead spend all their time on FoxNews, reassuring the faithful such as yourself that Geroge W. Bush is really "on the job", don't they?

You've got me confused with someone else. I was all for the Afghani campaign before Dubya was kind enough to the old family friends the bin Ladens to soft-pedal and short-change it long enough for Osama to escape to literally anywhere in the world. If he were healthy, I believe he could have walked to anywhere in Europe, Asia or Africa over the last seven years.

Now we might as well issue a Letter of Marque, as we have no way of knowing where the hell he is. Beats bullying our way into sovereign republics like Pakistan.

As for his weekly communiques with his troops, these would be proof of what, exactly? I could issue a communique to al Qaeda right here and now in his name...