I don't see anything about occupying Iraq in any of your quotes.

-- Wesley_Powell

Many, if not all of those quotes, are taken out of context, as well. If you read them in their entirety, a different picture is painted. It's actually considered an "urban legend": http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp (the real quotes and the rest of the context are provided here). As an example, here's a part of the Hillary quote that is left out:

"If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option."

We're definitely being treated to all the troll "classics" today, up to and including, "Bush isn't running again" and "you hate America."

Are they on some sort of loop?

This part of my post...

actually considered an "urban legend"

...isn't really true. Snopes calls the claim "true," but then goes on to qualify it's designation. You have to read the whole page to get the gist.

This is impressive. Not only does she ratify the unproven GOP talking point that Iran is wreaking havoc in Iraq (a neo-con claim which alternates rapidly with the claim that all the havoc in Iraq is from Al-Qaeda), she purports that Iran has an ongoing nuclear-weapons program.

--vastleft

I caught that, as well, and found it highly ironic in light of her other comments. While I agreed with much of what was in her statement, it wasn't the "revelation" I expected (because of the piece you quoted and other parts).

Maybe we're working with such lowered expectations that Power's piece looks like something much better than what it really is.

I think Obama's camp is on to something. It just needs refinement. You know, with facts and truth. ;)

I think people are stressing the very real linguistic and cultural "lost in translation" effect.

--Anonymous

This "stressing" could be done without putting words into Glenn's mouth.

Furthermore, I didn't see anything Glenn said which disputes that point. In fact, didn't he say that one interview would not change his mind based on the bigger picture of facts which have formed his opinion about Ahmadinejad? That may be the bottom line here.

I worked hard in Democratic campaigns in '06, believing that the Dems taking over Congress would make the difference. Then, I felt like I had something to work towards. I was ecstatic when things went the way they did.

But, now... I wonder if there is any solution. If taking over Congress didn't do it, I am afraid nothing will. The installation of a Hillary Clinton in the Presidency is certainly not going to clean up the mess.

Watching the Dems roll over for the Bush Administration has left me feeling utterly helpless.

You help enable the criminality of our Government (top to bottom) by helping Democrats (or Republicans) win anything. Tirelessly working for Democrats IS tirelessly working for continued torture, abuse, secret prisons, gutting the Bill of Rights, and wars upon wars.

I KNOW.

That was the whole point of my post - that it's become clear that supporting the Democrats was a wasted exercise.

However, I do not believe that supporting third parties is going to help either. Hence the title of my post: "Hopelessness."

Sometimes they respond to what people are demanding of them (responsiveness in political figures is a good thing).

--Glenn Greenwald

His responsiveness is key, especially for those of us who feel unrepresented and politically homeless.

Not to sound like a Pollyanna, but to have a Senator respond in this manner to a morning's worth of calls from the blogosphere and its readers has given me some hope back.

Yes, it's not Republic-saving, but, aside from the actual results of putting a hold on the bill, it sends a clear message about how Chris Dodd feels about the Democratic process. I'm inspired.

Interaction with [TROLLS] = self-pwnage.

-- bamage

This is especially true when it comes to a troll who can't even correctly spell the name of the person he's defending. ;)

Who scares me? Giuliani, Thompson, Clinton, Obama. They scare me. The national debt scares me. Endless big government scares me.

They two things are not mutually exclusive. My fear of many of Ron Paul's positions does not mean that I automatically support any other candidate. I'm afraid of everyone on your list (and others) becoming President AND Ron Paul. For example, most of the Democratic candidates support the death penalty, which I find barbaric and believe is in violation of international law. I hate that the "best case scenario" is ending up with one of them. My fear also stems from the corporate support and pandering of Obama and Clinton (as Glenn notes). See how that works? Those two things (and a host of others) scare me as much as Paul's abortion stance (which is A LOT).

I do support Kucinich. He's the only candidate who even comes close to representing my views. As a result, he will never be President. :)