Behind Servergate

Ms. Clinton's closest aid and friend is Iranian. Oh, she recently promised not to mess with email archives. You see, she had a personal account on the server holding national secrets.

Her input and friendship would be worth serious money to Iran. Why else would anyone want personal control over secret data?

Why was the impossibly stupid agreement with Iran finalized? Consider that merely by making an agreement, stupid or not, billions of dollars are to be released to Iran. Oh, yes, what is Obama's middle name?

Let us look at Ms. Clinton server company:



Daily Mail

EXCLUSIVE: Top executive at Hillary's server company was sued for 'fraud' after 'receiving proceeds' from $500m Ponzi scheme run by Backstreet Boys impresario... Platte River Networks maintained 'home brew' server Clinton used while Secretary of State

• 
  
• This week the embattled Democratic White House frontrunner handed it over to FBI after ultra-secret material found in tiny sample of emails
• 
  
• Daily Mail Online can reveal David DeCamillis of Platte River Networks was director of firm run by Lou Pearlman, who r's an $500m Ponzi scheme
• 
  
• Pearlman was jailed in 2008 and documents show that DeCamillis was sued for 'fraud' by bankruptcy trustee
• 
  
• Federal court documents show he was accused of several counts of fraud and receiving $1.5m in payments from cash traceable to duped investors
• 
  
• Disclosure raises questions what background checks - if any - were made on firm which….

Breitbart:

We’ll be hearing a lot more in the days to come about Platte River Networks, the tiny computer company in Denver, Colorado that Hillary Clinton improbably chose to manage the illicit “home-brewed” server she stashed in the basement of her vast estate in Chappaqua, New York.

The FBI reportedly visited the company’s Denver office earlier this week, but neither the Bureau nor company officials was willing to discuss what transpired during the visit. The best CBS News in Denver could do, by way of background reporting, was chat with a computer-science professor who observed that there were “questions about what security protocols were in place,” and mildly observed that Platte River Networks did not seem like “the best choice” for handling the secret personal server of the Secretary of State and her top aides, which we now know was processing classified and top-secret information, contrary to months of false denials from Hillary Clinton and her mouthpieces.

There is, no doubt, a fascinating story behind how Clinton chose this particular outfit for her server management needs. They do seem to be extraordinarily skilled at wiping hard drives without making backup copies of subpoenaed information, which would certainly have caught Clinton’s eye while she was leafing through their sales brochure.

Were employees of Platte River cleared to handle the top-secret information Clinton was handling? Did they have experience and training at securing a system that would have been one of the top targets in the world for hackers – and not just freelance troublemakers, but skilled espionage agents working for foreign governments? Were the interactions of company representatives with Clinton’s server logged as carefully as State Department IT specialists would have been? Was the company careful and disciplined enough to handle such a sensitive assignment?

A clue to the latter question is provided by a strange incident that occurred after Clinton departed as Secretary of State, resulting in a lawsuit being filed against Platte River last year. As chronicled by the UK Daily Mail, the computer company was sued by a telecommunications firm, T2 Communications, for its role in illegally accessing the master database of all U.S. telephone numbers, and using that information to improperly seize control of 390 phone lines… including some used by the White House and Defense Department.

T2 alleges that it had provided 16 phone lines to an insurance broker called Cambridge until they decided to switch providers and signed up with Windstream Communications, who worked with McLeod USA, a local exchange carrier owned by Windstream, and Platte River.

But instead of taking over the 16 lines, T2 claims that the companies asked for 390 more lines in what they called ‘intentional misappropriation’.

T2 alleges that they did this by illegally accessing the database for the Number Portability Administration Centre, the master agency which manages all US phone numbers.

The lawsuit states: ‘Under NPAC regulations, telecommunications providers are only allowed to access the NPAC data base for the exclusive purpose of routing, rating of calls, billing of calls, or performing maintenance in connection with the provision of telecommunications services.

‘Contrary to these NPAC regulations, Defendants accessed the NPAC database to find T2s 390 telephone lines as well as to obtain T2 and its customers’ proprietary network information for use in marketing T2’s lines to their existing and prospective customers.’

The lawsuit describes at length the chaos that resulted when the 390 numbers used by T2 customers suddenly stopped working.

T2 employees’ numbers also stopped working as did lines for: ‘The Department of Defense, Department of Energy; multiple medical emergency facilities as numbers used for general, pre- and post-surgical contact, and obstetric or gynecological emergencies; Federal Contract Support Desks; White House Military Operations support desks, several financial institution’s main telephone numbers, multiple Denver-based Charter schools’ main and backdoor phone numbers, a US-Based telephone number for IBM China, multiple other information technology companies and their support and internal telephone numbers, as well as T2’s main telephone numbers’.

The lawsuit states that the lines were dead for at least 21 hours and that it took the company at least 10 days to ‘unwind’ the mess and get the numbers back.

...Platte River’s role in all of this, according to the lawsuit, involved “spotting any red flags” and “resolving any inaccuracies” with the deal. The suit says Hillary’s computer company “acted negligently and breached this duty by failing to identify that the 390 additional lines were improper.”

Breitbart

The company that stored Hillary Clinton’s private email server tells Breitbart News no backup of Clinton’s server has ever been known to exist.

“No data or backups have ever been known to exist or have ever been in the possession of Platte River Networks,” a representative for the company said in an interview.

The revelation raises grave questions about Clinton’s record-keeping, considering that she used another server at her home that is no longer in anyone’s possession — let alone FBI investigator

As Breitbart News first reported, Clinton’s email account contained multiple emails that were classified when they were first sent, despite her campaign’s claim to the contrary. The State Department has already found more than 300 emails from Clinton’s inbox that could contain classified information.

Platte River Networks tells Breitbart News that it doesn’t know whether any security breaches occurred on the server prior to June 2013.

The company representative confirmed that Denver-based Platte River Networks was hired by the Clinton family in June 2013, five months after Clinton left the State Department, to secure the private email server that she used to conduct official government business. Platte River Networks was paid by the Clintons personally.

The company went to Clinton’s home in Chappaqua, New York, picked the server up from her basement, and transported it to a different company’s data center in New Jersey. The data center was selected by Platte River, and not by the Clintons or by anyone at the State Department.

---

Would you personally pay for a large, secured server used for your work?

Bye Bye Miss American Pie

I kept a wonderful article, but I wonder why.  Those of us who know, know.  Those of us not paying attention, don't pay attention.

Most of us lead lives of quiet stupidity punctuated by judgment against that which is not part of the hum of meaningless existence.  Being able to reject and mock make us feel good. After all, only gods can judge others. We need no longer read Lord of the Flies

In the slaving days, after the British made the trade illegal, the slaves were often pulled by their chains overboard by the first few who were thrown into the ocean. There was a chain reaction, literally, as the crime of trading slaves vanished with the last person to go into the water. I read one story where the British came upon an nearly empty ship with many bowls of farina on a table, still hot. Today, we have slaves who volunteer to jump and I do not want to be attached.

Below is good excerpt, I thought, that may awaken some people, but those who know, know and wonder what to do.  Those who don't know, won't even read the excerpt, which, now that I think about it, requires some awareness to even understand. Anyway, most people will just skim the crazy conspiracy talk, having been trained to think that conspiracy means fiction, then  check in at the concentration camp.

I usually find a funny or clever photo to capture the eye, but what's the point?  Those in the know, will be amused, but don't need it.  Those not in the know will add the image to cascade of meaningless data that passes by, as Vonnegut put it, their peep holes onto the world.

...Cloward and Piven were inspired by radical organizer [and Hillary Clinton mentor] Saul Alinsky:

"Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules," Alinsky wrote in his 1989 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system's failure to "live up" to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist "rule book" with a socialist one. (CourtesyDiscover the Networks.org)

Newsmax rounds out the picture:

Their strategy to create political, financial, and social chaos that would result in revolution blended Alinsky concepts with their more aggressive efforts at bringing about a change in U.S. government. To achieve their revolutionary change, Cloward and Piven sought to use a cadre of aggressive organizers assisted by friendly news media to force a re-distribution of the nation's wealth.

In their Nation article, Cloward and Piven were specific about the kind of "crisis" they were trying to create:

By crisis, we mean a publicly visible disruption in some institutional sphere. Crisis can occur spontaneously (e.g., riots) or as the intended result of tactics of demonstration and protest which either generate institutional disruption or bring unrecognized disruption to public attention.

No matter where the strategy is implemented, it shares the following features:

1. 
   

   The offensive organizes previously unorganized groups eligible for government benefits but not currently receiving all they can.

2. 
   

   The offensive seeks to identify new beneficiaries and/or create new benefits.

3. 
   

   The overarching aim is always to impose new stresses on target systems, with the ultimate goal of forcing their collapse.

Capitalizing on the racial unrest of the 1960s, Cloward and Piven saw the welfare system as their first target. They enlisted radical black activist George Wiley, who created the National Welfare Reform Organization (NWRO) to implement the strategy. Wiley hired militant foot soldiers to storm welfare offices around the country, violently demanding their "rights." According to a City Journal article by Sol Stern, welfare rolls increased from 4.3 million to 10.8 million by the mid-1970s as a result, and in New York City, where the strategy had been particularly successful, "one person was on the welfare rolls... for every two working in the city's private economy."...

No, you may think," this is crazy stuff.  Who would be so diabolical?"  You may think how good you are for being sensitive to those in need.  You may vote for Clinton because she speaks for women or some other nonsense.  What is this the Stockholm syndrome?

Then, you will go pay your school tax, your real estate tax, your federal income tax, your state income tax, your telephone tax, gas tax, tolls, social security premium, and read about how your electricity costs may double as that wonderful solution to no problem "cap and tax" may be enacted.  At least, we can feel good about supporting all the illegal aliens who can get here. This year, Clinton lectured the Pakistani:  tax everything, we do.

There is a cliff up ahead, to change metaphors.  I don't think I can watch anymore. There are a few historical instances of peoples throwing themselves off a cliff to avoid defeat or slavery, or to retain honor , but I can't find an instance where they jumped off because, well, come on, what is the big deal?

It may be time to set up a monastery to keep a library of what is being destroyed by the self-absorbed. those who don't trust other people, and a medieval religion. Or perhaps, find America's progeny and help dignity reawaken there. I wonder where that might be?

He's right, with a whimper.

Clinton, Castro, Chavez, Ortega, and Obama v. Honduras' Constitution

Sorry about Saturday's snafu. The blog is online, but I don't think the correct version was sent. Anyway, who cares.

Honduras Defends Its Democracy

Fidel Castro and Hillary Clinton object.

By Mary O'Grady for WSJ

Hugo Chávez's coalition-building efforts suffered a setback yesterday when the Honduran military sent its president packing for abusing the nation's constitution.

It seems that President Mel Zelaya miscalculated when he tried to emulate the success of his good friend Hugo in reshaping the Honduran Constitution to his liking.

But Honduras is not out of the Venezuelan woods yet. Yesterday the Central American country was being pressured to restore the authoritarian Mr. Zelaya by the likes of Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, Hillary Clinton and, of course, Hugo himself. The Organization of American States, having ignored Mr. Zelaya's abuses, also wants him back in power. It will be a miracle if Honduran patriots can hold their ground.

That Mr. Zelaya acted as if he were above the law, there is no doubt. While Honduran law allows for a constitutional rewrite, the power to open that door does not lie with the president. A constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress.

But Mr. Zelaya declared the vote on his own and had Mr. Chávez ship him the necessary ballots from Venezuela. The Supreme Court ruled his referendum unconstitutional, and it instructed the military not to carry out the logistics of the vote as it normally would do.

The top military commander, Gen. Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, told the president that he would have to comply. Mr. Zelaya promptly fired him. The Supreme Court ordered him reinstated. Mr. Zelaya refused.

Calculating that some critical mass of Hondurans would take his side, the president decided he would run the referendum himself. So on Thursday he led a mob that broke into the military installation where the ballots from Venezuela were being stored and then had his supporters distribute them in defiance of the Supreme Court's order.

The attorney general had already made clear that the referendum was illegal, and he further announced that he would prosecute anyone involved in carrying it out. Yesterday, Mr. Zelaya was arrested by the military and is now in exile in Costa Rica.

It remains to be seen what Mr. Zelaya's next move will be. It's not surprising that chavistas throughout the region are claiming that he was victim of a military coup. They want to hide the fact that the military was acting on a court order to defend the rule of law and the constitution, and that the Congress asserted itself for that purpose, too.

Mrs. Clinton has piled on as well. Yesterday she accused Honduras of violating "the precepts of the Interamerican Democratic Charter" and said it "should be condemned by all." Fidel Castro did just that. Mr. Chávez pledged to overthrow the new government.

Honduras is fighting back by strictly following the constitution. The Honduran Congress met in emergency session yesterday and designated its president as the interim executive as stipulated in Honduran law. It also said that presidential elections set for November will go forward. The Supreme Court later said that the military acted on its orders. It also said that when Mr. Zelaya realized that he was going to be prosecuted for his illegal behavior, he agreed to an offer to resign in exchange for safe passage out of the country. Mr. Zelaya denies it.

Many Hondurans are going to be celebrating Mr. Zelaya's foreign excursion. Street protests against his heavy-handed tactics had already begun last week. On Friday a large number of military reservists took their turn. "We won't go backwards," one sign said. "We want to live in peace, freedom and development."

Besides opposition from the Congress, the Supreme Court, the electoral tribunal and the attorney general, the president had also become persona non grata with the Catholic Church and numerous evangelical church leaders. On Thursday evening his own party in Congress sponsored a resolution to investigate whether he is mentally unfit to remain in office.

For Hondurans who still remember military dictatorship, Mr. Zelaya also has another strike against him: He keeps rotten company. Earlier this month he hosted an OAS general assembly and led the effort, along side OAS Secretary General José Miguel Insulza, to bring Cuba back into the supposedly democratic organization.

The OAS response is no surprise. Former Argentine Ambassador to the U.N. Emilio Cárdenas told me on Saturday that he was concerned that "the OAS under Insulza has not taken seriously the so-called 'democratic charter.' It seems to believe that only military 'coups' can challenge democracy. The truth is that democracy can be challenged from within, as the experiences of Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and now Honduras, prove." A less-kind interpretation of Mr. Insulza's judgment is that he doesn't mind the Chávez-style coup.

The struggle against chavismo has never been about left-right politics. It is about defending the independence of institutions that keep presidents from becoming dictators. This crisis clearly delineates the problem. In failing to come to the aid of checks and balances, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Insulza expose their true colors.

Birds of a feather....

Pig in poke....

Some animals are more equal than others....

------------

Rod - note Animal Farm is dystopian.

Animal Farm is a dystopian novel by George Orwell. Published in England on 17 August 1945, the book reflects events leading up to and during the Stalin era before World War II. Orwell, a democratic socialist^[1] and a member of the Independent Labour Party for many years, was a critic of Joseph Stalin and was suspicious of Moscow-directed Stalinism after his experiences with the NKVD during the Spanish Civil War. In a letter to Yvonne Davet, Orwell described Animal Farm as his novel "contre Stalin".^[2]...
...

Overview

The novel addresses not only the corruption of the revolution by its leaders but also how wickedness, indifference, ignorance, greed and myopia destroy any possibility of a Utopia. While this novel portrays corrupt leadership as the flaw in revolution (and not the act of revolution itself), it also shows how potential ignorance and indifference to problems within a revolution could allow horrors to happen if smooth transition to a people's government isn't satisfied....

Keeping up with the gates of hell

Little entertainment: Here

Below, Irene's research on how the Clinton era destroyed the housing industry.

NEW MOTTO:

TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION IS TYRANNY.

Catchy, I thought.

To my mind, it is one's duty to avoid tax payment. Otherwise, you are feeding the enemy.

Don't go to jail, the Crown having only the force of the usurper to rely upon, but go out of you way to remove yourself from the trough. There is no longer a voluntary tax system of the people that has been designed to support their common good. We have become slaves to the taxman who uses the FBI, the police, and computer systems to extract money from the producers in order to pay government non-producers, as well the directors of Fannie Mae. Just touching the surface:

• Executive Department workers: 1.8 million (they retire)
  
• State and local workers: 16, million (earning $36 per hour over private industry's #24)
• Unpaid taxes by federal workers in 2006: $2,799,950,165.
• State and local government unfunded, retiree medical benefits: $1 trillion or more
• Federal unfunded obligation to pay medical costs for retired federal workers and military personnel: has a $1.2 trillion
  
• Medicare and Social Security push the nation’s unfunded promises above $52 trillion.” (Recall, the Democrats removed the lock box, the trust money we put in, and said the general revenue will pay social security. "General Revenue" means your grandchildren.)
  

All this and no one is held to any standard of performance. Oh, Obama just added some $17 trillion in debt. Forgot that. There is really no need to attempt to be accurate here, is there?

Vote against every incumbent, keep you children away from public schools, and remove yourself from the trough. That's it, other than moving away. Let it collapse.

It will come to pass the more people work, the less you keep, so get out the back, jack, and make a new plan. Don't forget, get out of the dollar.

Europe has tried this new "change" generations ago and are yelling, now, at the U.S. to stop. As the retired Check President put it, the new stimulus plan is the road to hell. But, what would someone who grew up under Marxist rule know?

------

Irene has been busy, so I will file some of her work here. SO YOU CAN STOP, NOW! All you need to know about Freddie and Fannie is below.

I am even behind on this reporting job. Too much going on.

First, requiescat in pacem:

Chicago's Sun-Times Media files for Chapter 11

By David B. Wilkerson, MarketWatch

Last Update: 8:43 AM ET Mar 31, 2009

CHICAGO (MarketWatch) -- Sun-Times Media Group Inc. has become the second newspaper publisher in the Chicago area, and the latest among several around the U.S., to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection at a time of unprecedented advertising revenue declines in the newspaper industry. [Say, why does advertising decline, I wonder? I thought it was people were not buying the paper, but it could be Bush's fault.]

Rival Tribune Co., publisher of the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times and the Baltimore Sun, filed for bankruptcy last December....

I give even odds that Nancy Peliosi will now recommend bailing out leftists papers. Why not? What's a few billion, anyway, if you can keep the propoganda arms open?

"We must ensure that our policies enable our news organizations to survive and to engage in the news gathering and analysis that the American people expect," Pelosi wrote.

The game is this: get the U.S. Attorney General to say that TV, radio, and Internet are part of the news game; hence, they are big bad anti-trust bears causing her base to collapse. It is the rich people, herself excluded, who are causing newspapers to lose readers by providing free news. You know the next steps are to go after radio and give money to the papers so thay can continue to provide" the news gathering and analysis that the American people expect." The problem is, they know what to expect and are going elsewhere.

Now, there was some disbelief that any Democrat could have done anything bad that resulted in the collapse of the economy, so...

FREDDIE, FANNIE, CONGRESS, CLINTON, et al.

Here is a quick video covering the history of Fannie and Freddie. If you listen and do not come away with the opinion that Big Brother is not manipulating information and opinion, then I hope enjoy the choir.

If you are still in doubt that Clinton (Cuomo), Emmanuel, and Raines killed off the economy, you could read here. You may not be up on this as it is not politically correct to mention truth, because Bush did everything bad, like try to rein in Fannie Mae in 2005.

There has been no free market in housing or finance. Government has long exercised massive control over the housing and financial markets--including its creation of Fannie Mae... -leading to many of the problems being blamed on the free market today.... {Forbes}

What is the source of the explanation of the Democrats' philosphy and action in this matter? The New York Times.

Oh, its the NYT of 1999, not today, as they now say the Clinton era actions could not have caused anything bad. Of course not.

So, there being no longer any argument over what they did, the left has to adopt the argument that it didn't matter. It is hard keeping shifting arguments straight, no? If you didn't check it out, at the top if the page is a link to the beginning of 1984. Check it out, there is nothing new under the sun, as Terence said.

At least, Dodd's amazing lying history is bubbling to the surface, now that the dull-witted media is sratching its collective butt and wondering what happened.

-----

Quoted here, spokesperson from American Economic Institute in the 1990's,

From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.

Forbes has a recent article called The Government Did It.

...All this overlooks a crucial fact: There has been no free market in housing or finance. Government has long exercised massive control over the housing and financial markets--including its creation of Fannie Mae (nyse: FNM - news - people ) and Freddie Mac (nyse: FRE - news - people ) (which have now amassed $5 trillion in liabilities)--leading to many of the problems being blamed on the free market today....

Below is from the American Thinker, just recently published. Recall Raines is Obama's confidant and was appointed by Cuomo.

...Fannie and Freddie became big contributors to the Democratic Party. The sub-prime business paid off-at least while the bubble was growing. And the Kerry, Hillary and Obama campaigns have numbered among the leading recipients of the largess of the two mortgage lenders.

Franklin Raines, the Fannie Mae C.E.O. from 1999 to 2004, had been budget director in the Clinton administration. The left would not like you to be reminded that Raines has been a consultant to the Obama campaign, according to the Washington Post, and that Freddie and Fannie number among the top 5 contributors to Obama's run for the presidency. Raines is being sued for the recovery of 50 million in compensation acquired by the alleged manipulation of Fannie's books. Now, that's not change we can believe in. That's Washington as we have come to know and "love" it.

The Bush administration in 2003 tried to change the system, to no avail. Congressman Barney Frank, (D, MA ) was in the forefront of stopping the Bush proposal to take control out of Fannie and Freddie and put it into a third overseeing organization. Frank too has emerged in the current crisis as one of the major critics of the administration.

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan continued to raise the alarm over Fannie's and Freddie's weak capitalization. His concerns were ignored.

Former Congressman Michael Oxley (R,OH), then chairman of the House Financial Services Committee and co-author of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, introduced a bill in 2005 in response to the growing problem, but Fannie and Freddie put their lobbyists to work and the bill died.

Democratic Senator Chris Dodd, who is now Chairman of the Banking Committee and who appears along side Majority Leader Harry Reid on television to discuss the current bailout negotiations, has had harsh words for the Bush administration for its alleged role in the crisis.

But the rest of us should have some harsh words for Senator Dodd. After all, the Bush administration in 2003 and Senator Phil Gramm even earlier, in 1999, had been working to change the system. Dodd, like Obama, has been a big recipient of campaign funds from Fannie and Freddie, organizations that Dodd oversees. Dodd has apparently been more consumed with campaign contributions from the mortgage giants than the responsibilities of oversight...

NY Post:

...Flexible lending programs expanded even though they had higher default rates than loans with traditional standards. On the Web, you can still find CRA loans available via ACORN with "100 percent financing . . . no credit scores . . . undocumented income . . . even if you don't report it on your tax returns." Credit counseling is required, of course.

Ironically, an enthusiastic Fannie Mae Foundation report singled out one paragon of nondiscriminatory lending, which worked with community activists and followed "the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted." That lender's $1 billion commitment to low-income loans in 1992 had grown to $80 billion by 1999 and $600 billion by early 2003.

Who was that virtuous lender? Why - Countrywide, the nation's largest mortgage lender, recently in the headlines as it hurtled toward bankruptcy....

I don't know what else can be said. There are facts and there is the Obama Nation. Those of us who follow the factual path have to, now, deal with the coming train wreck. It is inevitable.

You know, I even feel sorry for the deer on the track watching the train with hope. The Bible has Jesus saying, "Forgive them, they know not what they do."

You should forgive the sinner, but never the sin. Ignorance will bring destruction to those who watch the train light approaching, but the train wreck can take out those who are trying to get away. Again, get away.

2007 Boldface Lies: No. 1

I have been a fan of the Clinton technique of lying in plain view ever since the whoppers about the spelling of her name was influenced by the great climb of Sir Edmund Hillary, which was a few years after Hillary's birth. I also like the one Bill told about reading about black churches being burned in his state as a boy and being disturbed. Within days of that whopper, the state historian went public to say no church had been burned.

Today, we have her position on Iraq which spells out for sure she was against the war before she voted for it. Her new position will, of course, be repeated by the major media without so much as comment, thus providing further protection of the Clintons in the never-ending double-standard regarding double-talk. The problem is, this time, other Democrats will refresh the electorates RAM about her lie.

Recall, as a primary axiom:

Clinton votes YES on House Joint Resolution 114, "to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq." The measure passes the Senate 77-23. Oct., 2002

Below are her wonderfully creative words and those of the Guardian, hardly a right-wing paper, and of a Hate-Bush- Now group called Codepink. (Is that onomatopoeia?)

Clinton Promises to End War if Elected (2/2/07)

By NEDRA PICKLER

WASHINGTON (AP) - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday she would not have attacked Iraq if she were president in 2002 and would end the war if elected, as she tried to blunt rivals like John Edwards who are stoking anti-war passions in the Democratic Party.

Clinton, raising her voice at one point to be heard above anti-war hecklers, suggested that calls from Edwards and others to cut off funding for President Bush's troop increase are unlikely to win approval in a narrowly divided Senate.

"Believe me, I understand the frustration and the outrage," Clinton said in a speech to the Democratic National Committee meeting that brought the party's nine White House hopefuls together for the first time. "You have to have 60 votes to cap troops, to limit funding to do anything. If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will."

------

At least, the Guardian writer remembers what he read a few years ago:

Ewen MacAskill in Washington
Thursday January 18, 2007
The Guardian

Hillary Clinton risked being outflanked in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination yesterday when she revised her stance on the Iraq war but failed to go far enough to satisfy anti-war critics.

Mrs Clinton, who voted for the war in 2002 and has so far refused to repudiate that, took to television and radio studios for a media blitz yesterday morning to set out a new position after a visit to Iraq and Afghanistan last week.....

-----
Here is a Codepink's view of Ms. Clinton's flip-flop, which was not floppy enough:

Hillary Clinton's Senate Record on the War in Iraq:

January 2007: Hillary says that it was President Bush’s “decision to go to war with an ill-conceived plan and an incompetently executed strategy." She adds, “We expect him to extricate our country from this before he leaves office,” e.g., before 2009, but she hedges when asked if this means troop withdrawal by then. In short, Hillary once again makes it clear that her ever-changing positions on the war are tied completely to her domestic political calculations January 2007: Hillary places the blame for the situation on the Iraqis themselves: "I don't think we should continue to fund the protection for the Iraqi government leaders or for the training and equipping of their army unless they meet certain conditions…." She opposes Bush's "troop surge" and calls for a "cap" on troop levels, but refuses to call for withdrawal or to support Senate measures that would restrict funding for the war. December 2006: Hillary still doesn't join John Kerry and John Edwards in apologizing for the war authorization vote, but she does say: "Obviously, if we knew then what we know now, there wouldn't have been a vote and I certainly wouldn't have voted that way." October 2006: Hillary calls for the firing of Donald Rumsfeld. "If we could get some adult supervision right now in the administration with respect to their war strategy, this could be handled," she said. She's not against the war-she just thinks it's being managed badly. September 2006: Clinton votes NO on Senate Amendment 4882 sponsored by Diane Feinstein that would ban the sale of cluster munitions for the use in heavily populated civilian areas. The amendment is defeated 70-30. June 2006: Clinton votes NO on Senate Amendment 4442 sponsored by John Kerry that would require the redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq in order to further a political solution in Iraq. The amendment is defeated 86-13. November 2005: A few days after Representative John Murtha bravely calls for the redeployment of troops currently in Iraq, Hillary offers this response: an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would be "a big mistake." February 2005: Hillary makes the somewhat dubious statements that much of Iraq is functioning well, that elections there have succeeded and that the insurgency is failing. Hillary says the US should not set a deadline for troop withdrawal because it will "play into the hands of the insurgents." April 2004: Hillary says she is not sorry she voted for a resolution authorizing the president to take military action in Iraq, but she does regret "the way the president used the authority." October 2002: Clinton votes YES on House Joint Resolution 114, "to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq." The measure passes the Senate 77-23. All voting records from www.vote-smart.org