Jump to content

Hillary Clinton: Iraq War Vote a Mistake


KirtFalcon

Recommended Posts

I've been expecting this one, it took her long enough to speak out although she is still trying to take both sides of the issue . . . just like a Clinton! - KF :w00t:

 

Newsmax.com

Tuesday, Nov. 29, 2005 7:55 p.m. EST

 

For the first time since she voted to authorize the Iraq war three years ago, 2008 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is now saying that vote was a mistake - in an apparent move to pacify growing dissatisfaction with her position among the Democratic Party's left-wing base.

 

"If Congress had been asked [to authorize the war], based on what we know now, we never would have agreed," Clinton said, in an email sent to her supporters on Tuesday.

 

While saying she took full responsibility for her error, Clinton repeatedly insisted that she had been misled by "false" intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction presented by the Bush administration.

 

Citing "assurances they gave that they would first seek to resolve the issue of weapons of mass destruction peacefully through United Nations sponsored inspections," Clinton lamented: "Their assurances turned out to be empty ones."

 

In fact, "the Administration refused repeated requests from the U.N. inspectors to finish their work," she complained.

 

The former first lady charged that "the Bush Administration short-circuited the U.N. inspectors - the last line of defense against the possibility that our intelligence was false."

 

By describing the White House's WMD evidence as not merely wrong, but false, Mrs. Clinton stopped just short of saying she was lied to.

 

At times, however, the top Democrat tried to have it both ways - trumpeting her criticism of the war while insisting she backed the troops.

 

"I have continually raised doubts about the President's claims, lack of planning and execution of the war," Clinton said, before adding - "while standing firmly in support of our troops."

 

She also insisted that by constantly criticizing of the Commander-in-Chief in a time of war, she wasn't emboldening America's enemies, explaining:

 

"Criticism of this Administration's policies should not in any way be confused with softness against terrorists, inadequate support for democracy or lack of patriotism." Right! :w00t: :whistle::whome::w00t:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At times, however, the top Democrat tried to have it both ways - trumpeting her criticism of the war while insisting she backed the troops.

 

"I have continually raised doubts about the President's claims, lack of planning and execution of the war," Clinton said, before adding - "while standing firmly in support of our troops."

 

She also insisted that by constantly criticizing of the Commander-in-Chief in a time of war, she wasn't emboldening America's enemies, explaining: "Criticism of this Administration's policies should not in any way be confused with softness against terrorists, inadequate support for democracy or lack of patriotism."

 

That's not biased writing at all ...

 

And whoever thinks speaking out against the government is wrong, they need to wake up out of their 1953 coma.

 

I loathe the White House, the war on Iraq and the Faith-Based doctrine being shoved into Congress by four people. That doesn't mean I'm helping the terrorists win.

 

IF YOU'RE NOT WITH US, YOU'RE AGAINST US RIGHT??? LOL!

 

Mr. Murrow summed this up best as that swine McCarthy (whom I am sure you think is a patriot!!!) was going down: We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Colmesneilfan1

 

It's just slanted in the opposite direction from the AP, CBS, CNN, etc. I enjoyed the article. Like someone else has already said, she'll be changing her tune in a few months.

Well, first off the thing is factually inaccurate - Clinton is not a 2008 presidential nominee.

 

I can't see how anyone can take anything seriously when it's lying in the first nutgraph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by KirtFalcon

 

Citing "assurances they gave that they would first seek to resolve the issue of weapons of mass destruction peacefully through United Nations sponsored inspections," Clinton lamented: "Their assurances turned out to be empty ones."

 

I'll tell you one of the first things they taught me in Jour 101 ---

 

People say things. They don't cry things or wonder things or lament things.

 

If you attribute a quote by saying virtually anything other than "Clinton said" it can be construed as bias on the reporter's part.

 

Where were the fine journalists of newsmax.com that day in class?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did Bush change his tune?

 

He has never wavered at all. Clinton is trying to play it both ways. She has a real problem with her Iraq positions. She has to appeal to the loony base as well as the normal people. Cant do both.

 

I love it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The motivation has NOT changed since 9/11. You libs just refuse to accept that fact. I know you are going to chant the liberal mantra about Saddam was not connected to 9/11, but there is plenty of circumstantial evidence to connect him to Al Quaeda. You all just won't allow yourselves to accept it. You would rather believe the lies of the left instead of the facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Colmesneilfan1

The motivation has NOT changed since 9/11. You libs just refuse to accept that fact. I know you are going to chant the liberal mantra about Saddam was not connected to 9/11, but there is plenty of circumstantial evidence to connect him to Al Quaeda. You all just won't allow yourselves to accept it. You would rather believe the lies of the left instead of the facts.

 

I am personally not concerned with Saddam possibly being connected to Al-Quada (sp?), but what I am concerned with is the fact that Saddam was/is a terrorist by definition......He had untold thousands of his own countrymen murdered, (yes they have found many mass graves) and there are still at least a hundred thousand Iraqi's MISSING and presumed dead, so either way you look at it, we were only fighting the war on terror, and we have brought a terrorist to justice......especially a terrorist who bribed at least two permanent members of the UN security council: France, Russia, and possibly even China.......In my opinion, that is all the information that anyone needs to see the justification of this war, and yes we are winning it......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by BoBellCrew

50 obviously came in late... Bush has changed the motivation for war about five times....

 

WRONG! Been here the entire time, except for the stint that I served in Iraq myself!

 

I wholeheartedly support this war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...