|
||
Clinton Camp: Obama's Voting Record on Iraq is Terrible and So is Ours!
On a press call today, the Clinton camp insisted that Senator Obama had an identical voting record in the Senate as Senator Clinton. Then, they emphatically stated what an abysmal record Senator Obama had in acting to end the Iraq War.
Unfortunately, they didn't take a follow-up question on this issue, but the follow-up is obvious: So, are you admitting that Senator Clinton has a terrible voting record on Iraq?
Perhaps the answer is as obvious as the question. Of course, she does. Her campaign is simply trying to mitigate the damage done by her awful record of opposing President Bush on Iraq by claiming that Obama is just as bad a leader as she is. How comforting.
There is one difference of course. Her last name is Clinton. If she had decided to fight, everyone would have paid attention. She might have been able move public opinion (although she wouldn't need to move it much since the public was already overwhelmingly against the Iraq War), she might have been able to persuade Senate colleagues and she might have built up enough pressure to move President Bush in the right direction. But we'll never know because she didn't try any of those things. Instead, she did nothing.
She didn't capitalize on her name. She didn't capitalize on her so-called experience. She could have shown leadership. She could have made a difference. Instead, she did nothing. Never won a fight against Bush. Even worse, never even tried.
And now she has the temerity to brag about it.
Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
"Instead, she did nothing."
Hardly. In fact, she enthusiastically supported the invasion during its outset and proceeded to verbally decry critics, such as those affiliated with CodePink, as attempting to undermine "the security of the American people." Now, having exhausted the last vestiges of any possible defense, the Clinton campaign has attempted to portray Obama as more complicit in the disaster in Iraq, considering that, although he opposed the war, he didn't oppose the war vigirously "enough". Or whatever.
Either way, it's a certifiable crock that has only been sustained by a series of fanatical HIllary supporters who, operating from a standpoint of predisposition, merely see what they want to see.
Code Pink did not exist in 02. Stop lying.
A Brain or a Wasteland?
1). If Hillary doesn’t win the popular vote she is going to argue that the Electoral votes in the states she won should count over the popular vote, even though she called for an end to the Electoral College in Nov 2000.
"We are a very different country than we were 200 years ago," Clinton said. "I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people and to me, that means it's time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president." - Quote from Hillary
2). If by chance she wins the popular vote then she is going to argue that the popular vote should count over the delegate vote.
3). She is also arguing that the Electoral Map will not change, even though there is evidence to the contrary.
4). At this time, Hillary is losing by number of states won, votes, and delegates, yet she is talking as if she is in the lead and is going so far as to suggest Obama be her VP.
5). It is ironic that Hillary is considering Obama as her VP when she unequivocally stated he is not fit to be President.
6). Even more ironic, Hillary’s campaign noted that Obama is not fit to be President now, but added he may be ready by August (DNC convention).
Crazy isn’t it? According to Hillary’s confusing and contradictory “logic”, Obama would most likely be ready to be President by August or November, which in essence means there is no good reason not to vote for him during the Primary season, Right?
This article and the points listed above only goes to show that Hillary is either a sociopath or an imbecile, but any way you look at it; Hillary is not morally or mentally fit to be President of the United States.
Why do you Obama people keep bringing up "number of states won"? It is meaningless from every perspective. You can't say Idaho and Wyoming beats New York or Utah and Montana beats California. It may be a small thing, but the fact that the Obama people who think they are ahead, (and this comment comes from everywhere up the line in the Obama campaign, to Obama himself - maybe they are afraid to tell him he doesn't know what he's talking about) feel the need to add this to their list of how many ways they are "ahead".
And all those extra states he's got really are just the "caucus states" where his slick campaign strategists rounded up some college students in a scheme to snag these non-descript delegates that the DNC doesn't know what to do with because they are in states so hopelessly Republican that they don't want to spend money on an actual vote and say go ahead gather up some people at your homes and send us the results.
This is Obama's whole lead right now. He has out delegated Hillary in caucus states by 300+ to 165. i.e. it's his whole lead. Any other lead he has in popular vote is all from Illinois where the Daley machine undoubtedly was turning the crank full tilt.
Aside from that, all we see is Hillary winning big state after big state. When the money's on the table, Hillary comes thru.
Only six more weeks until we get to see her clean house with him again in Pennsylvania. This time it won't be six weeks of bogus caucus results sprinkled in adding up to a big bogus winning streak. A lot can happen in 6 weeks and Obama is nowhere near the 2025 he needs to win.
The scrutiny is just going to get sharper and sharper. The questions about experience are going to go deeper and deeper. The days of the big crowds and fainting women are over. We are now into the long haul where Obama is going to have make the case to roll the dice with him vs the Democrats taking another shot with Hillary and the Clinton team that delivered the best economy in US history from 1992-2000, erase hundreds of billions of built up Republican deficits and turned it into surplusses.
People will begin to realize that there is no sensible case for Obama, except maybe to save face for some Democrats who never really liked the Clintons nor gave them credit for their substantial accomplishments. But we don't really care about those stuffed shirts. We care about working people and we remember how the Clintons added 22.7 million new jobs to a dead in the water economy left behind by Reagan-Bush 1980-1992.
Obama shouldn't be so quick to ridicule the VP opportunity. A few weeks from now things could look a lot different than today.
Texas proved the absurdity of the caucuses by showing how they ran a constitutional election where everyone got to vote and Hillary won close but handily. Then, if you voted, you got to go to a caucus if you wanted to vote again.These caucuses discriminate against just about everybody except Obama's band of college students who don't have jobs to worry about, are young and healthy and don't mind standing around in crowded chaotic gymnasiums and other ad hoc gathering places, as opposed to older voters.
But since the beginning, Obama has indicated he doesn't really care about older voters since his original theme was it's time for the Baby Boomers to move over for him and his Republican GenX friends.
I suspect the MSM is beginning to tire of Obama as well. There is only so long the public will put up with these talking heads trying to make fools of everyone by telling us how important all this talk of hope and change is.
The Clintons showed real change in 1992-2000 and delivered the only substantive achievement the Democrats have had in over a quarter century.
As Hillary has said: "Get Real!".
...isn't a bit odd that only NOW is her campaign, and surrogates (aka rendell's dance on mtp...pathetic), talking about how unfair caucases are....esp. tx....where obama actually won more delagates because of the caucas...lol....(as in hillary has lost most of them..why is that?....because of poor planning...now that's experience we need...again) ....and since when is it NOT about the TOTAL delagates???...popular vote is important, but, as in the general, it doesn't mean you win...only with enough electoral college votes...sigh....frustrating for her campaign staff...all the different ways they have to create all these differenct spin cycles...whew...it's hard.....
and you have NO hope for change???...so, you want more of the same???...or you believe that hillary has a way back machine to xport us to the past "good 'ol days" (that she takes so much credit for....when it's convenient)...
yeah, i agree, you need to "get real" and accept that "yes we can"....
Where to begin...
The number of states won do not matter, that is true. It's as inconsequential as the popular vote in a race where delegates are the currency. Getting those delegates is the game. Developing and deploying a strategy to do that is part of the contest. If Obama wins that contest, then he deserves the crown. It's the same sort of game the democratic nominee will have to play to get win the White House.
Hillary won most of the big states. She beat a fellow democrat, so casting those wins as being indicative of what might happen in November is meaningless. A better barometer would be to look at McCain -v- Hillary and McCain -v- Obama polls. And Obama wins there.
To the idea that winning lots of smallstates means nothing... Tell that to John Kerry. The whole electoral system is biased toward states with low populations. In the most extreme case, in the general election, a vote in Wyoming is worth 6 in California (in terms of voters per elector). Establishing an infrastructure to win small purlple states is smart. Establishing an infrastructure to win NY NJ and MA which will go to the democrat in any case is a waste of time in the general.
We're beginning to see that nominating Hillary is really the roll of the dice. She clearly puts her political career before anything else. To the extent that it's aligned with the interests of the country, that's good, otherwise we're screwed. Also, with the wreakage she's wreaking now in this race, her chances of beating McCain are diminishing by the minute. The dice are being shaved by Hillary... in McCain's favor.
The metaphor Obama used in the debate about the bus being driven into the ditch portrayed the situation perfectly. Once in the ditch, you really don't have a lot of choice about where to go. Once those boots were on the ground, he really didn't have a choice about whether he was going to vote to provide them food and ammunition. But how does that saying go?... If you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth. Here's a case of that. They'll keep saying there's no difference in their voting record until the average voting bloke actually begins to believe it, and vote according to it.
I'm sorry, I just can't even try to be objective anyone when it comes to this race. The negative campaigning and fear tactics were bad enough, but now the PR campaign that the people of FL and MI were diesntranchised has taken hold and it looks like they're actually going to go through with this. They ought to fire Howard Dean and put in his place any kindergarden teacher to decide how to deal with contests and rules and rule breakers. Bill is playing Howard Dean and the DNC like a virtual piano. It is so blatently wrong that from supporting Clinton at one point in this race, I would now actively campaign for McCain should she get the nomination. She IS amonster.
Yup, between the last debate and the Texas and Ohio primaries, Obama has driven his campaign bus right into a ditch. Right now the wheels are spinning and they are splattering mud everywhere. And everybody is watching.
yeah...with another win in wyoming sat...and another today in miss...those wheels sure are spinning...and he's rolling over hillary as we speak....lol...just keep counting those pesky pledged delegates.....
Just as a side not in response to the reference to the Texas primary... , after all the votes are counted from Texas, Obama will win by a few delegates. By all rights, if you have to assign one person to have won Texas, that'd be Obama. I know this will be characterized as unimportant by Clinton et. al. , But if Obama wins Texas by a few delegates, Nevada, Wyoming, etc.. etc...these unimportant delegate wins add up. And you find that it's Hillary, not Obama, spinning political fantasy about being deserving of the nomination..
The same could be said for Obama. He is a Constitutional Scholar yet he says nothing about bush's crimes? Neither of the candidates have spoken out in favor of impeaching bush - do they believe his behavior, while despicable, is not worthy of impeachment? If not, why not? Frankly, I truly believe that no one running for president deserves to be president. None of them have stood up for the Constitution.
America doesn't work that way.
Your suggestion is a one-way ticket to the "fringe" label.
I'm with you in heart, but know it would be used against anyone foolish enough to try.
The last poll I saw only had 30% support for impeachment... and that's before the inevitable blowback campaign that would have dredged up the Clinton years disgust.
I think it's a combination of voters feeling responsible for their decision and voters too embarrassed to take responsibility.
"You were wrong to elect him and I'm going to fix your mistake" isn't a good way to convince people.
Right. Now take your intelligent statement and apply it to Hillary and you will see why the whole Obama campaign message is one big fraudulent farce.
In other words, political expediency is more important than the Constitutional basis for our government. Look, either impeachment is warranted or it isn't. Trying to decide yea or nay based upon "the polls" is an abdication of the oath each member of congress took. It could be the opportunity for someone who believes in the higher calling of ethical and civic responsibility to step forward and exhibit REAL courage - taking a stance based on principle in spite of anticipated "blowback." Finesse impeachment and you remove its purpose.
In reality, it is in the best interest of those running NOT to call for impeachment. They can then inherit an Executive Branch that has been dangerously strengthened and expanded.
I actually think Clinton's voting record on the war is worse than Obama's. She voted against the amendment to ban cluster bombs in civilian areas. Obama voted FOR that ban. She voted for the Iran resolution declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to be terrorists—an opening for an attack on Iran. Obama did not vote on this bill because he was campaigning in New Hampshire—big mistake, he should have flown in for that vote—but he spoke out against it. Both Dodd and Biden voted against it.
I think Hillary took no action against the Iraq occupation because she supports the policy. That's what her voting record says to me. Rhetoric be damned.
Agree, her record is worse, if only marginally so. But in those margins, a lot of lives have been lost...
Obama said once Hillary Clinton and John McCain ran the illegal Bus into the Ditch he had to vote for funds to help protect the Illegal Bus from being attacked.
Hillary Clinton and John McCain said they have met the threshold to be COMMANDER IN CHIEF because they have years and years of Experience.
Well all that experience they VOTED FOR WAR TO INVADE ANOTHER COUNTRY, thereby causing our Country, America to be in Shambles, our Economy and our Dollar is the lowest, our Infrastructure is Crumbling, Our bridges are in danger of collapsing over us or falling down on us. We have more Terrorist than ever before due to their Vote for the WAR.
Neither Hillary Clinton or John McCain would be able to protect us at anytime of the day or night, with their VOTE FOR THE WAR, HILLARY AND JOHN FAILED THE THRESHOLD TO BE A COMMANDER IN CHIEF.
What more do we need to see how their experience has lead to our young Soldiers being killed and maimed by their VOTE FOR WAR that is costing us 12 billion dollars a year.
Um no,
The line went, once a bus is driven into a ditch, everyone standing around will agree on the best way to get it out, but the blame goes with the ones who ran the bus in the ditch in the 1st place.
(Translation)
He voted to fund the war because once we were in, the troops have to at least stabilize things.
And that implies we must remain in Iraq until it is stable?
It's nice how easily he tears down his own strawman. Without money to support the war, the war would end.
Okay Democrats, here's a sample of what's going to happen in the fall.
Voiceover: Is Barack Obama ready to lead our country? He hasn't held a single meeting on Afghanastan (image of troops in combat), he's flip-floped on his positions on NAFTA and the Iraq War, and even his Democrat colleagues say his entire legislative career boils down to an anti war speech he gave in 2002. (image of sinister, black and white Obama before crowd) And he wasn't even honest about that. His colleagues have called his voting record on the subject "abysmal". But he makes a good speech.
John McCain gives the American people what they need: straight talk and real solutions. While Obama struggled with drug addiction, McCain fought bravely for his country, enduring hardship and torture for American ideals. He has decades of experience in national security, and even his competitors admit "he's crossed the treshold to be Commander in Chief"
Should our next President be weak, inconsistent and inexperienced, or a strong, tested and proven leader ready to work for America
McCain: I'm John McCain and I approve this message because America needs more than an eloquent, but empty, call for change.
Now some of you may begin to understand the problem with Hillary. The above, very damaging, commercial was constructed from things Hillary and her surrogates have said about Obama. It's as if she's working for the Republican Party. Together, her accusations are just the rope McCain needs to hang the Democratic Party. I think party leaders should be very concerned over this, and I am going to organize an open letter to Howard Dean. This is getting out of hand.
Oh, for god's sake, grow up! Do you think the Republicans haven't been paying attention to Obama's history?
There is NOTHING Hillary can say, will say, or knows and hasn't said, that the GOP will not dredge up in the general election. The GOP wants to keep the White House. They are not going to simply hand Obama the key to the front door and leave because he represents HOPE and CHANGE and A DIFFERENT KIND OF POLITICS.
Hillary is doing this tap dancing lightweight a favor. And Karl will probably send you a small commission for writing his anti-Obama ad for him.
By the way the Iraq war cost 12 billion dollars a month!! Don't mean to be the bearer of bad news.
Hypocritical, yes, but also true. Despite his pointless objections in 2002, Obama did absolutely nothing to hasten an end to the war. Yet continued to direct my tax dollars toward this meat grinder.
There may be plenty of reasons to vote for Obama, but his actions to end the war in Iraq are not among them.
He doesn't lay claim to stopping the war, just that he had the foresight, such that one would expect in a leader, that would have kept us out of the war.
Maybe they were using sarcasm.
If the media claims Obama to be capable of acting (in foreign politics and as a leader) in a more proper way compared to Clinton using his Iraq votes as an excuse, then they are not right, since Clinton and Obama share the same votes. Or, in other words, if the media claims Clinton as the worse possible leader using her votes in Iraq as an excuse, then the same can be applied on Obama. I don't think Obama camp would want to enter a discussion in that area, cause they know Hillary camp is right. They share the same votes, and neither have done anything to pull the trigger to bring back the troops much earlier than anticipated.
And, where was Obama when Clinton was getting blamed on this issue? Present or non-present?
Here's the point that seems to escape you:
It is hypocritical of Obama to suggest that his record on the Iraq War is flawless, when his Senate votes - when he HAD a vote - are identical to hers.
Hypocrisy. Thy middle name is Obama's campaign.
clinton supporters carry no mirrors, there must be some reason
Obama has never claimed that his record on Iraq is flawless, just that he had the foresight to recognize the folly.
Shoulda, woulda, coulda! Hindsight is 20/20. Like Hillary actually has any sway with the republicans. Man, this article is a classic case of rationalization. We were lied to. We were sold this war like wall street sells cars. You know exactly who's war this is. The only problem with Hillary and her votes on Iraq, are the yes votes to funding it. And obama votes yes, right along with Hillary, to fund this occupation.
I and plenty of my friends (both Dem and GOP) knew that Bush wanted war and the resolution was a big step in that direction. It was so obvious. If we could see that, why couldn't Hillary?
I wasn't sold on this war. It was obvious to many people, myself, Al Gore and Obama included, that this war was a big obvious mistake right from the beginning. And once you've started a war its a whole lot harder to get out than it is to never start it to begin with. Maybe Hillary couldn't have stopped the war, but its damn defeatist to not even try.
No one thought that Dodd could stop the FISA bill, even temporarily, back in December, but he fought and he managed to hold it up for months. What if Hillary had held up the Iraq war for months, how many lives would not have been killed during those months. I want a president who will fight for what they believe in and whats just, even if they lose. Hillary maybe a fighter when it comes to her own political career, but when it comes to fighting against bad legislation, she's a dud. And if she didn't lead in the Senate, why would we suddenly expect her to transform into a strong leader once she has the presidency?
Hillary is running on experience. And it is precisely her record and experience, of no leadership on important issues in the Senate, that convinced me to vote for Obama.
Yeah yeah. Hindsight is twenty/twenty. Alot of people are just anti-war, no matter the reason. You didn't see through anything. The vote was also taken less than a year after the worst terrorist attack in US history.
Did you speak out against the war in 02??
Her entire 35 years of experience is a joke. She and McCain are dangerous neocons on foreign policy and will bankrupt the United States morally and financially.
Even further then it already has been... We cant keep on like this, its just another war path with either of them McCain or Clinton. The people will remain depraved of read opportunity and Obama will have been the chance we missed.
Watch videos of Obama on the issues:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=900C5EDCAF3C292A
Let me say this, as a person, who probably unlike you didn't want US invade Iraq, and even if they do, highly preferred them to get the support of UN, as soon as possible, to not lose the support of the people there and not trigger the worst of the residents in Iraq.
First, I cannot say anything about McCain on this point but Clinton is being realistic. Correcting the mistakes of Bush does not give the US Government the right to let die more civilians there by getting out of there in a few months. You made that mess, and you are responsible for those deaths, ad you have no right to get out of there by ignoring the possible consequences. That is why it won't happen. Anyone who says they will take out "all" the troops by a deadline is using demagogy, and playing to people's emotions. Nothing more. Clinton considers these risks, and that is why she does not want to give the exact date of pulling all the troops. Foreign policy is not, I want it so I'll have it, game. If you support Obama considering that, then your foreign policy intelligence is no better than Bush's. That is a fact.
too late, Bush beat them too it. Its going to take everyone, with Obama at the lead, to fix this problem. Clinton thinks she can fix it herself, except she has had her chances.
Why be dishonest?? All one has to do is look at their voting records. And Hillary's voting record makes a liar out you.
Equating the votes for funding with the vote to go to war is hardly a rational basis to begin with...
That said, Hillary's other argument is that Obama as a state Senator wasn't able to STOP Hillary from voting with Bush.
She also claims Obama didn't accomplish anything, yet his speech was part of a broader effort that has succeeded in shifting public opinion in this country... against the course of action she supported... and helping Democrats regain majorities in both houses of Congress.
That's quite an accomplishment by our side, and Hillary's vote for war can't be seen as helping that effort one bit.
The vote was not a vote to go to war. There is a big difference between using the military to DISARM Saddam, and using the military to nation build and occupy Iraq. Hillary had 0 say in how this war has been managed, or mismanaged . Her vote was conditional, and bush broke those conditions. The use of military force was authorized IF Saddam didn't cooperate. Bush didn't even give him time to cooperate. How in hell is that Hillary's fault??? Shame on obama for blaming a fellow dem for bush's Iraq.
she couldn't recognize the trickery, shame on Clinton!!
She knew what she was voting for. Her husband's words were used as justification for the war. She is complicit in this scam for Iraq. Too bad Hillary has spoken a peep against the war, just Bush...however the war IS the Problem. And don't pretend you don't know what the meaning of IS is.
I agree with you to a degree but I have to wonder if she really ever thought Bush was going to go along with any sort of conditions that congress set. He initially didn't even want to go to congress for authorization. He claimed he didn't need it. So why would he adhere to any conditions they set? And what was the urgency? Why did they need to give him authority before the inspectors had even finished their job? If they truly thought Saddam was hiding weapons from the weapons inspectors how was he going to deploy them and keep them hidden at the same time? What does it say about Hillary (or any of them) that they've continually had the woll pulled over their eyes by probably the dumbest man ever to hold the office of POTUS? With all of Obama's claims to the contrary I don't see any evidence that he would have done any better. But I do know we have a better chance of getting out of this mess with Clinton OR Obama than with McCain who has no problem staying for 100 years.
The Authorization for the use of force was the TITLE!
Hillary went further and sold the Bush lies (wmd, al quaida/Saddam, etc.) on the floor of the Senate.
She DID NOT read the NIE.
Hillary tops it all off by believing the very people who LIED ABOUT HER FOR YEARS.
She literally had "experience" with their lying, and didn't learn from it.
A vote CAN'T be "conditional" in this country, btw.
If you want to invent a new system for DC as a justification, don't try to pass it off as factual.
I've always failed to see the logic in that argument. By any measure, both of their votes helped to kill more people in pursuit of political goals. You can play the lesser evil argument, but your debate coach is likely to give you a good ear-boxing for it.
"Equating the votes for funding with the vote to go to war is hardly a rational basis to begin with..."
BULLSHIT!! You are either anti-war or you are not. If he was principle enough to be against the war from the beginning, then he should be principled enough not to fund it. He wants it both ways, and you starry-eyed sheep let him.
What speech shifted public opinion in 02?? Some alleged antiwar speech to a small crowd in Illinois, while the rest of the country never even heard of Barack Obama???
You just can't accept the fact that obama is wrongly attacking Hillary for a vote he was never required to make. Once in the senate, where was all his anti-war rhetoric then??? When it counted the most??? Oh that's right, he was a rookie that wasn't even in the federal government at the time. Why does he say it will take 16months to start getting out of Iraq??? That's well over a year.
"She might have been able move public opinion (although she wouldn't need to move it much since the public was already overwhelmingly against the Iraq War)"
To be fair, Mr. Uygur, her influence may not have been so effortless. Remember, one half of the people now opposed to the war were, in fact, one half of the people who were favored it at the beginning (i.e. it was a 2-1 split before it was a 2-1 split).
We also cannot forget that in 2002, any stand on principles ("alleged" principles) would have been seen as a death knell to Ms. Clinton's presidential ambitions. And Lord knows no principle is worth giving up a shot at power (this, apparently, would be true doubly so for anyone named "Clinton").
You make a good point. During that time it would have been political suicide to oppose the war. People lost their jobs. We need someone in office that would be willing to stand up for what is right. Hillery will stand up for Hillery. If it happens to help people along the way she will take credit for it.
You ALL seem to forget that Senator Clinton was not up for re-election until 2006. She would have had 4 years. She did not have to capitulate.
"...seen as a death knell to Ms. Clinton's presidential ambitions..."
A reasonable point, Malarcus, and one I've made myself. It is also important to note that, as a woman, Clinton could simply not afford to seem WEAK. So be it. I do believe her when she says she wishes she had that vote back, but I do not believe she misunderstood what approval of a measure entitled "A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq" meant. Nor, sadly, did her position on Kyl-Lieberman ameliorate her original vote
The times were not conducive to dissent (or a stand of principle, real or alleged). But 23 senators swam against the tide -- too bad not one of them is running for president.
Imagine a 12-year insurgency... that's what the British fought after they invaded iraq in 1914 and chased out the Turks.... as I mentioned the other day when I posted I just finished reading The Mesopotamia Mess and it talks about how the British were bogged down in iraq for 44-years!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What's really interesting is how the government tried to hide the real cost of the war from the people and how the people were calling for withdrawal and how the government igmored them. If there ever was proof that that expression is true - those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
It was things like that that destroyed the British Empire. Keeping it up hollowed out the home country.
Obama, despite the fact that he planned a U.S. Senate run, took the public and politically unpopular stand against going to war with Iraq - before the resolution. This could have been used against him - McCain probably will do this - but he did the right thing in speaking out against it when he could have remained silent. He showed courage in this matter. Hillary did not. She didn't even read the NIE - how irresponsible! And she has never apologized for her vote.
Here is what Hillary had to say on Meet the Press nearly nine months AFTER we invaded and occupied Iraq:
"I think Saddam Hussein was certainly a potential threat" who "was seeking weapons of mass destruction, whether or not he actually had them." and "There was certainly adequate intelligence without it being guilded and exaggerated by the administration to raise questions about chemical and biological programs and a continuing effort to obtain nuclear power." Also: "We need more troops and a different mixture of troops." "Whether you agreed or not that we should be in Iraq, failure is not an option." From William Safire's column 12/08/03.
Sounds pretty hawkish to me, not to mention complicit with GWB in his war in Iraq. Personally, I don't want someone like that answering the White House phone at 3:00 am.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
