So Hillary Voted For The War In 2003: So What?
I really wish that Hillary Clinton had the judgment and fortitude not to tacitly endorse our invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Obviously, her funding votes were ass-covers for a future Presidential run in which toughness would need to be proven. Plus, it would have been politically difficult for a Senator from a state where the towers fell to vote against the war so soon after 9/11- when the lack of links between Saddam and A-Q were not so widely acknowledged as they are now.
But my point here is those votes were five years ago.
I hope you are not one of those raging, howling, against-the-Iraq-War Democrats whose enduring anger against any political figures who supported this war precludes you from ever considering voting for any former-war supporting candidate.
I sense there are people like you out there, otherwise Democratic voters who, in an election between still avid Iraq war supporter John McCain and one-time war supporter Hillary Clinton- who will sit out this election rather than vote for the "lesser of two evils."
Listen. I hope it doesn't come to that. I am leaning toward Barack Obama.
Still, even though I have been critical of Hillary, I must vote for her if she runs against McCain.
In such a case, I would care far less about Hillary's votes in 2003 then I do the absolute necessity of a Hillary Clinton then I do her ability to get us out of Iraq sooner ather than later, steer us toward universal health care, and appoint a progressive Supreme Court Justice who wouldn't overturn Roe.
So, I ask you members of the "I'll never vote for Hillary" crowd to consider the alternative.
A non-progressive John McCain Presidency.
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
As a full member of the "I will NEVER vote for Hillary club", perhaps the best thing for Americans would be living through a John McCain administration. It would end the strangle hold of the Clintons on Democratic Party politics; it would educate the public about the true nature of American conservatism; it would destroy the Republican Party.
Lessons learned by doing are MOST powerful.
Didn't we already try this when we gave Bush two terms? That didn't work out so well.
So you'd rather have DEFINITELY more wars than MAYBE more wars? Go on and sign up then. I hear the helmets are substandard, but don't let that stand in your way!
I will vote for Hillary if she is running against McCain. But I thing the "so what?" question is misguided.
Clinton has shown consistently that in the face of talk radio attacks on her or democrats in general, she shows her "courage" by taking a more militaristic stance rather than standing up to it.
Getting out of Iraq will not be easy. Al qaeda wants us in Iraq to score easy victories and to keep up their numbers. During any draw down of troops, increasing attacks are win-win for them since they get to portray themselves as driving us out, while putting pressure on us to stay.
I do not have confidence, that a candidate who gave speeches arguing for the wisdom of that 2003 invasion, who just a year ago gave related cover to an attack on Iran, who just a year ago thought the Iraqis would be happy if we kept a small presence in Iraq to fight al qaeda, will be able to get us out of Iraq.
That vote has meant a death sentence for over 3,000 of our men and women-and for at least one million Iraqis.
It is not not "just one lil old vote".
It is THE MOST important vote a person could cast.
Yet she demurred on UN resolution-voting against Levin Amend.
She knew then she would run for President one day. She cast that vote so she would not be seen as soft on terror.
She also bought into the GOP framing of the debate as "either being for terrorists or against".
5 years later-most intelligent people can see the Iraq War as a fiasco-and no more than a ruse for Oil companies to raid Iraqi oil fields-that is evidenced by the contracts BIGOIL is trying to force the new Iraqi govt.(puppet regime)to sign(80/20 split of oil revenues).
She did NOT cast that vote in conscience of lives and families having thier lives upended-but to make herself look tough on national security.
Nearly trillions later-she and many GOPers are still trying to hold up thier foam #1 fingers
that winning is everything-no matter that there were lies told to get in, no matter that there was no WMD, no matter that it's bankrupting our future, no matter that our military tortured, no matter that we as US citizens were lied to to give up our 4th Amendment rights and Habeus Corpus...not to mention the Constitutionally-directed privacy of our own emails and phone calls.
Once again, it shows how it is not conscience that guide HRC to make the decisions/votes she makes-but her own career-path of what "makes her look good" based on focus-group analysis by Penns, McAuliffs...
She is rooted in her own ego-devoid of conscience and empathy for others.
The IWR vote being the prime example.
He has a conscience-he has wisdom,he has empathy.
He doesn't live in his ego ie. ambitious career-driven $$$-making path.
That's evidenced by his career of grassroots service-and being AGAINST the war from the beginning.
Sorry-left out sentence of "that's why I'm for Barack Obama" as the HE I refer to above.
Hill is a bit too tactical for me. It seems everything she does is based on its degree of polital value to her. I don't trust where she stands on issues because I don't feel she tells the truth about anything. I don't agree with McCain on many things but at least (except for the Bushasskissing moments) he seems sincere.
Over the past weeks we've been reminded of how devisive the country was under Clinton. Now, sadly, not only will blue and red be polarized, but the Democrats are divided too. It's something about those Clintons. A return to the White House for them will conjure up many things that are wrong with this country. It's not good to win at any cost.
Just because you're victorious doesn't mean you've won.
I am not as afraid of Clinton’s past mistakes as I am the ones she would make as President. She signed us up for this war because she was afraid of what the Republicans would say about her if we won it too easily. Her judgment has been shown to be entirely political, and the harm done to our country and the world is, in large part, irreversible.
So, a few million people died, a few billion dollars squandered, so what?
This is reprehensible. Votes matter. Choosing political expediency over what is right matters.
She voted for the war. I'm voting for Obama.
Show me any legitimate study that shows that a few million people died as a result of our invasion of Iraq. Facts never matter to liberals.
I also suppose transforming Iraq into a democracy is a complete waste as well?
Sitting out the election is worse than stupid - it should be considered a criminal act. The problem is that within the progressives, some like Obama and some like Hilary. I prefer Obama to Hilary for a lot of reasons - first among them her vote to authorize force in Iraq. But if it comes to choosing between Hilary and McCain, I plan to vote for Hilary -- early and often.
Hillary vs McCain. 6 of one, half dozen of another. War forever and lobbiest written legislation no matter which way you go.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
