Hillary for the war with Iraq: ................. "Knowing what we know now, I would never have voted for it," she said, adding she was not casting a vote to authorize preemptive war but intended to give President George W. Bush the authority to send inspectors back in to Iraq...................... Cannot stop laughing at this BS. How can the democrats nominate her for a presidential candidate? That's why the democrats lost twice against the "failure" president Bush. Do the republicans got this time somebody with IQ better than the average American? If they did they may win again. Obama surely is a better person than Hillary and Edwards who are as good flip floppers as Bush. So "knowing what we know now ...." Ha, Ha, Ha..... ........................ I'll do anything for you "POWER". Signature /Hillary/ If you didn't know Saddam had no WMD you don't even deserve to be a senator in the first place. So voting for the war was fitting your personal political interests at that time, now it doesn't fit your agenda and you're making up an excuse for your vote. Now you got the responsibility together with Bush for that big FAILURE - IRAQ. If you had any honor and dignity you should resign as a senator, shouldn't be looking for the top job position in the USA.
What is wrong with the statement: "Knowing what we know now, I would never have voted for it"? That probably sums up the feelings of lots of Senators. I think that she needs to take it one step further, and admit that it was a mistake. It seems that in politics, people are never allowed to change their minds without being labeled a flip-flopper. Faulty intelligence was presented to the Senate, and while they should have been more objective at the time, there is nothing wrong with coming out now and sayings that it was a mistake or that you wouldn't do it again. I would much prefer her speaking out against her original vote now than supporting it!
Well at the time ..we all drank the "punch" per-say. So she was part of the IN crowd. By no means that justfiys anything .. However..it was real hard to go aginst the grain then.
We don't need a weak or dumb president who can't stand for the TRUTH. We have one in the office and America is paying a heavy price for having him. Sadly it is hard to fire him, not like employer can fire a bad employee.
Never a bad time for some reality: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=283676&postcount=4 http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
It kind of reminds me of the very dangerous Donald Rumsfelds "known knowns" speech in that both of them made no sense at all. Cobblers.
If she is so wrong about it, why does she keep voting to authorize spending for it? Is she hates it, why not cut off funding?? Those would be my questions to her...
So the 70 some percent of Americans that were for going into Iraq at all stupid like Hillary? You see that is what happens when you were lied to and then find out the truth. You re-think your position based on the evidence... The evidence that Bush provided made a strong case for the war, and once that evidence was proven to be patently false, you change your position. That's what intelligent people do. Unfortunately that intelligence hasn't reached the oval office yet. Clinton would in my opinion make a terrible President, but not because she has changed her position in this case and a majority of those original 70 percent agree. I have no doubt she, like many others in Congress and the rest of the country for that matter believed the BS that Bush and his inner circle were spewing because at the time they trusted the individual they put into the White House. They aren't making that mistake again...
Bush didn't provide the evidence, the CIA did, and yes, it was wrong...Bush had the same info as everyone else, so if everyone else had the wrong info, then so did bush, but then again, bush is stupid and everything is his fault...
This is a non-issue. Would anyone have voted for Richard Nixon had they known Watergate would happen? Probably not. Situations change. This complaint against Clinton just reeks of slanted politics. I'm sure she has far more substantive problems than this. Dig.
atleast you accept that the intel was wrong. its about time!! now what's up with this http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/12/AR2007021201537_pf.html
70% of what? Source? What lies? These lies? Or these lies? The evidence provided was by democrat George Tenet. The same evidence that many intelligence agencies from countries around the world also had. The same evidence that was gathered and used by democrats prior to Bush ever being in office. The same evidence that led the UN to conclude some of saddams wmd were moved to Syria. The same evidence that led the NYT to publish a story about looting. The same evidence the NYT exposed of saddams nuclear bomb making details that was posted on a government website along with thousands of other documents last year that could have aided Iran in their nuclear development process. 70% of what? Where does the elusive and magical 70% come from and is it a blanket percentage to cover anything? You mean the same BS democrats were spewing before Bush was ever in office?
There is another thread about that, but let me sum it up for you... here is what he said: "We know that the explosively formed projectiles are manufactured in Iran," Pace told Voice of America during a visit to Australia. any more questions?
I can't help but wonder what motivates moonbats to defend people that are killing our troops (well, ok, maybe a Captain Obvious moment here) and attempting to blatantly alter what Generals are saying in order to do so. I mean, what's the motive? Is it because ahmadeenaspunk wants to kill all the Jews? It baffles science. What mental disorder causes people to stand behind and defend those that would otherwise kill them without thinking twice about it?