Skip to comments.Hillary on Iraq
Posted on 02/08/2007 12:20:35 AM PST by MinorityRepublican
One pleasant surprise of Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as New York Senator has been her tough-minded approach on national security. She responded to 9/11 by supporting President Bush's strategy of taking on not just terrorists but the states that harbor them. She also voted for the war in Iraq and has refused to follow much of her party in alleging that Mr. Bush "lied" about weapons of mass destruction.
Mrs. Clinton bids to win the Democratic Presidential nomination, she is taking a marked turn to left. Pressured by other candidates and by her party's left wing, she is walking back her hawkish statements and is now all but part of the antiwar camp. The polls show her to be the favorite to be the next Commander in Chief, so what she really believes, and how firmly she'll stick to it, deserves to be debated. Here's a summary of the arc of Mrs. Clinton's public thinking on Iraq:
- October 10, 2002. Mrs. Clinton addresses the Senate on the use-of-force resolution. "The facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt," she declares, citing Saddam's record of using chemical weapons, the invasion of Kuwait, and his history of deceiving U.N. weapons inspectors. "As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets," she continues, adding that Saddam "has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members."
While she expresses her preference for working through the U.N. if possible, she adds, "I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 U.N. resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998."
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Liberals covering their "blunders" by flip-flopping only shows how weak minded their politicians really are. They wouldn't need to flip-flop (read "lie about their past actions") if they were a little brighter (or harder working) in the first place. Right?
When she's president, all she has to do is outlaw any more talk about what she said in the past.
And pictures of her thighs and cankles.
And MENTION of her thighs and cankles. You're going to be in big trouble, NYpeanut, if you bring this up after her coronation.
"You are either with us... or you are not."
Liberal Democrat Senator Hillary Clinton said it first, (followed by Conservative Republican President George W. Bush 2 months later)
September 12, 2001
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton Statement On The Floor of The United States Senate In Response to the World Trade Center and Pentagon Attacks
"...We will also stand united behind our President as he and his advisors plan the necessary actions to demonstrate America's resolve and commitment. Not only to seek out an exact punishment on the perpetrators, but to make very clear that not only those who harbor terrorists, but those who in any way aid or comfort them whatsoever will now face the wrath of our country. And I hope that that message has gotten through to everywhere it needs to be heard. You are either with America in our time of need or you are not..."
1. On September 12, 2001, Senatrix Clinton spoke from the well of the Senate: "...We will also stand united behind our President as he and his advisors plan the necessary actions to demonstrate America's resolve and commitment. Not only to seek out an exact punishment on the perpetrators, but to make very clear that not only those who harbor terrorists, but those who in any way aid or comfort them whatsoever will now face the wrath of our country. And I hope that that message has gotten through to everywhere it needs to be heard. You are either with America in our time of need or you are not..."
2. On October 10, 2002, Clinton spoke to the Senate in favor of a use-of-force resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq, saying: "The facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt.
3. On December 15, 2003, when it was clear there were no large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Clintons support was unwavering. "I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force, she told the Council on Foreign Relations. "We have no option but to stay involved and committed.
4. On April 20, 2004, Clinton told CNNs Larry King that she did not "regret giving the president the authority, noting that Saddam Hussein "had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade.
5. In October 2005, amid growing anti-war sentiment, Clinton still told the Village Voice: "I dont believe its smart to set a date for withdrawal . . . I dont think its the right time to withdraw.
6. By November 2005, Hillary was softening her stance, saying in a letter to constituents: "If Congress had been asked [to authorize the war], based on what we know now, we never would have agreed.
7. On December 18, 2006, Clinton went even further, saying on the "Today show: "I certainly wouldnt have voted that way.
8. On January 13 of this year, Clinton spoke from Baghdad about President Bushs call for a troop surge: "I dont know that the American people or the Congress at this point believe this mission can work.
9. On January 17, Clinton called for a cap on the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, and suggested withholding funds for the Iraqi government.
10. Finally, on January 27, Clinton hit the campaign trail in Iowa and demanded that the president "extricate our country from this before he leaves office.
The left loves being lied to. They don't believe a word coming from their candidates and don't mind at all.
One sunny day in 2008, an old man approached the White
House from across Pennsylvania Avenue , where he'd
been sitting on a park bench.
He spoke to the Marine standing guard and said, "I
would like to go in and meet with President Hillary
Clinton." The Marine replied, "Sir, Mrs. Clinton is
not President and doesn't reside here." The old man
said, "Okay," and walked away.
The following day, the same man approached the White
House and said to the same Marine, "I would like to go
in and meet with President Hillary Clinton". The
Marine a gain told the man, "Sir, as I said yesterday,
Mrs. Clinton is not President and doesn't reside
here." The man thanked him and again walked away .
The third day, the same man approached the White House
and spoke to the very same Marine, saying "I would
like to go in and meet with President Hillary
Clinton." The Marine, understandably agitated at this
point, looked at the man and said, "Sir, this is the
third day in a row you have been here asking to speak
to Mrs. Clinton. I've told you already several times
that Mrs. Clinton is not the President and doesn't
reside here. Don't you understand?"
The old man answered, "Oh, I understand you fine, I
just love hearing your answer!"
The Marine snapped to attention, saluted, and said,
"See you tomorrow."
Isn't that true?!! You're absolutely right.
Either that or they're just plain stuck on stupid. Probably a mixture of both.
Her aim is to win. Period. She will say what is popular to say whether or not it is what she believes or not.
All but a few politicians do this. They don't tell you what they really believe. They take a consensus, figure out what is the best platform for winning votes (whether that platform is right or wrong) and go with that platform.
They also have the media on their side. After hearing Mr. Bush so much that I hardly ever watch TV, a newsreader named Bakhtiar on Fox n Friends referred to HRC as SENATOR four times in a single two-minute bit this morning. Not one Mrs. Clinton, or Clinton or even Hillary reference. Off went the TV.
Quoted from The Weekly Standard magazine 1/22/07:
Last December, in an interview on NBC's Today show, host Meredith Vieira asked Clinton why she had not repudiated her vote on Iraq. "Well, you know, obviously, it was wrong to believe this president," Clinton said. "That's tragic to say because people's lives are at stake. He should have let the inspectors do their job."
Vieira jumped in. "But were you wrong to take that vote, to make that vote?"
"Well," Clinton said, "you know, you have to go and look at the situation as we knew it then, and I take responsibility for that vote. 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."
In other words, if it were up to Hillary Clintonista, Saddam Hussein would still be providing training camps and weapons to terrorists. Iraq's involvement in terrorist attacks while SH was in power is well-documented (first attack on World Trade Center, attack on US embassy in Nairobi killing hundreds, etc.), not to mention his commiting mass murder, torturing thousands of people. If it were up to the Democrats, Saddam Hussein wuld still be dictator, working on WMD, and the people of Iraq would still be slaves to the state. If it were up to Democrats, the USSR would still be threatening the U.S. with "mutually assured (nuclear) destruction".
Sounds like the Wall Street Journal endorses Hillary.
That one just made my day (and my email distribution list) Thank you!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.