NOW Hillary is against the war

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Oh would you quit with the BS!!!
Hillary was in the White House for 8 years!!!!!! She had access along with her husband to all the intelligence, not just the so called 'white washed' version.

And, btw, would you mind posting a link proving Hillary had access to classified information? I'll assume that Laura has equal access so I'll take a link to that one, too.

?????

Yoo hoo. PooferJohn. Where *are* you???

How many times did we hear Bill call Hillary his 'co-President'? How active of a roll did she take in the White House?
We know she was active, she lead the health care panel.
We also know she had a hand in picking people who served in the White House.
Just because we don't have a sheet of paper that says "Hillary read report-X" does not mean that she was not involved.
Dick Morris, who worked for Clinton at the time, said Hillary was the 'de facto cheif of staff' for the Clinton White House.

Or are you telling me that she spent 8 years baking cookies while the world passed her by?

Also, even if she hadn't seen the intel, don't you think Bill would have told her if it was bad and not as much of a slam dunk as everyone thought?

Give it up already. Unless you're prepared to back your allegation that Bill Clinton was sharing such classified information with Hillary, show the integrity to admit you made it up. Your claim is immaterial in any case. The issue is Iraq's WMD capabilities in 2003, not their capabilities five years earlier, before Clinton's highly successful bombing campaign against their WMD facitilities. Funny how you keep ignoring that crucial detail in your attempts to justify BushCo's deceptions on Iraq.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Oh would you quit with the BS!!!
Hillary was in the White House for 8 years!!!!!! She had access along with her husband to all the intelligence, not just the so called 'white washed' version.

And, btw, would you mind posting a link proving Hillary had access to classified information? I'll assume that Laura has equal access so I'll take a link to that one, too.

?????

Good luck with that. The BushCo shills aren't here to address fact and reason. They're here to parrot the propaganda points, blow smoke, and flee to their next diversion when cornered. We might as well get used to it. Whether PJ is a paid shill or merely auditioning for the job, expect to see his daily swiftboatings through the 2008 elections. He will continue repeating the same disinforation incessantly, never once acknowledging all the previous times it has been exposed as lies.

Spreading propaganda is the only place the Bush administration isn't a total failure. Their "Stay the course" isn't just Iraq. They know how to stay on-message, no matter what.

See what I mean, Conjur? His job is catapulting the message, not supporting it.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Give it up already. Unless you're prepared to back your allegation that Bill Clinton was sharing such classified information with Hillary, show the integrity to admit you made it up. Your claim is immaterial in any case. The issue is Iraq's WMD capabilities in 2003, not their capabilities five years earlier, before Clinton's highly successful bombing campaign against their WMD facitilities. Funny how you keep ignoring that crucial detail in your attempts to justify BushCo's deceptions on Iraq.

Funny how you keep bringing this up as if it proves that Saddam?s WMD program was wiped out during this bombing. But there were no inspectors in Iraq in between the 1998 and 2002. So how do we know for a fact if Clinton?s bombing did ANYTHING at all?

All of your ?there were no WMD cause Clinton destroyed them? talk is pure conjecture. No one knows what if any damage the 1998 bombing did.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Give it up already. Unless you're prepared to back your allegation that Bill Clinton was sharing such classified information with Hillary, show the integrity to admit you made it up. Your claim is immaterial in any case. The issue is Iraq's WMD capabilities in 2003, not their capabilities five years earlier, before Clinton's highly successful bombing campaign against their WMD facitilities. Funny how you keep ignoring that crucial detail in your attempts to justify BushCo's deceptions on Iraq.

Funny how you keep bringing this up as if it proves that Saddam?s WMD program was wiped out during this bombing. But there were no inspectors in Iraq in between the 1998 and 2002. So how do we know for a fact if Clinton?s bombing did ANYTHING at all?

All of your ?there were no WMD cause Clinton destroyed them? talk is pure conjecture. No one knows what if any damage the 1998 bombing did.

<ahem>

The Art of Camouflage
David Kay comes clean, almost.
http://www.slate.com/id/2094415/

Iraq's weapons and facilities, he says, had been destroyed in three phases: by allied bombardment in the 1991 Gulf War; by U.N. inspectors in the half-decade after that war; and by President Clinton's 1998 bombing campaign. (Clinton's airstrikes, by now widely forgotten, were even at the time widely dismissed as a political diversion; they took place during the weekend when the House of Representatives voted for impeachment. But according to Kay, they destroyed Iraq's remaining infrastructure for building chemical weapons.) Kay adds that Saddam tried to resuscitate some of these programs, but?due to sanctions, fear of inspections, and lack of resources?he was not able to do so.

 

[conjur]

BTW, still waiting on that link showing that Hillary had access to classified data re: Iraq's WMDs and "program-related activities". Oh, and a link showing that Laura Bush has the same access, too.

Or, were you just, oh, LYING?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Give it up already. Unless you're prepared to back your allegation that Bill Clinton was sharing such classified information with Hillary, show the integrity to admit you made it up. Your claim is immaterial in any case. The issue is Iraq's WMD capabilities in 2003, not their capabilities five years earlier, before Clinton's highly successful bombing campaign against their WMD facitilities. Funny how you keep ignoring that crucial detail in your attempts to justify BushCo's deceptions on Iraq.

Funny how you keep bringing this up as if it proves that Saddam?s WMD program was wiped out during this bombing. But there were no inspectors in Iraq in between the 1998 and 2002. So how do we know for a fact if Clinton?s bombing did ANYTHING at all?

All of your ?there were no WMD cause Clinton destroyed them? talk is pure conjecture. No one knows what if any damage the 1998 bombing did.

Atta boy! Fling that misdirection.

It is not my obligation to prove Clinton's 1998 bombing campaign destroyed all of Iraq's WMD capabilities. It is simply to refute your BS that Clinton's 1998 intel was gospel in 2003. The fact of the matter is the Bush administration did not have good, up to date intel about Iraq. In spite of their claims to the contrary -- i.e., lies -- they did not know what Iraq did and did not have. That is why we had U.N. inspectors on the ground again, to get good, current information. When it became increasingly apparent that Iraq no longer had material WMD capabilities, Bush forced the inspectors out and rushed to attack.

That is the real purpose of your repeated misdirection about Clinton and 1998: to distract from the fact the Bush administration lied re. their certainty about and the extent of Iraq's remaining WMD capabilties.

 

[ProfJohn]

What Hillary said in 2003

"I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information, intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, tried to discount the political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision,"
" With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I just do not believe that, given the attitudes of many people in the world community today, that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems, were it not for the United States leadership?"
"There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I've followed for more than a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming."

Contrast the above to what she is saying now.
And Conjur I highly doubt we will find something that says Hillary read the same intelligence that Bill did, but in her own statements she said she talked to people she trusted. Which you would think meant she talked to Bill, but then again I doubt she trusts him.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
What Hillary said in 2003

"I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information, intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, tried to discount the political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision,"
" With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I just do not believe that, given the attitudes of many people in the world community today, that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems, were it not for the United States leadership?"
"There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I've followed for more than a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming."

Contrast the above to what she is saying now.
And Conjur I highly doubt we will find something that says Hillary read the same intelligence that Bill did, but in her own statements she said she talked to people she trusted. Which you would think meant she talked to Bill, but then again I doubt she trusts him.

Hey, guess what, Poofer? I was following it for more than a decade, too! Wow! I must have had access to classified data, too! Man, I wish I knew that back then!


Face it, you spouted some total BS, got called on it, and are now backpedaling looking for the exit but you're only managing to dig a hole.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Hey, guess what, Poofer? I was following it for more than a decade, too! Wow! I must have had access to classified data, too! Man, I wish I knew that back then!

It really is just speculation at this point, but I do not think it is beyond the realm of reasonable to assume that Hillary consulted with Bill on Iraq...and I would hope that as President in the late 90s, Bill did have accurate intelligence respective to the threat that Saddam Hussein posed. Perhaps wrong of ProfJohn to present such a theory as fact, but I don't think it is an unreasonable assumption.

Bill Clinton didn't have much of a solution in dealing with Saddam, save for perpetuating the UN sanctions, cycle of inspections, and the occasional bombing campaign whenever Saddam rattled his saber a bit too loud...hardly a solution, more like a strategy for avoiding the actual problem. Sure it may have kept Saddam in check, but were we going to babysit Saddam indefinitely?

Bush on the other hand, has not offered a very compelling solution for Iraq either...committing America to an unprovoked war under the guise of the WOT, based on fabricated or poorly assessed intelligence...and now pushing for a "stay the course" strategy without any clear vision for the endstate that course is charting towards. I am not sure which is worse...Clinton, who failed to engage emerging threats, or Bush, whose engagements of those threats are a total failure.

Now, getting back to the OP, Hillary has hardly been consistent in her views on the war in Iraq...her statements and positions have been based more on political convenience than strong convictions. There is actually a series of videos on YouTube that provide a pretty interesting picture of where Hillary has stood on Iraq, and lets just say that the video archive does not play to her favor.

But don't take my word for it...the Democrats have too many 2008 candidates on the field as it is, and they are already starting to take shots at one another...Edwards is starting to target Hillary with criticisms that echo what many have said about Hillary in this very thread.

 

[OrByte]

I think Clintons Iraq Policy wasnt so much a failure to engage emerging threats as it was banking on the idea that the status quo was favorable to an instable Iraq. I think Bush 41 felt that this policy was favorable as well, hence the reason our forces never rolled into baghdad in the first gulf war. I think Bush 41 even wrote as much in his memoirs or something like that no?

So it is a bit unfair to characterize prior administrations Iraq policy as negligent. IMHO it is more accurate to term this administrations Iraq policy as reckless in comparison. One could say that Iraqi policy prior to Bush 43 is favorable to what we have now.

as far as Hillarys "changing" Iraq position, Moonbeam said it best. we will never know if our democratic leaders voted for war because they were too weak to stand up against a wave of political support for Bush. Or if they were fooled into thinking that Iraq posed a threat. But, where we stand now is important, because people are fighting for more American blood to be shed, and people are fighting against it. I for one don't want anymore blood to be shed by anyone, Americans or Iraqis or anyone else. So I will side with those that oppose the war. If Hillary does the same so be it, it means we are on the same side, where a growing majority of Americans find themselves these days. Conversely, those that support the war are quickly finding themselves in the minority. It will be interesting to see who comes out from the GOP side condemning the war. Then we can really look into who is being politically convienent, given the lockstep the GOP has been in for the last 6 years.

Starbuck, do you have a link to the youtube video? I would like to see it.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: ntdz
Hillary says whatever is politically convenient...I really can't stand her.

Same here, and no need to use a paragraph when a sentace will suffice.

I keep saying taht Hillary has a political tin ear. Just as bad is her clumsy approach to Bill's "triangulation". Attempting to use that makes her look as though she's pandering (I'll leave the term flip flopping to Kerry, no one has mastered it as well as he).

A little rant - I hate the term "war" for the current situation. Our military won the war quite some time ago. This is "nation building", something our military is not designed for. Something no one has ever been able to accomplish very sucessfully in that region.

We are NOT at war with Iraq. We are not at war with Sunni's or Shia's, etc.

Trying to stop this ingnorant backward tribal/sectarian feuding should be a police action, not really a military one. Not even for the Iraqi's themselves, posse comitatus is an important & useful concept and should be employed them as well.

Fern

 

[theeedude]

It's not just Hillary, it's pretty much the whole American public. Maybe you should look at support for the war when it started vs now. Seems like the Republicans are out of touch and will continue paying the price for it in 2008.

 

[Starbuck1975]

So it is a bit unfair to characterize prior administrations Iraq policy as negligent. IMHO it is more accurate to term this administrations Iraq policy as reckless in comparison. One could say that Iraqi policy prior to Bush 43 is favorable to what we have now.

Quite true. Bush 41 at least had the intelligence not to go into Bagdad, understanding the quagmire it could potentially become, and understanding that international support only went so far as to liberate Kuwait.

As for Clinton, I think he failed to seize an opportunity in defining America's role in a post Cold War world. From the emergence of Al Quaida as a threat, Somalia, the Balkans, Iraq...a sporadic and somewhat inconsistent foreign policy agenda. Since we like to throw around the word exit strategy a lot, what were the exit strategies for the Balkans and Somalia? We arguably left Somalia in worse shape than we found it, largely because the parameters of that mission were not very well defined. As for the Balkans, that mission had the potential to go downhill very quickly...we were fortunate in that the various factions had no fight left in them when we arrived.

 

[LtPage1]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
he had charisma and charm and Hillary has neither.

Wrong. Listen to an interview, and you'll see she has both

What is utterly amazing in the following piece if her "If I had been president in October of 2002, I would not have started this war." statement. Hillary, everyone knows you voted FOR the war. You approved of it and talked strongly about it. How can you now say you would not have started it? If you were against starting it in 2002 then you should have voted against it. Pretty simple right?

Wrong-o again. The President and his administration went ahead with a complete lack of WMD intel to justify a war that was actually based on BS reasons, then lied to the US and the world that he had undeniable proof. Had Hilary been in possession of the real intel (or lack thereof), she would definitely not gone to war (since Bush's reasons for war had nothing to do with WMD).

On a side note: read the link and look at the power the anti-war people seem to have on the Democratic Party right now. They are going to push the party farther and farther to the left in the next year. It is quite possible that by 2008 the Democratic Party will be THE anti-war party and nothing else. If the Democrats only criteria for nominating a President becomes their stance on the war this could really hurt them in a general election when other topics come into play. There is certainly a growing unhappiness with the war and the manner in which it is being run. However, all it would take is a strong articulate Republican candidate who can frame the issue in the right way and the anti-war movement could lose its already limited mass appeal. (Note: even today the ?pull out immediately? answer only gets 12-20% on most polls.)

An articulate defense of an illegal war that has murdered 600,000+, and jumpstarted a civil war that will likely last for decades? I'll believe it when I see it.

Hillary can't win, but only because she's a Clinton and a woman.
On the other hand, I won't vote for her because she's a political opportunist who, while in possession of many admirable ideals, doesn't appear to really care about this illegal and morally despicable war.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: LtPage1
On the other hand, I won't vote for her because she's a political opportunist who, while in possession of many admirable ideals, doesn't appear to really care about this illegal and morally despicable war.

That is the whole point of my thread, thank you for agreeing with me.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Bill Clinton didn't have much of a solution in dealing with Saddam, save for perpetuating the UN sanctions, cycle of inspections, and the occasional bombing campaign whenever Saddam rattled his saber a bit too loud...hardly a solution, more like a strategy for avoiding the actual problem. Sure it may have kept Saddam in check, but were we going to babysit Saddam indefinitely?

Bill Clinton's approach to Iraq was 1000 times better than the approach taken by Dumbya, imo. Clinton's sanctions meant Saddam didn't have the resources for weapons of mass destruction. He was essentially unarmed. He couldn't afford to replenish his weaponry. He wasn't a threat to anyone outside of Iraq. The downside of the sanctions were that it was the civilians of Iraq who suffered through lack of access to decent food, malnutrition, etc. On the other hand, Clinton's approach didn't result in America being stuck in a military quagmire or unleash an ethnic/ religious civil war.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: LtPage1
On the other hand, I won't vote for her because she's a political opportunist who, while in possession of many admirable ideals, doesn't appear to really care about this illegal and morally despicable war.

That is the whole point of my thread, thank you for agreeing with me.

What are you saying, either of you, that you buy into your notion of appearances? These are things you could only really know if you were her. You can't read people's minds and really know if they care about something or not. And you PJ, should suspend all judgment since yours has proven so poor. You should be the last person to listen to yourself. Your instincts are haywire and badly messed up. Bad judgment is only made worse by having egotistical faith in it.

 

[kedlav]

Does anyone actually believe her?

People still believe politicians? WTF?!

 

[Starbuck1975]

Bill Clinton's approach to Iraq was 1000 times better than the approach taken by Dumbya, imo. Clinton's sanctions meant Saddam didn't have the resources for weapons of mass destruction. He was essentially unarmed. He couldn't afford to replenish his weaponry. He wasn't a threat to anyone outside of Iraq. The downside of the sanctions were that it was the civilians of Iraq who suffered through lack of access to decent food, malnutrition, etc. On the other hand, Clinton's approach didn't result in America being stuck in a military quagmire or unleash an ethnic/ religious civil war.

Here is where I disagree...Clinton's approach essentially passed on the problem of Saddam to the next Administration. Also, I don't see how death by malnutrition is preferable to death by suicide bomber...under Clinton's approach, the people of Iraq suffered...under Bush's approach, the people of Iraq suffered...now we can debate order of magnitude for suffering, but Clinton's approach was hardly ideal. Compared to Bush's approach, yes it was better...but better for who?

The sanctions set the conditions for suffering and strife that would inevitably lead to civil war. With no heir apparent, there were numerous players maneuvering to take over at the end of Saddam's reign.

I understand that I am playing "what-if" here, but assuming that Bush didn't invade Iraq, I firmly believe that a civil war was inevitable in Iraq at the passing of Saddam. As I have said repeatedly, America made the mistake of being the catalyst for that civil war.

 

[ebaycj]

It doesn't actually matter what a given politican personally believes. It only matters what they will vote on.

If they personally believe one thing ("the war is great, i'm for it"), but they vote based on their constituency ("the war sucks we need to get the hell out asap"), what is the problem? How is that any different than them personally believing that "the war sucks" and voting that "the war sucks and we need to get the hell out". Either way, the vote is the same. Who cares what their personal beliefs are, as long as the outcome isn't affected?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: ebaycj
It doesn't actually matter what a given politican personally believes. It only matters what they will vote on.

If they personally believe one thing ("the war is great, i'm for it"), but they vote based on their constituency ("the war sucks we need to get the hell out asap"), what is the problem? How is that any different than them personally believing that "the war sucks" and voting that "the war sucks and we need to get the hell out". Either way, the vote is the same. Who cares what their personal beliefs are, as long as the outcome isn't affected?

I think the answer to that is that without a core, a spiritual center, a source of wisdom within, one only votes the right way by accident. I am not really interested in voting for potential accidents. Your theory is fine for what has past, but is unreliable for the future.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: ebaycj
It doesn't actually matter what a given politican personally believes. It only matters what they will vote on.

If they personally believe one thing ("the war is great, i'm for it"), but they vote based on their constituency ("the war sucks we need to get the hell out asap"), what is the problem? How is that any different than them personally believing that "the war sucks" and voting that "the war sucks and we need to get the hell out". Either way, the vote is the same. Who cares what their personal beliefs are, as long as the outcome isn't affected?

I think the answer to that is that without a core, a spiritual center, a source of wisdom within, one only votes the right way by accident. I am not really interested in voting for potential accidents. Your theory is fine for what has past, but is unreliable for the future.

Agreed.

And to some extent a politition that votes merely based on polling is essentially a non-entity. If they wanna do that just remove them and let us voters decide by referendum.

Polititions are suposed to have access to great deal more data, and experts, than us. If they vote according to polls of us uninformed voters what is the point of all that data.

Somewhere in the equation is "leadership", and that sometimes means going against the mainstream (polling) view.

Fern

 

[Coldkilla]

Go Obama! :laugh:

 

[brownzilla786]

This is what I think of Hilary


This guy sums it up pretty well...even though hes pretty heated about it.

 

[WildHorse]

``