Hillary Clinton 10-16-03 Senate Speech

In case anyone missed the Statement of Hillary Clinton on the senate floor AFTER the $87Bil was passed. Here it is, and it's a ripe one!

Before you begin to read this make sure any objects that may be used to throw at or into your monitor are removed from within arms reach.

There are some amazing bits of info she give here, some that boggle the mind, like......"In the last year, however, I have been first perplexed, then surprised, then amazed, and even outraged and always frustrated by the implementation of the authority given the President by this Congress. "Huh?

and....."Nevertheless, I think it is clear, and it is not just a mistake, it is not just a wrong assessment--I think now it is clear that, for a combination of reasons, the administration gilded the lily, engaged in hyperbole, took whatever small nugget of intelligence that existed and blew it up into a mountain, in order, I suppose, to make the case more strongly and convincingly to the American people".

Oh it gets even better....... "It is hard for me to really understand how this administration, led by many--from the Vice President to the Secretary of Defense to others who have been committed to overturning the regime of Saddam Hussein since they made the mistake of not going to Baghdad in the first gulf war--could be so ill prepared. How on Earth? These people have spent 10 years obsessing over Saddam Hussein and Iraq. One would think they knew what they would do when they arrived."

Ummm..... That cause we couldn't go into Baghdad Mrs. Clinton, the UN resolution strictly prohibited it.

"I also know that we do have to work to help reconstruct Iraq. We are the only people who can and will, in part because the administration has alienated those who would have been our natural allies. It is frustrating for many, but I don't think we can at this point fail to pay this bill of $87 billion for failed leadership.

We have to put the administration on notice that this vote, 87 to 12, was a vote for our troops, a vote for our mission. Speaking as one of those who cast a yea vote, it was not a vote for our national leadership. We not only can but should expect more than we have been given." WHAT!?!?

"They also wonder and ask me, How come we are spending $5 billion to fix the electric grid in Iraq and we have not spent any money to fix our electric grid in the United States?"That cause S14The Energy Policy Act of 2003 is still SITTING in the Senate, Senator.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, we have had a busy week as we have considered the $87 billion request from the administration. There has been a great deal of debate. A number of amendments and senses of the Senate have been voted on. In the end, we were faced with the difficult choice as to whether we would or would not support this request by the administration.

I have the greatest respect for my colleagues who voted against this $87 billion. I listened with great interest and attention to my friend and colleague, Senator Leahy, as he laid out a compelling argument with a number of points concerning the reasons why he voted against the request for $87 billion.

I know, from having heard the brief remarks of the Senator from Florida, that in a few minutes we will hear his usual thoughtful exposition as to why he, too, voted against the $87 billion.

I think it is imperative we all agree that, whichever way one of us voted, for or against this funding, all of us are united in our support for our brave men and women who are literally risking, and all too tragically losing, their lives on a daily basis in Iraq.

This was a very difficult vote for many of us. There are those of us, such as myself, who voted to give the President authority. We disagree with the way he used that authority. We have many questions, and still most are unanswered, about the choices the President and his team have made over the last year. But the idea of giving our President authority to act in the global war against terrorism, if necessary in his opinion, against Saddam Hussein, was one I could support and I did so. In the last year, however, I have been first perplexed, then surprised, then amazed, and even outraged and always frustrated by the implementation of the authority given the President by this Congress.

One can agree on the goal that was adopted in 1998 for regime change. I, for one, am in the camp that believes the world is better off without Saddam Hussein at the helm of a dangerous, tyrannical regime. But it is not enough to say you support the goal. There are many different obstacles and difficulties and choices on the way to achieving that goal that have both intended and unintended consequences.

A number of my colleagues have addressed the concerns arising out of the use and misuse of intelligence. I, for one, have said repeatedly the intelligence about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein had been consistent--consistent through three administrations: the first Bush administration, the Clinton administration, and now this administration.

There was a consensus there had been and were continuing to be programs devoted to the creation of weapons of mass destruction. We certainly knew, as the world saw, that this man had no compunction about using them.

Nevertheless, I think it is clear, and it is not just a mistake, it is not just a wrong assessment--I think now it is clear that, for a combination of reasons, the administration gilded the lily, engaged in hyperbole, took whatever small nugget of intelligence that existed and blew it up into a mountain, in order, I suppose, to make the case more strongly and convincingly to the American people. But at what a cost? The cost of our credibility, the cost of our national leadership, and even more so the cost of perhaps not being able to take actions in the future that are necessary to our well-being and our interests because we may look like the nation or at least the administration that cried wolf. It is a big price to pay.

Yet continually, rather than saying what I think all of us would agree, the consensus turned out not to be right. There were some, such as my good friend from Florida, who at the time was serving as the chairman of the Intelligence Committee and was in a position to see all the different interlocking facts, who said: Wait a minute. We are heading off in the wrong direction. We are jumping on the wrong horse.

But for many of us, looking at the intelligence, being briefed continually about what the threats were, being told by the highest levels of our Government in public and in private that we were facing an imminent threat, it certainly seemed like a bet on which nobody--at least speaking for myself--wished to be on the wrong side.

I think there would be considerable understanding on the part not just of Members of Congress but of the American public if leading members of the administration would now come forward and say: You know, we may have gotten overly invested in the intelligence. We may have gotten a little ahead of the game. We may have seen more than there was, and we perhaps said a few things and made some claims that we can't support--whether it is uranium in Niger or links with al-Qaida by Saddam Hussein--but the fundamental fact remains that this man posed a threat to his neighbors. There is no doubt in anyone's mind--because we had already seen him use it--that he would have employed weapons of mass destruction at some future date. Although we may have gone a little too far, we believe we made the right decision.

But you do not hear that from this administration. This administration never makes a mistake, in their own eyes. They are never willing to back off. They have the Vice President still going on national television shows repeating discredited intelligence. That is not free. That is costly. That sends a signal not just to those of us who serve and vote in this body, not just to the American public, but to the entire world that either there is an unwillingness to accept the evidence and the facts or there is a commitment on an ideological basis to a world view or a point of view that is wrong.

Time and time again, the administration has had the opportunity to level with the American people. Unfortunately, they haven't been willing to do that.

Among the many questions that I and others raised and the many criticisms we lodged against the use of the authority, which I and the majority of this body voted for, was the administration's aborting of the United Nations process and the inspections regime in order to launch military action.

There was never any doubt in anyone's mind with any knowledge of the American military what the outcome would be. I, for one, knew there was no worry whatsoever; that we have the finest equipped, trained, and motivated military probably in the history of the world, and they would do the mission they were assigned. So they did.

But all during the period from the voting on the authority to the end of organized major conflict, we kept asking questions: What are the plans once we know the military does the job it is sent to do? How many troops will we need? How long will they be there? What will this cost us in lives and treasure? Over and over, the answer we received from the administration was: We are ready; we are prepared. And oftentimes it came with an almost embarrassingly romantic view of this conflict--that we would be met by cheering and rose petals thrown in the streets, that we would be in and out quickly, that the oil would be flowing. It sounded fabulous. But that is what it turned out to be, a fabulous fantasy.

It is hard for me to really understand how this administration, led by many--from the Vice President to the Secretary of Defense to others who have been committed to overturning the regime of Saddam Hussein since they made the mistake of not going to Baghdad in the first gulf war--could be so ill prepared. How on Earth? These people have spent 10 years obsessing over Saddam Hussein and Iraq. One would think they knew what they would do when they arrived.

They would not answer our questions, and all too often they would punish representatives of our civilian and military leadership who did answer the questions--most famously General Shinseki who told the truth about the numbers of troops it would take, and the number of years it would take, and was largely ignored or pilloried by this administration. How could they not have been prepared? How could they have turned their backs on the most obvious kinds of planning?

I know for a fact there were many from previous Republican administrations who came in over and over again and said: You are going to face a looting problem; You don't have enough troops for that; We have to be sure we can secure not just a couple of facilities but we need the troops to secure a number of the most important institutions--somehow they were not hurt, to say nothing of those from former Democratic administrations who offered the same advice.

We have the President land on the aircraft carrier, We have him declare the end to major conflict, and here we are months later losing on average a soldier a day, seeing the maiming and disabling of hundreds more, being asked to spend, last spring, $70 billion in a supplemental to sustain our military function and now being asked to spend $87 billion, $67 billion, approximately, for our military and $20 billion for necessary functions on reconstructing Iraq.

Given the level of criticism that I and others feel about this venture and its failure, it is hard not to see this $87 billion as anything but a bill for failed leadership. Yet I, for one, believe this mission in Iraq is too important for failure. If we do not stabilize Iraq, if we do not protect our forces, if we do not clearly send a signal to the Iraqi people who are and certainly will be better off because of the removal of Saddam Hussein, we will not just have failed in this mission, we will have undermined our long-term stability and we will certainly have created a more dangerous world despite our efforts to avoid that.

I understand very clearly the anger and frustration my constituents and Americans across the country feel about this $87 billion. I share it. It is really hard to vote for this money. It is hard because you wonder what is going to actually be accomplished with it given the poor track record of this administration. You wonder how you can justify it in the face of the irresponsible fiscal policies of this administration that has undermined our present obligations and our long-term economic security. You wonder how you can possibly support this request when you know you don't get the straight story out of this administration time and time again.

Yet, at the same time, it is hard to walk away now. In fact, I don't think we can.

Yes, we have not found the weapons of mass destruction, but we are there. No, we do not really have any links between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein to be proven, but we are there. We have not stabilized the country and we have not even secured the weapon caches all over the country, but we are there. It is just hard to accept that we are there without an adequate plan and understanding of what it will take to be successful.

The fact that the administration purposely left the impression that there would be a quick victory and our troops would be home in no time is very hard to accept for a lot of the husbands and wives and mothers and fathers and sons and daughters of the people serving. We have all read the story today from the interviews done by Stars and Stripes, the newspaper of the Army, reporting in great detail about the questions and concerns and poor morale of many of our soldiers and other forces in Iraq.

I understand completely why people are frustrated and angry, but I don't think we can allow our frustration and anger with the administration to undermine our commitment to our country and our national security.

So what is it we are called upon to do? For me, the choice as a member of the Armed Services Committee was to support the money for our troops, wondering, though, as I did, why so many of them still do not have the body armor they should have to protect themselves against Iraqi attacks and hoping they will shortly. We certainly put enough money into the defense budget in the last 2 1/2 years to at least equip every one of our soldiers with adequate body armor.

I also know that we do have to work to help reconstruct Iraq. We are the only people who can and will, in part because the administration has alienated those who would have been our natural allies. It is frustrating for many, but I don't think we can at this point fail to pay this bill of $87 billion for failed leadership.

While we confront the reality of our present situation in Iraq, we cannot find ourselves in this position again. Many will no longer be able to support this administration if they do not start listening, occasionally even admitting when they make a mistake that has life-and-death consequences, reining in their most rabid neocon ideologues when they try to ``out'' CIA operatives or continue to claim nonexistent links between the global war on al-Qaida and everything else that happens in the world.

I hope the administration understands the level of frustration and anger that is out there. It is not just Democratic frustration and anger, it is not just partisan, it is across the board, people wondering: Where are we going? How will we even know when we get there? Did we take on this incredible responsibility under false pretenses?

I hope the administration will build on the vote in the United Nations that gives us at least the opportunity of lessening the burden and the costs by sharing it with others who should also have a stake in a free and functioning Iraq. I hope the administration will change course when it comes to working with the rest of the world and start acting more like allies instead of bullies. We cannot keep on this path and sustain the support of the American people. That is my most important point.

I have had the great privilege of not just traveling around the country but spending a lot of time in every State in our Nation. Now I have the great honor of representing the most diverse place in America, the State of New York. Americans are not only patriotic in the best sense of the word but they are so compassionate and caring about other people. What other country would free a people from tyranny and then reach into their own pockets to help build schools and hospitals and roads and fix the electric grid? Americans do not begrudge that. But they want to feel they know where we are headed, that their Government is leveling with them.

They also wonder and ask me, How come we are spending $5 billion to fix the electric grid in Iraq and we have not spent any money to fix our electric grid in the United States? We are building schools and we have schools falling down here. We are building hospitals and we have hospitals under all kinds of pressures here. Those are totally legitimate questions. They will not go away.

One of the greatest issues for us to address is how we will provide for the needs of the American people while we spend this money abroad. Americans will stay with you, Americans will be with you and support you, if they understand where we are headed and why it is important to our future.

On that count, this administration is losing the confidence of the American people even though the mission we face in Iraq is essential, in my view, to the long-term safety and security of our country and the leadership America should provide to the world.

This is not just about money. It is not even, tragically, about the lives we lose and the issues we confront in trying to stabilize and build Iraq. It is about whether this administration can repair the trust it has lost with the American people. I hope it can because I don't think it is in anyone's interest to have the President of the United States and his top team viewed as having misled our Nation and having alienated the rest of the world.

We are in for a long-term battle in the war against terrorism. I take it very seriously. We have determined and ruthless adversaries out to destroy our way of life, inflict violence on as many Americans as possible. I take a back seat to no one in my resolve to root out and destroy global terrorism.

My question is, What is the right way to do it? And how do we prepare the American people to stay the course for what will be a long, protracted struggle?

I worry deeply that this administration is undermining both our ability to win the global war on terrorism and the trust that is needed to keep the American people committed.

So I cast a vote for this supplemental for our troops and for the work that has to be done in Iraq. But I cannot endorse this administration's plans and policies very much longer if they do not recognize the reality of what we confront, not just in Iraq but elsewhere in the world and here at home.

The administration has forced false choices on this Congress and our country. It is very difficult for me, having represented New York during the horrors of 9/11, to realize that we had the will and good wishes and support of the rest of the world and we have dissipated that. We desperately need it in this war against terrorism.

This may be reported as a resounding victory for the administration--a large vote--but I do not think it was. I think this was, first of all, a vote for our troops, a vote to continue to provide the funding they need to protect themselves and to fulfill their mission. It was a vote to take responsibility for what does need to be done in Iraq. There is not, in my view, any doubt about that.

But the debate in this body, and the frustration, and even anger across the country shows clearly that it was not a vote of confidence in the administration's leadership. That needs to be won back by their actions going forward. And it is essential that they attempt to do so.

We cannot fail in Iraq. We cannot fail in the war against terrorism. Ultimately, we must not fail our own people. The American people deserve better. I hope the administration recognizes and accepts that.

The last 2 years that I have had the privilege to serve in this body have been very emotional ones--the attacks of 9/11; the military action in Afghanistan; the action in Iraq; the destruction of our budget surplus and plunging our Nation into huge deficits and burgeoning national debt; the undermining of the future, in my view, of this generation.

I come not as a partisan but as an American to say, we have to do better. I hope this administration will do so.

Thanks for posting this! Let me see if I can recap this correctly: Shrillary thinks that Congress has given the President too much of what he's asked for, so she's going to give the President what he's asked for because he's done such a rotten job with the authorization and money they've given him in the past. That about cover it? Yowzer, not only is she a dreadful communicator, but she is utterly devoid of anything resembling logic. It's even more apparent when she is damned by her own words! Please, please don't let this woman NEAR the WH again!

This Clintonspeak speech makes perfect sense.It affords her the opportunity to be on both sides of the argument at the same time.Think of her straddling the fence in her black pants suit. Hurl alert !

Wasn't that speech totally anti-war AND anti-Bush? This new little speech is pro-war but anti-Bush. Doesn't she get confused at her own rantings?

Most people track pretty well but she just jumps from track to track.

One of these days, she's going to see the light at the end of the tunnel and it's going to have a 10 ton locomotive attached to it. She's causing her own demise and Bubba has to be laughing his head off at her inconsistancies.

I truly think she has a deep emotional problem associated with Bubba beating her out by leaps in bounds in the intelligence and charismatic categories. As far as morals though, they're on the same level.

But you do not hear that from this administration. This administration never makes a mistake, in their own eyes. They are never willing to back off.

Wow. Talk about a pot-kettle statement, you repugnant sow. In the past ten years, I don't remember you admitting to any mistake, Hilly, and the only time your perjuring pervert hubby did, it was because he got caught with his pants down, as it were.

You wanna know how She Who Must Not Be Named got into our government?

NEW YORK VOTED FOR HER. THEREFORE THEY MUST LOVE HER.

BEHOLD YOUR MARXIST MESSIAH, NEW YORK!

"I could eat a live puppy in front of Katie Couric, and you New Yorkers would STILL elect me!"
"Shows you FReepers how much you know about POWER!"

Glibness/Superficial Charm, check

Manipulative and Conning, check

Grandiose Sense of Self, check

Pathological Lying, check

Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt, double check

She's a textbook definition ^.

See, she went on AF1, on the taxpayers dime on this "listening tour" of NY. The media didn't ask her any questions, which was odd since she is "the smartest woman in the world" one would think we would all be enthralled by her answers, and would learn something.

Then with the help of an adoring media, she had her name put on the NY ballot, still didn't answer questions, had her hubby pardon a few terrorists here and there in exchange for votes, according to news reports there also is evidence of voter fraud by her campaign, yet through it all, the PIAPS was elected the Senator from NY where she didn't live, ever!

Only Hitlery would pose for a photo that close up..Why? Because that`s how Sociopaths are. Profile of a Sociopath I`m just wondering if everyone is still buying this "book tour" thing she`s on. Here on planet earth we call it "Campaigning for President"..I mean here we are going on six months already and she`s still acting like this book came out yesterday, going on TV shows every two seconds, touring every state in every town known to humanity..I live in NYC and she marched in the Columbus day parade front and center last week, then she was off back on the "tour". She attended absolutely no funerals for the 911 firemen and cops, but she has plenty of time to march in every damn parade that spews out into the street. "Parade for people who weave baskets" and there is Hitlery with her fat thighs and her BS expressions. Gee, she is so sincere. And all these idiots wave to her. I wonder how many of them realize that she put their lives in danger before she was even elected by having hubby Bubba pardon FALN terrorists who bombed NYC 130 times so she could buy a few votes. Hey, after all, it was only 130 bombings. Good to know I have a Senator who is an honest to God bonafide psychotic. Now let me rant on Susan Estrich........

"Don`t drink the milk!"

"Why not?"

"It`s spoiled!"

Seems the speech that hillary could not give was the one she wrote for that "old bull" teddy kennedy.

There had to be a big payoff required of old Teddy to get that convention in Boston next year, and it seems that giving her speeches might be one of the requirements.

Now hillary, while still shrill gives a more "pretty in pink", speech letting old Teddy get the TV lights. I am not so sure that old Teddy even knew what he was saying, just following orders.

Every time I've heard her speak she's been uninspiring. She has a very nasal, near monotone voice. Her tone is frequently condescending. Answers to questions often start with "Again, " as if it's our fault we weren't there for the rehearsals.

She's done little more than whine since becoming Senator. When she was First Bitch, she could participate in photo ops with kids and gush ebulliently about how it was all "for the children". Now, out of power, all she can do is whine about how this Administration is doing a poor job of cleaning up the messes hers left behind. Rebulding Iraq isn't going well? How would you do it better - be-atch? Does she really think Vice President Cheney was obsessing over Saddam while he was running Halliburton? Of course, never having even been in a business let alone CEO of a multi-national, she has no clue.

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.