Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Senator Hillary! Women better off with Saddam - Transcript (long, know thy enemy)
Brookings Institution ^ | 2-27-04

Posted on 02/27/2004 7:30:51 PM PST by Indy Pendance

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 next last
To: Indy Pendance; All
     



-Hillary Clinton- archives, comments, and opposition research --

-The Clinton Files--

-Murder, Inc.--

-ATTENTION BLOODHOUNDS--

-Women in the Clinton Era: Abuse,Intimidation and Smears--

Hillary's delegates spit on and taunt Police Honor Guard at her Convention

Catastrophic intelligence Failure - Clinton's Bin Laden GATE

CIA Officials Reveal What Went Wrong – Clinton to Blame

DOWNSIDE LEGACY AT TWO DEGREES OF PRESIDENT CLINTON
 


41 posted on 02/28/2004 12:58:23 AM PST by backhoe (The 1990's? The Decade of Fraud(s)... the 00's? The Decade of Lunatics...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Awwww Hillary put a SOCK in it ! Ya Big Itch ! Gheeeeesh what trash .........
42 posted on 02/28/2004 1:56:07 AM PST by Squantos (Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spotsy
Hillary has been getting a pass all these years, IMO, because she is for abortion and her husband is/was powerful. Quite a stance for feminism isn't she.
43 posted on 02/28/2004 4:00:34 AM PST by Thebaddog (Woof this!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Indy Pendance
As a staff alumnus of the Armed Services Committee, I'm particularly thrilled that the Senator chose as one of her assignments when she joined the United States Senate to serve on the United States Senate Armed Services Committee.

I understand Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) told Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA)(after her close re-election bid) to move over, she'd be sitting on the Armed Services Committee. This after Bill made some calls in LA to get out the vote for Landrieu.

44 posted on 02/28/2004 4:04:39 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Indy Pendance
I think Iraq would be better off with Hillary running it and her living there for the rest of her life.
45 posted on 02/28/2004 5:05:26 AM PST by b4its2late (A thing not worth doing isn't worth doing well.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Indy Pendance
The woman, and I use that term in broadest sense of the word, is clearly delusional.
46 posted on 02/28/2004 6:33:24 AM PST by Jemian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Indy Pendance
"We also have to do more on women's rights and roles. And I have been deeply troubled by what I hear coming out of Iraq. When I was there and met with women members of the governing councils and local--of the national governing councils and local governing councils in Baghdad and Kirkuk, they were starting to express concerns about some of the pullbacks in the rights that they were given under Saddam Hussein. He was an equal opportunity oppressor, but on paper women had rights; they went to school; they participated in the professions; they participated in government;..."

...they were abducted, they were raped, they were beaten, they were tortured...

47 posted on 02/28/2004 6:46:57 AM PST by Dan Middleton (Blue Jackets come from behind to defeat Chicago, 4-3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Indy Pendance
And yet the mindless dem's, (who don't bother to watch the evening news,) Will march to the voting booth in November and pull that dem lever. WHY? Because thats the way my daddy voted. Yellow dog idiots!
48 posted on 02/28/2004 7:20:05 AM PST by barkingdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Indy Pendance
We've got to target the most dangerous weapons that will do us the most damage. The chemical, biological and radiological devices.

Yes, we have to target those CT scanners!

This speech is simply awful. It meanders across a laundry list of complaints about the Bush Administration complete with back-handed swipes. It has no focus, no positive forward looking message; it, you know, falters, you know, at the end. It sounds like a Howard Dean stump speech. I think we have less to fear from this woman than we think we do. Madeline Albright and Geraldine Ferraro could do better.

49 posted on 02/28/2004 7:21:37 AM PST by Nebullis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sport
She and the other democrats funnel all that information to our enemies, their allies , as soon as they get it.

They pass it on so fast that it is almost in real time.


I wouldn't be so sure. The Clinton's have already demonstrated they are enemies to "the state". I would imagine they're being looked at and monitored VERY closely.... At least I hope that's the case.
50 posted on 02/28/2004 7:22:20 AM PST by demkicker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Thebaddog
Hillary has been getting a pass all these years, IMO, because she is for abortion and her husband is/was powerful. Quite a stance for feminism isn't she

Don't forget the main reason she's gotten a pass all these years is because she's got THE FBI FILES OF ANYONE AND EVERYONE WITH ANY KIND OF POWER (politicians and media)! She also used the IRS to audit her enemies. They became her "SS", aka her jack booted thugs.
51 posted on 02/28/2004 7:28:08 AM PST by demkicker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Indy Pendance
bttt
52 posted on 02/28/2004 9:10:24 AM PST by machman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Indy Pendance; Mudboy Slim; MeekOneGOP; sultan88
What an EVIL,EVIL (wo-man.)

Hilda-beast ping
53 posted on 02/28/2004 9:20:58 AM PST by FBD (...Please press 2 for English...for Espanol, please stay on the line...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FBD
Senator Hillary: Women better off with Saddam


54 posted on 02/28/2004 9:25:46 AM PST by MeekOneGOP (The Democrats believe in CHOICE. I have chosen to vote STRAIGHT TICKET GOP for years !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: AgThorn
I'm no fan of Hitlery, but what she says (you have in red) is accurate. If the religous islamists take control of the elections, Iraqi womens rights may be less than what they had under Sadam which would be a sad testimony for our 'investment' over there.

Well, it's a good thing the Bush administration already is aware of that, no thanks to the likes of Hillary. They're dealing with it without her interference. More like trying to hitch her wagon to the policy so she can claim some kind of credit for the newly formed government and claim she helped influence the administration in the right direction.

And let's not be coy, she does say they had rights under Saddam, as long as they stayed out of his way.

Ludicrous.

55 posted on 02/28/2004 9:38:54 AM PST by cyncooper ("Maybe they were hoping he'd lose the next Iraqi election")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
Hillary also seems to think the Afghan women were better off under the Taliban! >> no fan of Hillary but Saddam'regime was no Taliban. In Afghanistan - before the Taliban/Mujaheddin took power - the Soviet puppet Najibullah allowed women to roam the Kabul streets in shorts. Najibullah was a tyrant alright - but like Saddam - was sort of secular and believer in keeping Islam out of business of running the country. But then the US supported the Islamists to come to power in Kabul ( OK - the original ones were not Taliban but Islamists all the same ) and the same bunch of guys later decided to fly a few large planes into tall buildings.

The real Taliban are the Shia leaders waiting to be "democratically" elected and covert Iraq into Iran. So we need to really watch out what is happening in Iraq - US may need to keep its troops there for the next 100 years.
56 posted on 02/28/2004 9:39:42 AM PST by anu_shr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Indy Pendance
HILLARY HAS A NEW SONG FOR SADDAM
57 posted on 02/28/2004 9:44:21 AM PST by doug from upland (Don't wait until it is too late to stop Hillary -- do something today!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Indy Pendance
He was an equal opportunity oppressor, but on paper women had rights; they went to school; they participated in the professions; they participated in government; and business and, as long as they stayed out of his way, they had considerable freedom of movement.

Classic!!!!

Reality matters not, as long as its on paper. Let's write ant-gun laws, and not enforce them. Then we can scream that we need more anti-gun laws.

How many times did her wife think he had fulfilled campaign promises simply because he had talked about them in speeches?
58 posted on 02/28/2004 9:50:49 AM PST by gitmo (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gitmo
So are we saying that women in Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia don't need to be liberated because they have more rights now than a democracy could give them?

And of course the women who were forced into Saddam's rape rooms are in greater danger now because now they can be raped by just anyone!

I'm sure the thousands of women who occupy Saddam's mass graves are grateful they didn't live to experience the oppression brought on by American liberation.
59 posted on 02/28/2004 10:33:34 AM PST by Jeff Gannon (Listen to my radio show "Jeff Gannon's Washington" on www.RIGHTALK.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Gannon
In the process of printing her speech - my printer prints last to first page. the last page consisted of 8 lines excluding the Thank you very much.

there are 4, yes four, of her "you know" 's. in just eight lines.

That said - this person is so very dangerous to the whole world and must be taken seriously. Forget her black suit, her big hips, her greasy hair, her empty smile, her blank eyes, her monotone voice.

Her agenda is what is seriously dangerous. The news media is what is seriously dangerous.

They must be taken seriously!!!!!

60 posted on 02/28/2004 1:42:32 PM PST by malia (BUSH & CHENEY 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson