Posted on 11/29/2005 5:06:42 PM PST by Sub-Driver
Hillary Clinton: Iraq War Vote a Mistake
For the first time since she voted to authorize the Iraq war three years ago, 2008 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is now saying that vote was a mistake - in an apparent move to pacify growing dissatisfaction with her position among the Democratic Party's left-wing base.
"If Congress had been asked [to authorize the war], based on what we know now, we never would have agreed," Clinton said, in an email sent to her supporters on Tuesday.
While saying she took full responsibility for her error, Clinton repeatedly insisted that she had been misled by "false" intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction presented by the Bush administration.
Citing "assurances they gave that they would first seek to resolve the issue of weapons of mass destruction peacefully through United Nations sponsored inspections," Clinton lamented: "Their assurances turned out to be empty ones."
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
To do this marks her as DESPERATE.
There is absolutely no way she'd say this if she thought she had the nomination locked up. She has just shown her hand to the rest of the field, however, as being weak. This will embolden the other Democrats sensing the Opening has widened for them to take the '08 nom over her.
Meanwhile the 'cut and run' moniker will not help a female, and I'm one, that wants to be Commander-In-Chief in the General election. She is no Maggie Thatcher.
Limbaugh ought to have a field day with this tomorrow.
You are such a cynic!
LoL!
The problem with this excuse is that they knew these "assurances" were empty the day the war started. It is now over a year and a half later. Why did it take her so long to decide that "believing their assurances" was a mistake? It took 18 months? Or could it be that this is just the time the democrats are scheduled to switch to the "we were misled" mantra.
We can also hang these democrats on the "knowing what we know now" crap. Because what they are saying is that they believe that the uncertain future with Saddam in charge would be preferable to the future we have today, with Iraq on the cusp of a democratic election.
In other words, the democrats are saying that a free and democratic Iraq, not run by a murderous leader bent on our destruction, was not worth 2000 soldier's lives and 200 billion dollars.
But I bet if before the war, you could have promised a democratic Iraq by the close of 2005, at the cost of only 2000 lives and 200 billion dollars, most people would have taken that bargain. Heck, most democrats thought we would lose 10,000 soldiers in the initial battle.
So to the democrats I would ask -- if you could really go back in time to just before the war, is your BEST alternative really to not go to war at all? If I were to go back, I would have the war, but cover my bases on the looting and tne insurgency. I would change who we put in charge, and slap strict controls on the Iranian border immediately.
In other words, I would take our lessons learned and apply them to the war, NOT punt the war. And I was against the war (because I thought it would turn out much worse than it did).
I don't see how any democrat can rationally say that closing out 2005 with Saddam in power, with oil-for-food still running, with sanctions lifted, with Al Qaeda having free reign in the north, with the no-fly zones terminated, would be better than where we are today.
And of course, I always ask the democrats: If on March 20th, you didn't go to war, when would you have brought the 300,000 deployed troops home? How long would you have had them sitting in ships, in tents, in harms way? All through the brutal summer? Into the fall? Into the next year?
"I take responsibility for my vote, and I, along with a majority of Americans, expect the president and his administration to take responsibility for the false assurances, faulty evidence and mismanagement of the war,"Well Ms. Crusty, if the problem is faulty intelligence, then it was YOUR co-president that lied and GWB is guilty of believing the holdovers from YOUR co-administration.
PS does the reverse spin of the two headlines cancel them out?
The only things we know NOW that we didn't know in April 2004 are: (1) President's poll numbers are down; (2) Americans are tiring; (3) 2000 soldiers are dead. None of these are reasons to NOT go to war.
So, what did Hillary say in 2004?:
"The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration," she said. "It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared.
"But I think that in the case of the [Bush] administration, they really believed it. They really thought they were right, but they didn't let enough sunlight into their thinking process to really have the kind of debate that needs to take place when a serious decision occurs like that."
Oh, and did she regret the vote, or say she would take it back?:
"Obviously, I've thought about that a lot in the months since," she said. "No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade."
So, well after the war, knowing everything she knows today (actually today she knows with more certainty that the CIA messed up the intelligence), she didn't take back her vote. Now she says Bush misled them with false intelligence. And in April 2004 she noted the failure to let the UN complete it's work but didn't regret her vote, now she cites the same failure to let the UN do its work as a reason she would not vote the same way again.
This is bad news for the country. Whether she believed in the war or not, up to today she was taking the responsible choice. She was one of the few Democrat leaders still supporting the war. Now only Lieberman remains.
It's going to be tough to win the war when one of the major parties is totally against it and is openly helping the enemy with propaganda. This IS turning into a reprise of Vietnam where a whole party turns traitor. Not a good thing.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 -
Gosh, how quickly she forgets!!
Another good graphic Phil!
I SO hope you are right.........
And Democracy in Iraq can only be a good thing for the Middle East.
God Bless our Troops.
You know..........it's amazing, but you're right.
The MSM just disgusts me........I don't understand them. Putting their political bias aside, how can the reporters who work for them not be concerned about the future of this country? For their children and grandchildren?
Unbelievable......
Hmmmm Wasn't the intelligence being given to the Bush Administration and Congress coming from the people Whats his Name (Hillary's husband)put in place at the CIA. If Bush would use Hillary's hindsight. Bush - You are right should have kicked every whats his name people out the door the first day of my office. No carry overs - I would have known then what we know now. Hillary has shown her Stuck on Stupid - She would lock the Barn Door after the Horse Ran Away. Looks like a washout for 2008. But then the humane memory has a tendency to forget things that happened yesterday. Burn your finger and the pain hurts. Now a month from now - Try to remember what the pain felt like. If someone has not recorded and saved information it is forgotten. Yes somethings fade and some do not fade from the mind. Where is the fade out button for Hillary - her big mouth just had her big foot inserted. She is in the same boat that all of these experts and ex persons in Office are doing. Who are out side looking in. Saying when I held dork Office I had ran in with So and So. Well if that happened while you were ahead of the department. Why didn't you say so then. Not wait until you are out of office. I Like what Rum said to Powell - show the papers and proof or shut up.
Hillary Clinton .................... a Mistake.
So...Congress would never have authorized the war in Iraq based on what we know now about Saddams WMD programs, said knowledge based on what we know because we went to war and conducted the ultimate in weapons inspection?
How do they get away with saying stuff like this?
The majority owner of the DNC, George $oreA$$ must have told $inator Hildebea$t to get with the program, or no more $oreA$$ $'s for her.
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.
