So even the communists don’t like Hillary now?
The communists have never liked Hillary. They view her the way “out” homos view their closeted brethren – with contempt.
Plus, they think she’s too ugly to be the face of communism.
Posted on 05/30/2007 11:41:29 AM PDT by 68skylark
Note: This article is a preview of this weekend's Times Magazine.
On a Thursday afternoon in early May, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton rose before a nearly empty Senate chamber and proposed that Congress undo one of the most significant acts in its recent history: the authorization of the Iraq war. In remarks lasting just two minutes, she spoke bluntly: The “authorization to use force has run its course, and it is time to reverse the failed policies of President Bush and to end this war as soon as possible.” She added, “If the president will not bring himself to accept reality, it is time for Congress to bring reality to him.”
This was Clinton’s latest and boldest attempt to distance herself from her own vote for the Iraq war in October 2002 — a vote she has described as “probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make.” At the time she cast that vote, she was among the Senate’s most outspoken Democrats warning of Saddam Hussein’s dangerous arsenal. Unlike nearly all of her fellow Democrats, she even went so far as to argue that Saddam Hussein gave assistance to Al Qaeda members. Now she speaks with equal fervor about the need to bring the war to an end. In addition to calling for the deauthorization of the war, she has also voiced support for cutting off financing to many combat troops in Iraq by March 2008.
And yet even as she has backed away from her original vote to allow the war, she has also resisted pressure from within her party to apologize for it. Instead, she has presented voters with a version of her record that places more emphasis on her reservations about going to war than on her support for the president....
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
To summarize, the authors say she cast a vote against the one amendment in the Senate that would have substantially reduced the president's authority to go to war, and forced him to use more diplomatic approaches instead (the "Levin amendment" of October 10, 2002). Today she says that she tried to get the president to emphasize diplomacy, but the authors say her record doesn't support this view.
Of course, for those of us on the right this is a difficult article to read. They depict Saddam as harmless -- a nice guy, basically, who posed no real threat to anyone and who deserved the benefit of the doubt.
But I can't be too critical of the authros about this. They aren't writing for freepers, obviously. They're writing for the left-wing fringe.
Yup, let`s punish those Republicans.
So even the communists don’t like Hillary now?
‘The “authorization to use force has run its course, and it is time to reverse the failed policies of President Bush and to end this war as soon as possible.” She added, “If the president will not bring himself to accept reality, it is time for Congress to bring reality to him.”’
How do you end a war when the ‘other side’ refuses?
Thats the flaw of logic the Democrats have rallied around. Its insane. The ‘jihadists’ will no more stop than the ‘terminator’ would in those movies.
I can’t believe we’ve forgotten the brutal lesson of 9/11 already.
So even the communists don’t like Hillary now?
The communists have never liked Hillary. They view her the way “out” homos view their closeted brethren – with contempt.
Plus, they think she’s too ugly to be the face of communism.
“They depict Saddam as harmless — a nice guy, basically, who posed no real threat to anyone and who deserved the benefit of the doubt.”
The Global Village has been looking for an idiot.....
I am pretty sure that the Global Village is going to elect the Idiot and she will be President.
Lord, that is an ugly picture. Did you photoshop that yourself? How do you guys do that? Brilliant work!
Actually, every pixel in that picture belongs to Hillary. I just moved them around a little bit.
Very good work. What happened to the two horns and the spear?
What I got from the article is a clear demonstration of Hillary always doing the politically expedient thing, and trying to obscure her real record which contradicts what she is peddling now. I couldn’t believe this was in the NY Times - devestating on many levels. I hope the authors, and Putz Sulzberger look carefully both ways when they cross a street.
Alas, that would conflict with their agenda.
I mean, just my personal opinion, but the characterization of Saddam is less important to me than to read Hillary’s conflicting statements about his capabilities. One minute she says he was a threat to world peace, then turns around and says “We just needed to talk with him”. IMHO, anyone who hasn’t at this point accepted that Sadaam was a brutal ruthless dictator intent on getting vengenance for the defeat of GW #1 is so far out in moonbat land, it isn’t funny. I think the authors simply accept that saying Sadaam was a bad guy is like saying the world is round - true but not necessary. That’s the way I read it, others may differ - but that’s why we call it a discussion board, isn’t it? :-)
I don’t really care for Nazi analogies — either from the left or the right. But Nazi analogies seem to be popular with lots of people.
I'm surprised no one has commented on this line yet:
The Saddam-Al Qaeda link, so aggressively pushed by the Bush administration, was later debunked as false.I seem to remember reading about quite a few links between Al Qaeda and the Saddam government. Maybe the real "bunk" is what's written in the NY Times.
Cool stuff!
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.