Hillary’s War

[Ethelk2044]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/29/magazine/03Hillary-t.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin

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. Along the way, important aspects of that record — like how much of the available intelligence she reviewed before her vote — have escaped scrutiny.

Clinton declined to discuss her views on Iraq for this article, despite repeated requests for an interview. This article draws on her public statements; her private discussions; Congressional documents; and dozens of interviews with advisers to Clinton and with past and present senators and their aides. Many of those who spoke with us demanded anonymity because of concerns about Senate norms of confidentiality.

[Tom Joad]

1. I am sure she has done much poll searching... i mean soul searching the last few months

[jeff30997]

2. I used to respect and like her...

Not anymore.

[rinsd]

4. Stop reading lying hit pieces

http://mediamatters.org/items/200705300003

[emilyg]

14. I like her.

[rinsd]

3. LOL, Gerths's hit piece with a qualifier.

"Many of those who spoke with us demanded anonymity because of concerns about Senate norms of confidentiality."

Hmmm just like the old days huh Jeffie?

http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/people/jeffgerth

Gerth and Van Natta misrepresented Clinton's account of Foster's last month
Wednesday, May 30, 2007 7:35PM
Web version of NY Times Gerth article left uncorrected 13 years after publication
Wednesday, May 30, 2007 6:00PM
On Hannity & Colmes, Morris falsely claimed Gerth book says Media Matters was "set up by Hillary's staff"
Wednesday, May 30, 2007 3:31PM
NY Times excerpt of Her Way falsely claimed Clinton "first" accused Bush of misusing Iraq authorization in 2006
Wednesday, May 30, 2007 2:40PM
Jeff Gerth, meet Judith Miller
Wednesday, May 30, 2007 9:37AM
First news report about new Clinton book undermines "preposterous" story about "secret pact of ambition"
Friday, May 25, 2007 11:56AM
Peers have criticized Clinton bio co-author Jeff Gerth for flawed reporting
Thursday, May 24, 2007 8:41PM

[Ethelk2044]

7. Jeff Gerth

Although you may want to try to say Jeff Gerth is spreading lies, Hillary
We all know this to be fact, She did go out on a limb and stated how Saddam was A threat.


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.

Note: Time and time again various News reports CNN, MSNBC have all asked her to apologize for her vote. Another fact.

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. Along the way, important aspects of that record — like how much of the available intelligence she reviewed before her vote — have escaped scrutiny.

She also said this:

“Perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, in the White House, watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation.” It was not a coincidence that Clinton invoked her time in the White House, or her husband’s record. Bill Clinton served as her main counsel on the Iraq war vote, longtime associates of theirs told us. He had much personal experience to offer: while he was president in 1998, the United States, assisted by Britain, launched more than 400 cruise missiles and flew 650 air attacks against suspected weapons-of-mass-destruction sites in Iraq after Saddam Hussein refused to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors. “Mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction,” President Clinton had said at the time. “He will deploy them, and he will use them.”

You are quoting Media Matters. I have watched her talk about this war for the last couple of years and she did push for this war. She refuses to apologize for it. You can try to critize Jeff all you want, but it will not make her own words go away.

[rinsd]

10. I just gave you a link that points out quite a few lies.

"Note: Time and time again various News reports CNN, MSNBC have all asked her to apologize for her vote. Another fact."

Why should Hillary apologize? She has said that she would not vote the same way. Would an apology suddenly make it a-ok with anti-war progressives?

"You are quoting Media Matters."

Yes, Media Matters and organization dedicated to disproving and debunking right wing misinformation.

You are quoting Jeff Gerth who has the journalistic integrity of Matt Drudge.

You've got her words make your case. Why cling to this POS?

[illinoisprogressive]

5. media matters is overprotective of Hillary to the point of being silly.

alot of complaining has started about them by left sites and blogs. You cannot even discuss anything about her that isn't "hillary walks on water' without them going overboard. they are losing credibility with this.

[rinsd]

6. Show me the lefty blog complaining about Media Matters and Hillary

The only one I see compaining is Dick Morris.

On edit: and these douchebags,

http://www.hillaryproject.com/index.php?/sg_distro/comments/hillarys_hit_man_strikes_again/

"You cannot even discuss anything about her that isn't "hillary walks on water' without them going overboard."

Because its ok to lie if you don't like the candidate?

Stupid media matters defending our candidates and debunking BS!

http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/barack_obama

http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/john_edwards

[illinoisprogressive]

9. I just read some tonight. Let me think where it was. I know some people

who are members of crooks and liars were posting on it tonight. People who are real members.
I read something the other day but, cannot remember which one I read it at as I visit alot of blogs in the evening. I don't think it was booman but, ....

[rinsd]

11. IOW, you got it from Inner Rectum News (nt)

[Captain Hilts]

13. Because the criticism of her often is silly. Okay to disagree with her, but these conspiracy ....

theories are really weird ass stuff.

No doubt she and Bill and in the sack with the Bildebergers.

[patrice]

8. Doesn't matter without "ALL Troops Home."

I know conventional "wisdom" says "Redeployment" and "Residual Forces", but what the heck has conventional "wisdom" ever done for us?

Doesn't anyone wonder whether this sagacious judgement that there MUST be redeployment and residual forces might just be because they don't want to take the political hit from "Why DID all of these people die?" more than because of any real practical reasons/expectations for their continued presence? Could this be why Bill Richardson is saying to bring them ALL home yesterday?

NO redeployment, NO residual forces. To hell with whether that's "reasonable" or not.

[Captain Hilts]

12. Well, whatta you know, the NYT is trying to prop up another one of its lying reporters....nt