HILLARY'S WAR VOTE

[jaysunb]

Aside from the fact that Sen Clinton has presented no compelling reason why she should be the Dem nominee, my pledge to not vote for ANYONE who used such bad judgement in voting for the IWR is more than validated here.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/30/209010.aspx

<snip>

-- "n the sensitive issue of collaboration between Al Qaeda and Iraq, Senator Clinton found herself adopting the same argument that was being aggressively pushed by the administration.… By contrast, most of the other Senate Democrats, even those who voted for the war authorization, did not make the Qaeda connection in their remarks on the Senate floor.”

and this:

-- "For all the scrutiny of Clinton’s vote, an important moment has been lost. It came several hours earlier, on Oct. 10, 2002, the same day Clinton spoke about why she would support the Iraq-war authorization. In her remarks on the Senate floor, she stressed the need for diplomacy with Iraq on the part of the Bush administration and insisted she wasn’t voting for ‘any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for unilateralism.’ Yet just a few hours after her speech, Clinton voted against an amendment to the war resolution that would have required the diplomatic emphasis that Clinton had gone on record as supporting — and that she now says she had favored all along…. Clinton has never publicly explained her vote against the Levin amendment or said why she stayed on the sidelines as 11 other senators debated it for 95 minutes that day."

As much as I like and admire the Clintons, I can't for the life of me figure out why she wants or should be President....:shrug:

[William769]

1. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3291223&mesg_id=3291223

[papau]

12. True - plus the NBC article lies - I find no record of her buying 911=Iraq or

saying Iraq and Saddam were working together.

It also lies by telling a partial truth - Bob Graham is called one of Clinton’s Democratic colleagues and it is noted that he read the complete N.I.E. report, it did not persuade him that Iraq possessed W.M.D., - and voted no

It cuts out the rest of Graham's statement where he noted that only he was allowed to read the report because of the Bush order that said no one by the minority leader and the chair of the intel committee could be allowed to read the report under penalty of law - and that he was forbidden from even discussing the report with anyone. The blue smoke summary that was given everyone had been stripped of the words that made Graham pause and vore no.

What a crock.

Hillary can cross NBC off the list of unbiased news outlets that she can trust.

[jaysunb]

14. I agree that NBC is doing a number on her, but

they were the same ones selling her to us not long ago.
As to Graham, if I were a freshman Senator and something that had people out marching in the streets over, and one of my caucus members who had actually READ the report and then voted AGAINST the resolution, well.....

i don't know what's worse, to be a cold calculator on everything or just unable to apply common sense to an obvious lie. :shrug:

[David Dunham]

2. This election will turn on what to do in 2009, not what happened in 2002

[jaysunb]

3. Really ???

Wow...an election in which past actions don't count huh ?
Thanks for the 411.

[bryant69]

8. I think the point is that if she is the nominee

And our other choice is someone who will continue the Bush Madness, well, I'd rather have her.

But obviously until we pick a nominee, there's no need to support her if you don't feel like she's up to the job. I like Edwards or Obama myself.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[jpgray]

4. There's no arguing around the fact a vote for IWR was a wrongheaded one

All the arguments about "flawed intelligence" and "we needed to show Saddam we meant business" pale next to the fact that trusting any president with such open ended power is a bad idea. That said, I think writing off everyone who voted for it is a bad idea. Keeping it in mind when considering what they'd do in office is a great idea.

[jaysunb]

5. When I hire people, I tend to look at

their previous performance and judgment, especially in sensitive areas...like getting people killed.

[jpgray]

6. In that case you wouldn't hire scarcely any major political leader from the past centuries

[Bitwit1234]

7. Another bash Hillary thread why don't you people bash the republicans.

They are the ones who need it. It is a shame that you all waste time slamming and slurring Hillary. I keep telling you, she is a woman. Men will not vote for her. And a lot of women won't because they are jealous. Why keep posting about her.

Same with Ob ama. He won't get elected because he is black. People in this country are still too damn prejudiced to vote for him.

Dig up dirt on the republicans.

[bryant69]

9. Well we are in the primary season; and very few of us get to vote in the Republican Primary n/t.

[emilyg]

11. Thank you

damn tired of it

[jaysunb]

13. This is an opinion..not a slam...ok ?

That's what people do in these types of forums. If you have a different opinion or want to show others why YOU think she'd be a good choice, then, by all means do so. Who knows, your opinion just might persuade people to see things through your eyes.

[pnwmom]

10. Maybe because her husband did so much better

when he had the chance, and she was learning right along with him?

She's not my top choice of a candidate, but I have trouble believing that you "like and admire the Clintons." Why shouldn't she want to be President as much as any Senator does? Why does Edwards want to be President? Is it because he has more experience than any other Senator (obviously not.) It's because he thinks he'd do a good job.