Hillary clinton said this in 2002...but yet libs claim its all bush...thoughts?

Question

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."

it seems to me, she made a case for war...but libs don't like to talk about facts...

here's another from poster boy John kerry..

"Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror, and therefore any advance in Iraq is an advance forward in that and I disagree with the Governor [Howard Dean]." -- John Kerry, 12/15/03

hmm...advancing in iraq is critical to the outcome of this war on terror....

Hmmmmmm.............

but nope, its all a conservative thing.

i'm waiting for you koo koo...where are ya with your "evidence"?

to Amit....

correction, i, as an American Citizen had not only the right, but the DUTY to pick the best leader for this country.

NOT to vote him out of office...like you guys tried to do...didn't work, did it?

i'm not even a republican, OR a democrat can you believe that????

i just hate ignorance on both sides...

yet another...from Bill Clinton:

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."

the plot thickens....and this was WHILE IN OFFICE. right before he ordered night time bombings on afghanistan AND Baghdad...

but no...it was Bush...all Bush and nothing but the Bush, right libs?

cay damay...good pints, and some that i agree with...my point is, that people blame Bush for all the goings on and say that he stole the election, when OBVIOUSLY its not a sure thing that Kerry would have done better...

no one knows what would have happened otherwise, and it's ignorant...just plain ignorant to point to ONE person for ALL of this hell we're living in now...

blame congress. don't call repubs (or libs) ignorant just because you think they are...call them ignorant for a REASON.

not just because michael moore told you to.

Answer 1

Interesting how the dems and the liberal media made this all Bush's fault. The quotes you have up here are just the tip of the iceberg from the dems.

Answer 2

Hillary Clinton is a pro-war democrat. She always was. There are lots of pro war democrats. That's a fact, and it's nothing she nor anyone else has tried to hide.

To edit and respond to your edit, Kerry was also a pro-war democrat, the whole time he was running for president. He voted for the war. Having a quote that he supported the war doesn't do anything but confirm what everyone already knows about him. Anybody who doesn't know that he supported the war has been living in a hole for 5 years, or is just plain dumb. He's coming out against the war NOW, but that's just because he's...well, because now the war is unpopular and he's a fair-weather friend if there ever was one.

Pointing out that some democrats are pro-war and some democrats change their minds doesn't mean that the republicans in power aren't the ones primarily screwing things up. In fact, I might say, and I DO say (and others might say) that I don't consider Kerry or Hillary to be very liberal at all, since they did support the war, and because of their stances on other issues like gay marriage that I consider to be quite conservative. Just because they are democrats doesn't mean they can't agree with republicans, and just because they are democrats doesn't mean they can't have conservative leanings.

Answer 3

Well from what I can see, you seem like you are conservative. Which I'm not critisizing.
In the end the decision to go to war in Iraq was Bush and his administration's decision, and not kerry or clinton. No matter what anyone says or whoever says it, the decision was made by our president George W. Bush alone and if there is anyone to blame for it, its him and only him.
One day, years from now, history will show you, and I can bet you a $1000, he will be known for being one of the worst presidents this country has ever seen.
Till that day comes, we only hope he does better in his last two years.
The media can say what it wants, do you believe everything the media tells you. Its always manipulated for the benefit of some politician or party. You have to think for yourself and judge by yourself, was this war a valid war and are we really fighting "terror" in iraq.
Just yesterday, Bush said we need to find a deplomatic solution to work with north korea, that should tell you something, they already have nuclear weapons, and we are scared shitless they might use them. As for iran, it would take them 10 years to develope something like that, but hey, lets attack them now.

Answer 4

So, do you remember when the current US regime told the entire nation, including senators and congress people, that there was a giant surplus of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Do you remember this point being shoved down the throats of Americans until we bled before we invaded Iraq? You see, President Bush had us all fooled. There were no weapons, there were no threats to America from Iraq, there was no case to go to war.

Answer 5

I agree! The media is totally liberal so, Republican's never get a truly fair amount of coverage of the totally truth. Not to say they are perfect by no means....Has everyone forgot what all happened when Clinton was President, how many embassy's were bombed! Clinton did have Bin Laden in his custody after the 1st Trade Center bombing, but chose to let him go! Had he not done that would there have been a 9-11, probably not!

Does ANYBODY KNOW THAT SADDAM HUSSEIN WAS FUNDING AL QAEDA, BEFORE HIS CAPTURE?????? But, according to Liberals we don't need to bother him! HELLO PEOPLE STOP HUGGING TREE'S AND WAKE UP!

Answer 6

There is no "case for war" in the passage you cited. It points out a potential threat, and suggests a plan be developed to address it. You know war is not the ONLY reponse to every problem.......

Whoever said it sound genuinely concerned and responsible enough to use measured language that does not incite, but rather, informs.... Are you sure it wasn't the President?

Answer 7

Does it matter what she said? The truth is that you as a citizen had the responsbilty to elect Bush out of power. You could argue that he disn't start the war. But you can never say that he is a competent President!

Answer 8

Because it's very simple to blame the current occupant of the White House and forget the predecessors.

Answer 9

Well, to her pants-suited-ness credit, she’s never weaseled on the war like pretty much every other demo senator has. Now, if only she’d slim down a little and retire that black pant suit (Old Crusty).

Answer 10

I can not tell the players without a score card. I don't want to hear her screach voice for 4 or 8 yrs!!!!!!!!!!!!!