Is it possible for people to take at face value statements made by politicians?

Question

Hilary Clinton said given what she knows now she wouldn't have voted for the war. Hindsight is 20/20. She didn't say what she would have done, but apparently conservatives take issue with her statement. They say she is trying to distance herself from her vote to enhance her presidential run.

Come on, many people given perfect information would do things differently. Yet the conservatives make it sound as though Bush can't change his mind. He has to be strong and stick with his decision. That to a certain degree is true. But this is a hypothetical. Would he handle the Iraq situation differently if he had better information? I would hope so (because this hasn't gone so well).

So can't we accept what politicians say at times or do you feel that they always have some ulterior motive?

Jarhead, I used Clinton as an example for one reason: expediency as she was the freshest example that I had. Your response definately points out what I was refering to. We don't tend to take politicians' comments at face value. I pointed that out in the question. Also, I did not bash Bush, I merely stated that this is a hypothetical and surely we'd all like to have perfect information. I didn't say that he made the wrong decision given the information that he had. In fact, me a liberal, I would have voted for the invasion, would not back down from that decision given the information available. But given what we know now, although I may still have voted for invasion, I may have pushed longer for a bigger coalition or pressed diplomatically. You have to be able to learn from the past. I also don't think we can just pull out. Now that we are there, we need to do the job until it's done and done right.

But I can still say we have made mistakes. Nothing wrong with that.

Answer 1

The nature of a US politician these days is so steeped in corruption, greed, and power-lust, it's better to see how they vote and act rather than listen to what they say. Lip service to their constituents and the Constitution are the only formalities they require for office, after which they can go hog-wild with lobbyist money and have no fear of prosecution..

Answer 2

Are you actually quoting Hillary Clinton as if she were some bastion of Integrity? You're kidding, right? I thought this was a serious question until you revealed your true liberal bias, by attempting to impune Bush, while attempting to raise the Hilary's stature.

Let's get real for a moment. Whereas, many of your liberal contemporaries have the benefit of being and remaining armchair commander in chiefs, Bush does not. No, he doesn't have the option of living in the hypothetical realm even for a second. He actually has to confront reality, and stare down the terrorists as well as his adversaries in the media and in his own country every day.

Instead of trying to live in the past, an unfortunate impossibility, why don't we as conservatives and liberals alike begin to push our politicians for clearer options for obtaining victory in the war on terrorism. We must stop attacking each decision made by the Bush administration, and start unifying under the same umbrella of the war we've all found ourselves fighting. A war I remind you, we did not conjure up or begin.

Answer 3

I doubt there are many times that we can ever take at face value what a politician says. I for one believe President Bush would have done things much differently had he possessed the information 4 years ago that he has now. I know I would have lived my life differently over the last 4 years if I had been able to see into the future.

Answer 4

I think the ISG report was crap, but even though good ideas are lacking (I in my vanity have some that I think would serve) Bush has shown himself resistant to ideas which suggest a course of action differing that which he has already chosen... any sane person would have come up with a plan B just in case violence continued in Iraq as many people insisted to Bush that it would.

You can never tell whether they have an ulterior motive or not. It is next to impossible to tell which politicians are genuine, but over time we come to recognize those who are not. Hillary is a very pragmatic politician and probably voted in favor of the war because she knew she could not keep it from happening and would lose support if she tried.

However, some may have been genuinely tricked into this thing, because Hussein was trying to flex his muscle by playing hardball with the UN team searching for WMDs... it certainly helped convince the people that this war was necessary. However if our mission was to find out if they had WMDs, that mission is accomplished, and Hussein tried and convicted of his crimes on top, but Bush continues to refer to our operations in Iraq as a war to be won or lost. This is counterproductive, and the people of Iraq will never trust Bush's intentions. The only solution is for the newly-elected Democratic Congress to FORCE Bush to follow a new strategy, giving the people of Iraq the impression of a regime change in the U.S. which is GENUINELY working for peace. Nobody in Iraq and ever-fewer people worldwide actually believe Bush is interested in making peace, only in continuously diverting taxpayer money to his friends and campaign contributors in the defense industry.

Answer 5

Good point. Israel is just as divided as the US is. Netanyahu is just as unpopular with most Israelis as he is with president Obama. Aipac (the most active and powerful Israeli lobbying organization) only represents the right wing portion of the Israeli community but they posses a disproportionate amount of influence over congress and the right in this country and the media in general simply believe whatever they say. For instance there are many Israeli's who are against the building of settlements in the west bank and wholeheartedly support a two state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli crisis. But Aipac has convinced the American media and many members of congress that any compromise would be a betrayal of the entire state of Israel.

Answer 6

Congratulations! You think things through.

I only believe 1% of what they say. For some of them it's 0%.

A lot is at stake for them if they don't say what the 'base' wants to hear.

Change mind, change opinion, change laws.... it's all self-serving. They all want to hold on to that lifeltime pension, the plushy job, the prestige, the power, the wealth.

The majority want the job for a lifetime and they represent themselves not the people they are supposed to serve.

Answer 7

Too many of us have fallen into this bad pattern. No body should.

Answer 8

People can & do. Some people are extremely gullible.

Answer 9

This is a joke, right?

Answer 10

no