Why doesn't the media hammer Hillary Clinton for her pro-war stance?

Question

It seems like they take everyone to task about the war except her. HMMM.......

Answer 1

I wouldn't really say Hillary is pro-war, she just realizes that it is an option that can come up from time to time. I don't think she supports this war, but she is big on getting funding to our troops so they have the tools they need.

Answer 2

Pro War stance? You mean because she voted to go to war after being mislead by the Bush administration about the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq? BTW, we never found them in case you forgot. The interesting thing is that most Republicans love to hammer Democrats as not caring "about the troops". I personally hate that position. I can completely disagree with the war, but certainly, I supoort the troops. They are two separate issues. Now Senator Clinton votes for more monies to support troops and she is lambasted because she wants to best for our fighting forces that are in an impossible situation (compliments of GW Bush). The media should be hammering the fact that against the advice of the Iraq study Group and his Defense Dept. Generals, Georgie is still going to send more of our kids into battle. I am sick of the whole thing. I hope she wins the Presidency by a landslide. She'll certainly do more for all of us than Dubya.

Answer 3

often speaking, for a lengthy time period now the media has been a house for left-wingers. those lefties earn an truly strong residing and also artwork for massive corporations and Hillary Clinton, representing the status quo, is extra captivating to them than adult males like Edwards and Obama. The media surely HATED bill Clinton contained in the spring of 1992 and spent each and every evening explaining how he might want to no longer win the Democratic party nomination. i turned right into a Republican observing with leisure as their biases and prejudices were on exhibit each and every evening - surprisingly in basic of the incontrovertible actuality that he become obviously going to be the nominee. correct up till he received the traditional that placed him intense the click persisted to describe how he might want to nonetheless lose it. They ran numerous products on Clinton's Arkansas and extremely almost noted as it area of the 0.33-international correct right here contained in the US. in addition they made it sparkling that Clinton become responsible for a strong deal of the 0.33-worldness via incontrovertible actuality that he'd been governor for 5 - 6 words. They further made it sparkling that they concept-about him as your undemanding BS artist - tremendous to hearken to yet do not trust any of it; in spite of everything, he would not, so in user-friendly words a fool might want to take him heavily at the same time as it includes coverage. yet - at present after Clinton had received sufficient states to take the nomination on the first pollat the convention, the click did a one hundred eighty-degree turn and couldn't end telling us each and every evening what great perfect human beings the Clintons were and how thrilling it would want to be to work out the matchup between them and George H. W. Bush. It become really staggering to exhibit screen - and the actuality they did this turnaround without glaring irony solidified in my innovations the incontrovertible actuality that the media is liberal to the middle. I in user-friendly words pay interest to the mainstream media to keep a watch on my fighters from the different area. As for correct-wing communicate radio (or television), i'm at an finished loss as to why human beings pay interest to that stuff - heck, that's about 2/3 advertisements at maximum acceptable.

Answer 4

Pro-war stance? The political breeze must have changed direction...last time I checked she was a flamin' liberal...oh yeah that's right...she running for president...Sorry to see that people are wasting money on that effort.

Answer 5

I am a liberal and I agree completely. She really isn't a liberal in my opinion but more middle of the road. And it's funny how she is being made a demon by the conservatives yet she is being financed by the likes of Rupert Murdoch the owner of Faux News......

Answer 6

Because she obviously knows how to redirect the media very well. She and he husband both were and still are very good at oral smoke screens.

Answer 7

yes

Answer 8

You don't hammer someone when you are their cheerleader.