HILLARY 2003: There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I've followed for more than a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information, intelligence that I HAD available, talking with people whose opinions I TRUSTED, tried to discount the political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision. I would love to agree with you, but I CAN'Tbased on MY OWN understanding and assessment of the situation.
2007-02-01 02:44:45 · 14 answers · asked by MRJERK715 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
SHE WASN'T THE ONLY ONE THAT FLIP FLOPPED.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"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. 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."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
2007-02-01 02:53:07 · answer #1 · answered by strike_eagle29 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yeah but make sure you provide a link so we can check this. Not at all surprised by this though. She knew more of what was going on there from when Bill was running the show, but that didn't matter. She wants out now because it is unpopular. It is still better then John "I voted for it before I voted against it" Kerry. Simple fact is that Saddam started this war. According to the cease-fire he had to show weapon's inspectors as he destroyed the WMDs. He didn't do that. We gave him the chance to just leave with his sons. He didn't take that(and Pope John Paul II did the right thing in offering him exhile.) So he violated the cease-fire meaning he fired on every member nation of the U.N.
2007-02-01 11:38:25 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No I will note vote for Hillary, but based on your quote here I might have. What she says is true. Based on the information given at the time congress thought Iraq had W.M.D.s. That turned out to be wrong so she changed her view. Like all political types their instinct is to have what ever view will get them in power.
I for one was very very against going into Iraq, none of the information I read supported a war. However now that we made the mess I believe we need to clean it up(guess I was taught to clean up as a kid) and if she makes it I believe she will just make it worse.
2007-02-01 11:02:55 · answer #3 · answered by uthockey32 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That is "an inconvenient truth" please don't bring it up again. What is it she says now about the issue? I have heard her say this administration screwed up and act like she had no part in it. She has always flip flopped on things. She will not take blame for what she had a hand in doing. The last time she spoke any truth was in 2003 when she helped send our troops and that was most likely the last good decision she made as far a politics go.
2007-02-01 10:53:30 · answer #4 · answered by joevette 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Excuse me, the majority of the people on the left that said statements like this, stood by their decision until they seen the polls and detemined that this would be better used as a political divisive issue that they could exploit. Now the Republicans that are jumping in the ring. They will do the same thing. The war is unpopular, and the only way to win the white house is to oppose it in words. You dont even have to believe what you are saying or prove your disain with deeds, like stopping all funding. Just saying it right now is enough.
2007-02-01 10:54:18 · answer #5 · answered by str8jacket2007 1 · 1⤊ 2⤋
She has a right to her opinion and fabricated words; she has to live in her own skin and I live in mine. I don't care for her political or personal views and will not vote for her. Her husband was a disgrace to the presidency and family values. End of conversation.
2007-02-01 10:57:39 · answer #6 · answered by Lost in Maryland 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I will never vote for a woman who keeps her maiden name after she gets married.
It means she cares more about her political career than her marriage, and that was BEFORE Bill cheated on her.
Afterwards, she should have divorced him, which would have been the end of her political career, which proves even more the reasons for her marriage.
2007-02-01 10:48:56 · answer #7 · answered by I STILL hate hippies 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋
HilClinton has Socialistic tendencies as seen in her child-care works. Don't let BilClinton close to WhiteHouse as he is responsible for China advancing with their missiles. He OK'd theLoren Corp to sell China hi-tech info that enabled them to shoot down that high satellite the other day.
2007-02-01 10:51:56 · answer #8 · answered by spareo1 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
NO,NIET,NIEN,NUNG HOW. Hillary Clinton is a lair. She claims shes not running for presedent. And what do ya know. She said she is! Shes a lair and should not be allowed in us soil for these reasons: murder of innocent children befor birth, bribery, currupt authority, war crimes^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^, and bieng a little b***h!
2007-02-01 10:50:40 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
I would like to know how a person could be even CONSIDERED for President if she didn't even know, in her personal life, that her husband was cheating on her. That's a huge red flag for me!
2007-02-01 10:49:43 · answer #10 · answered by srd 1 · 4⤊ 0⤋