Liberals! Why do you think Hillary supported Iraq, until recently?

Question

Jake, i know, but i am asking, why now, and not earlier?

Answer 1

wind shifted

Answer 2

Everyone supported the invasion of Iraq in the beginning, based on what the country was told by the president.

You might want to ask this question to the Conservatives.
How many of them have "changed their minds"?

.

Answer 3

She's a politician,to get the Democratic nomination she had to move to her Iraq position more to where the country is now.Pure political reasons.The Democratic base is not gonna elect a pro war candidate this time.
Although there might be some genuine changes in her opinion but I very much doubt that

Answer 4

It's become unpopular, but here she is, supporting it as recently as 2002. Hey, didn't she promise her constituency that she would absolutely not run for President in 2008 if they voted for her?


"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

Answer 5

I don't think it was recently that she stopped supporting the war. She supported going into Iraq to rid Saddam of his WMD's. However, it turned out he didn't have any, I think that is when she no longer supported it.

Answer 6

Our countries worst waffler ever. She'll change if the wind blows. She doublespeaks in the same sentence. This is absolutely the worst candidate available except for McCain the warmonger. With him the troops will stay and die and likely got to new wars. hilllary would likely ship the troops out and bring them back over and over.

Answer 7

Here's what I understand her position to be:

* Had she known, had most of them known, that the intel was bogus, she would not have voted to go to war in 2002. This can be said by most of those who voted for the war.
* She believed the WMD info, not only because Bush told her so, but because her husband's Administration also had intel telling them Hussein was bent on WMDs. Her husband's Administration had adopted a policy of containment. Under Bush's Administration containment was said to be ineffective and that we needed to take military action. Due to the increased rhetoric and "information" presented as fact from Bush, including tying Hussein to 9/11, she chose to believe in her President's mission and vision.
* It came out that there were no WMDs, and apparently her husband's manner of dealing with it was correct after all.
* She still adopted the position of support. We were there, let's get the mission done. This was not unreasonable. After most of us found out there were no WMDs, or nuclear proliferation, we still supported the effort as well, feeling as though Hussein needed to be disposed of in any case.
* It began to be apparent that Bush's plan was not only not working, but that he had NO plan for the aftermath of this war. This is when Hillary Clinton and others who voted for the war began to complain. She complained about the mismanagement of the war effort, and she was correct about that.
* She has since seen, as most us have, that we are caught in a quagmire due to bad management and failed military plans, along with having a President who refuses to acknowledge that he has failed in his efforts to rebuild Iraq's government and that reconstruction is a joke right now.
* She acknowledges she made an error in judgment and seeks now to correct the mess that has been wrought by this Administration. She has good ideas, as others have had, for changes in policy in Iraq and why should she not speak out about them? If a politician cannot change their mind when they are presented with new information and a failed war policy what good are they?

Do we really expect all of those we elected who voted FOR the war to continue supporting it when we can all see what it has become? HIndsight is 20/20, and we should all know that. The House and the Senate both feel as though they were lied to, and that they were manipulated and it is hard to discredit any of them for feeling this way. After all, the majority of Americans feel this way as well. Just speaking for myself, I am getting way tired of this wrangling over who supported the war back when and why. We all know why, we just want it FIXED. If Hillary Clinton has a different plan, or anyone else has a different plan, and they do, it doesn't get very far when our President simply replies that "I am the Decider" and dismisses all suggestions out of hand that don't jive with his "vision."

She supported this war because she believed that Iraq was a danger to us. Then she continued to support it because she still believed that military victory was possible and the effort could be justified for the purposes of removing Hussein and a possible new democracy in the Middle East. Now she knows differently, again, as most of us do, including many Republicans. that to continue to support this President's incompetence is irresponsible and wrong. There is a huge difference between flip-flopping to please a certain crowd and changing your mind because you have learned your first position was simply wrong. What would you like her to do? Keep supporting Bush in the face of his failure because she believed in the mission and voted for the war, or admit her vote was wrong and go about trying to do something about the results of that vote?

Answer 8

Cowardice or she believed. Either way she has to answer as far as I'm concerned.

Its a good point and one we (dems/liberals/lefties) really ought to think about as we go into our primaries. For any of our candidates, not just Hillary.

Answer 9

She is using it for her own agenda.

"In a demoralizing message to U.S. soldiers serving in Iraq, visiting U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton told them that Americans back home were growing increasingly skeptical of President Bush's decision to send them into battle."

Answer 10

I haven't compiled my full DSM-IV diagnosis, yet, due to the panic attacks, but I would say either paranoid schizophrenia or bi-polar disorder. I'm definitely leaning toward bi-polar.

Answer 11

Slick Willy taught her well, its called the Left wing Liberal Democrat SYNDROME! Say what they want to here and do what you want to do!!