does this make hillary a liar?

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...

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."

Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

bush got the same intel, and he lied, so is hillary not also a liar? or is bush so omnipotent in your eyes that he could see through flawed intel, but no one else could, so since he was the first "liar", he is the only "liar"?

Answer 1

Thank You for showing some common sense. That's not what Lib's want youto have. She's changing her views. To appeal to the Voters. Who've been blindied by "Drive-by Media". Keep the facts close. You'll need `em to ward off the less-fortunate in knowledge.

Answer 2

I don't know if 'liar' is the right word. In referring to her past "go-ahead" for giving Bush the right to pre-emptive war, she states that she was using what the prevailing intelligence said at the time. Since then, Hillary, among others who voted for the resolution, have since come to criticize how the Bush administration handled the subsequent war in Iraq. Some, such as John Edwards, have outright admitted that they "made a mistake" by voting for the resolution to go to war. Then, there are some politicans who didn't agree with the rationale for war at the outset (like Obama). So, I don't think Clinton's comments from 2002 make her a 'liar.' I think she was just in lockstep with the prevailing thoughts about the threat of Saddam Hussein at that time. She wasn't the only one who voted for the resolution. Whether they were in error in retrospect depends on whether you think the ends justify the means with respect to our invasion of Iraq. So far, Clinton has refused to admit she "made a mistake," because the intelligence at the time supported the U.S. acting pre-emptively-there was this sense that danger was looming. Knowing what we know now (there were no WMDs) one should question how the intelligence was gathered, and if the administration "cherry-picked" certain alarmist pieces of intelligence in order to advance its determination to go to war with Iraq. We all know that the adminstration wanted to go to war with Iraq before 9/11 even happened. But, since that time, there are other countries in the world with nuclear weapon potentiality, such as Iran and North Korea, and we aren't going after them pre-emptively or otherwise.

Answer 3

None of the first paragraph is truth. Does that make you a liar?
Check your facts. Congress approved the search for WMDs and Congress approved the removal of Saddam. Congress never appoved the ocupation of Iraq and that will cost working class tax payers over $2 trillion in ten years and has cost America 3098 dead and over 24,000 wounded. Bush's lies also cost Iraqis over 250,000 dead and Iraq is in civil war now. Bush and Cheney both should be impeached for the lies they told. Hillary / Edwards win will give Democrats 8 years in control of the White House. It will take far longer than that to fix all the harm done America by Republicans. Hillary will raise the $500 million and mostly because of the hate mongering by Republicans. Bill now gets $250,000 for a 30 mins. speach, because of hate.

Answer 4

No, it makes her, a majority of both Houses, and the American people look like fools for trusting their President to tell us the truth. When Cheney found out from Wilson that the uranium intel was faulty he kept it to himself and chose not to make that public. In fact, Bush just a few short months later, used it to support the war in Iraq in his 2003 SOTU address. So which is it? Did the President know the truth and lie to us anyway? Or did Cheney keep it from him? If it was that simple to keep such information from the President how simple was it to keep the same information from Hillary Clinton and other members of the House? If the President was told about it and it was information easily obtained by someone such as Sen. Clinton then why did he lie to all of us about it in that address? Do you really think all information about Iraq was readily available to whoever wanted to see it when Bush was hawking this war? Please.

Answer 5

I read your link pasted here, which seems like a letter from some time ago.

Although I didn't have all day to try to decipher from what you read in this letter to be reason for the deposition of Mrs. Hillary R. Clinton, one would agree that Saddam has already faced such, no?

Answer 6

Well if George Bush jr was not called a liar for saying the say things I would believe that this would naturally exclude Hillary!

Answer 7

No. Bush is the liar. The Bush Circus manipulated Congress and showed them only the intelligence that claimed Iraq had WMD and refuse to show the other intelligence that claimed Iraq didn't have WMD. She trusted Bush to tell the truth and he failed.

Answer 8

No more than Bush was a liar, They were all going off the same intelligence.

Answer 9

Hillary is a liar deary and we all know that. Liberals are in denial over the extent because they hate America enough to want Hillary as President. For what reason, your guess is as good as mine. Why do people CUT themselves? They are the same ones voting for Hillary.

Answer 10

Hilliary, just like every politician, will say one thing one minute then change it the next when it would benefit them politically. So, technically yes it makes her a liar.