I don't usually ask such snarky questions, but here goes:
In her official autobiography, Hillary says she was totally surprised when she found out her husband was having an extramarital affair. I dare say that she was the LAST person in America to be surprised at that. Is she that naive?
Much more importantly, with respect to the Iraq war, she does not say that her vote was wrong. She apparently is saying that she thought the president should have the authority to launch military action, but that she did not think he would use it as he did. But look at the news, and commentary, from the period - Bush was being called a warmonger and there was widespread criticism of his "rush to war." Is Hillary again the only person who didn't think Bush would attack Iraq?
So what's going on? Is she slow-witted, too trusting, naive, and therefore not the right person to lead and deal with foreign leaders and a dangerous world? Or is she just lying and spinning, showing insincerity?
2007-02-14 23:52:36 · 9 answers · asked by American citizen and taxpayer 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I don't trust her and wouldn't vote for her but, I don't think she is easily decieved.
She is a sharp as a tack and no one is getting anything by her, I just don't agree with her on a lot of issues.
2007-02-15 00:23:17 · answer #1 · answered by snowball45830 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I never saw the Clintons as being in a loving marriage...it was a partnership, and a very good one. Look how far they got together! Like others here, I think her surprise was that he got caught...not that the affairs occured. But enough of that...because we cannot make presidential candidate decisions based upon a person's marriage....
Her vote on Iraq was like many others....for it in the beginning....but in retrospect, they were wrong. Just because she hasn't come out and said the words, "I was wrong", does not make her a liar. There are many exceptional business journals and accounts from top US executives that expressly say that to say "I was wrong" is never a good strategy...there are other ways to say it. The admission of 'wrong' stays in people's minds....and is not respected in a leader.
There are several reasons that I believe Hillary not to be a good candidate for POTUS, but they have nothing to do with her marriage or her vote on the war. But that is all for a different time...
2007-02-15 00:19:35 · answer #2 · answered by Super Ruper 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I have to meet someone who wasn't surprised when they found out their spouse was cheating, so no, it's not naive.
With voting on Iraq, I think the threat was more appealing than a prolonged invasion. So the intelligence was faulty, at least the Dem's are trying to correct things instead of escalating them. The administration was completely wrong for trying to tie Iraq and Bin Ladin together to make their sell for the war. We all thought Saddam had weapons, he didn't, that's the only reason we invaded, now we know he didn't it's time to get out and go after the real enemy Bush cut-and-ran with in Afghanistan.
2007-02-15 00:00:52 · answer #3 · answered by ropemancometh 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
i wish Hillary Clinton does develop into President.. an additional desirable effective ingredient..bill Clinton, replaced into is an magnificent spokesman..And did nicely with overseas international locations. at the moment we want international kinfolk .. or a minimum of a few advice from a former president, who knew a thanks to talk and appreciate leaders from overseas international locations! i'm particular he might want to be an excellent asset to Hillary!
2016-11-03 12:31:01 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
She is lying and spinning to the hilt. If anyone thinks that they have or ever had a marriage of love they are naive at best. They are a partnership. Her only surprise was how incredibly indiscreet and arrogant Bill was to be caught as many times as he has.
2007-02-14 23:57:52 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Lets see she was fooled by Bill and she stuck by him.She was fooled by Bush and voted for the war. If she were President who else would fool her? More too much of a liar.
2007-02-15 00:25:24 · answer #6 · answered by Tommy G. 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, she is still with the man-whore Bill after all his affairs...
She was loony enough to believe in a "vast right-wing conspiracy."
The real reasons she should not and will not be elected -- no real experience, no real vision that stays the same regardless of the group she is speaking to, and she is a crook.
2007-02-14 23:57:32 · answer #7 · answered by Git r' done 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
She trusted Bush like a puppy and claims she was fooled. OMG others can do that to her if Bush can.
2007-02-15 00:41:49 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hillary Clinton is not fit to be president. She's a clinton... and there fore she is going to lie.
She makes promises and forgets them, she states her opinion and then changes it.
She cant keep her mind on one thing.
She is not president material!
2007-02-14 23:57:45 · answer #9 · answered by So is your face 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋