in 03 she was a pro-war hawk, then she was on the fence, last week she was the anti-war candidate that said she would bring the troops home ASAP if she won in 08, then she purposely misses the non-binding resolution on the war, so what exactly is going to be her position on this thing for the election? is she really confused, or is just unsure of her position because she is unsure of what the result of the war will be?
2007-02-17 09:06:28 · 17 answers · asked by Matt 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Clinton has had strong ties with communists since law school---she has a strong socialistic agenda----she would be against war since in Americas weakness she would be more likely to push through getting our guns taken away-----having our children educated by the state and creating a ruling class
2007-02-17 09:12:35 · answer #1 · answered by EZMZ 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Hillary's position on the war depends largely on the hour of the day, if is too cold or warm, if the swallows came back to Capistrano and if the ground Hog saw its shadow. She will continue to flip-flop until she finally runs for president; however, she may never make it past the primaries. I fear that in my humble opinion Hillary isn't a viable candidate for president of the USA. She is to shifty and er general IQ isn't high enough to put her into the White House......but she probably has 20 or so points above Bush.
2007-02-18 05:42:51 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
She is taking no position on this subject. We know she hates the Military, that much is very well documented, so she is leery of pissing off the pro military gang. If she is for the war then she pisses off the cowards that want to cut and run. She is actually smart to avoid this topic all together. She may as come out and give her thoughts. No Republican is going to give her their support. We had enough of the Clinton trash in the white house to last a life time.
2007-02-17 17:11:46 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Like the Moron from Massachusetts (aka John Kerry for those who've been living in a bubble for the last few years) she was for it before she was against it.
If you read her utterances on the subject in chronological order it's plain and clear that she's trying to run left so that she can succeed in returning Little Billy Clinton to his rightful place on the throne by wooing the primary voters she needs to secure her party's nomination.
It wasn't all that long ago that she gave a very well-articulated rationale for her vote for the war. I'd like to see the press re-print and re-broadcast that rationale verbatim about once a week and see how far she gets trying to morph herself into an anti-war politician in front of the crowds of Weak Sisters that seem so enamored of her current act.
2007-02-17 17:13:01 · answer #4 · answered by Fast Eddie B 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
This is political behavior. She didn't 'miss' the vote on the n-b resolution, she avoided it. She's stalling in the hopes that the issue will get resolved before the compaigning gets really serious. She doesn't want to be 'on record' any more than is absolutely necessary at this point in time. But sooner or later the real Hilary will have to stand up and be counted.
2007-02-17 17:25:56 · answer #5 · answered by verderf 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It depends on what time of the day and what political wind is blowing at minute. Hillary's position is the one that is most favorable to her favorite constituency; Hillary Clinton.
Bill had a tendency to be indecisive but he made up for it with his ability to think on his feet, charisma and likability. Hillary does not possess these qualities.
She is not fit to run the country.
2007-02-17 17:19:26 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
OK...don't get your shorts in a wad over this!
Like many other people, she wants to believe that some good can come out of the Bush White House.
But...much to her surprise, I'm sure, she's learned that Bush is an expert liar with the ability to mislead the masses.
At any rate, HC should not be held accountable for voting in favor of the war.
She was lied to and mislead like the rest of us!
Afterthought:
I admit, HC was lied to by her husband in the Monica-thing, but...NO ONE and I mean NO ONE died as a result of his lies.
Bush, however, is a different matter all together!
2007-02-17 17:26:35 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
clinton as usual politics!! the biggest waffler in running for the presidency currently!! She has to be the worst human being on planet earth.
2007-02-17 18:35:02 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
He is the only one Responsible for Laden's Escape..If he was good enough we could have catch him at Tora-Bora (Place at the Afghan and Pak border)...But he did not provide CIA with enough troops to do so....There were only 7 of us to catch laden and how in the HELL it was possible...
2007-02-17 17:13:56 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
She still supports Bush......but now in a little different way.
She is still against surrendering, like the rest of the Democrats want to.
2007-02-17 17:12:31 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋