That she could trust the President of the United States to be forthright to the Congress and the American public - but has learned since that time that neither she nor the American public can trust him?
I think America would buy that story!
I would!
2007-02-23 09:11:58 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
She has said it, many times, and continues to say it. I heard her say this very thing in her interview with Keith Olbermann a couple of weeks back myself. I agree with her, I feel the same myself. The trouble is there are those who will not rest until she uses the word "mistake."
2007-02-23 09:35:38 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Have you not read Winston Winslow's 'Week of Shame'? (http://www.gulfinvestigations.net/IMG/pdf/cdi-weekofshame.pdf?PHPSESSID=976038a05ea0f94307a21e857db31b59)
It's going to be a hard sell to take her pre-vote comments, compare them to the text of the authorization for force that she voted on, and say she was misled. Her comments suggest that she forgot to read the resolution she was voting on or was taking hallucinatory substances:
"Today, Mr. President, we are asked whether to give the president of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein’s chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program ... .
Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster ... . However this course is fraught with danger ... . If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could comeback to haunt us ... a unilateral attack ... is not a good option ... .
I believe the best course is to go to the UnitedNations for a strong resolution ... .
I believe international support and legitimacy are critical ... .
My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose,all of which carry grave dangers for our nation,the rule of international law, and the peace andsecurity of people throughout the world... .
So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war ... .”
If you pulled the beginning her speech out, she could say she was duped into believing Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The rest of her speech is a trip to an alternative reality.
She wasn't alone it that, though. If you read through the comments of various Senators, it was obvious that many knew voting for the resolution was wrong, but didn't have the courage to stand up to the popular opinion that existed in Fall 2002. Their comments were intended to provide cover in later years when they would be asked to justify their vote. Kerry proved in 2004 that that doesn't work in an internet world. Now, many Senators are left stuck in a bad place or incredibly grateful they just didn't say anything at all.
Edit: By the way. As critical as I may be of how the Senate (and House) handled the situation, their actions on the authorization for invasion of Iraq isn't the only criteria I'd judge a candidate on. My favorite candidate, Chuck Hagel, didn't perform too admirably that week, either. In fact, the majority didn't. You have to look at a candidate's overall performance and especially their performance since then.
2007-02-23 17:40:07 · answer #2 · answered by Bob G 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Hillary had the same information as the president. How could the President mislead her using the same info that she was using? Hillary was certain there were WMD's in Iraq as her husband made some paltry efforts to deal with the issue prior to Bush's election.
2007-02-23 17:22:10 · answer #3 · answered by VoodooPunk 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
She said that and is flip flopping issues again. The Clintons are masters of the "spin"
2007-02-23 17:59:02 · answer #4 · answered by David A 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
She has, on several occasions, said she felt she and others had been misled. It was a diplomatic way of saying the Administrated lied and they bought it. Now they know better. Fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me.
2007-02-23 17:16:41 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Why doesn't she admit she is only interested in her own personal agenda I would buy that
2007-02-23 17:18:30 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
She has said that.
2007-02-23 17:17:55 · answer #7 · answered by mstrywmn 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋