Hillary voted in favor of using the military if it became necessary in Iraq. When more information came in, she expressed regret for that vote and is doing what she can to try to fix the mistake we all made. Conservatives call her a liar and a flip-flopper.
A year ago, Bush was defending his warrantles domestic wiretapping program to the death, saying it was not only Constitutional but vital to the integrity of our national security. Today, it's not necessary at all. Conservatives say he simply changed his mind. And that's okay.
What is the difference? Other than the fact that Hillary was able to admit she was wrong and Bush acts like he never did anything wrong in his life?
2007-03-01 05:37:17 · 9 answers · asked by Bush Invented the Google 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Joe M: No, you're right. Bush isn't running for President.
Bush IS President.
He should be held to a greater standard than a Presidential candidate is.
2007-03-01 06:10:53 · update #1
The Conservatives will say anything to bash Hillary. They haven't even given her a chance.
2007-03-01 05:41:27 · answer #1 · answered by ? 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
the question everyone of you should be asking is why do the democrats, who have called this war a failure and a mistake refuse to pull the funding. The Democratic Congress (remember you dems did win) does have the power to cut funding but for some reason you guys won't do it yet you still call the war a mistake (a mistake your precious Hillary not only voted for but was uttering the same words about Iraq and WMD's and how we should take Saddam out loooooong before Bush ever uttered a single word)
2007-03-01 05:48:21 · answer #2 · answered by jbrbbt 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The difference is that Bush isn't running for president and we prefer to have a candidate with a clean slate that at least still has the hope of being consistent, and not one who claims she was duped by the administration ... especially when we want that candidate to not fall prey to the political snow jobs of other world leaders.
2007-03-01 05:43:05 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Read the amendment and show me where it says "if it became necessary"... I do believe that Hillary stated that she only authorized the action after all other measures were exhausted. That's not the bill that I read. President Bush couldn't get a fair shot from you wingers if he was the second coming...
2007-03-01 06:00:26 · answer #4 · answered by Amer-I-Can 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's politics.
Do you really think that Hilliary believed in the war when she voted on it. NO. But she wanted to look strong on terror and Saddam. That is not flip flopping that's voting against one's core values for political gain.
Do you really think Bush believes that wiretapping is not necessary. NO He still wants to do it but politically he wants to distance himself from it.
The other side will always try to call you out on it.
2007-03-01 05:46:24 · answer #5 · answered by tomshuge2k2 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The difference is that Hillary was raised in a middle-class environment where making mistakes and admitting them was a part of growing-up; Bush, on the otherhand, grew-up the son of an oil baron and people with money seem to be taught that they are never wrong, just misunderstood.
2007-03-01 05:41:43 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
that's the whole point. it takes a real show of strenght to admit you are wrong. put bush lovers think he's strong cuz he's stickin to his guns. that's not strenght, that's ignorant stubborness..
2007-03-01 05:41:04 · answer #7 · answered by Tacyella 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
It's honesty vs hypocrisy.
2007-03-01 05:41:07 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Well said "ZEE". The key here is HONOR.
2007-03-01 05:42:41 · answer #9 · answered by blank 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋