She voted for the war in Iraq because she believed the Bush administration's lies. The rest of the civilized, however, disagreed. Why was she not smart enough to seek the truth for herself? How sincere is she? I question her integrity.
2007-04-28 18:10:59 · 14 answers · asked by Ti 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
You are right, she was clearly playing politics and afraid of Bush’s high poll numbers at the time. She (and Al Gore, as well) was so intimidated by Bush’s popularity that she chose not to run for President in 2006 and, as a result, Kerry won the nomination by default.
It is also true that everyone with any knowledge of the Middle East knew: 1. that Iraq has no relationship with Al-Qaeda or any terrorists (a conclusion reached by the Republican Congress in the 9/11 and pre-war intelligence reports), and 2. that invading Iraq would only start a civil war, become a quagmire for the US, and would further destabilize an already volatile region.
Ms. Clinton should have known especially because her husband successfully bombed and destroyed all of Saddam’s WMD manufacturing facilities in 1998 (over Republican complaining, whining, and bitching).
She is, however, a politician and you cannot really hold that against her. In general, she is as qualified as anyone running for the office. And, Bush has set the bar so low that anyone (including children and the mentally disabled) are now qualified to be President.
2007-04-28 18:30:24 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
More qualified than Bush, McCain, or Rudolph.
Almost all of congress voted for the war and believed Bush's lies, why hold it against only her, we should be holding it against them all for that mistake. None of them were smart enough to seek the truth for themselves. I think she is more sincere than Rudolph, but not more so than Edwards. I'm still debating about Obama.
She's a politician I question all politicians integrity, but yes her integrity does have some very large holes in it, a few to many questionable deals in the past. Plus the Clinton family are part of the "good old boy" politics, and that should make anyone question their integrity.
2007-04-28 18:21:33 · answer #2 · answered by Don 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No.
She isn't qualified to be Hillary Clinton.
What did she do after Bill left the WH?
Did she go back to the Rose Law Firm? Hell no. Wouldn't a law firm want a former First Lady back as partner? Especially THIS one?
Did she go back to her beloved Arkansas and continue the good work with all the kids that she started? Hell no.
She is a shell of a human being. Bill was a fake and a cheat, but he was a fake and a cheat of substance - he was real.
hitlery is a virtual politician, a series of holographs generated by cascading "If - then" statements (IF (South) THEN (accent_southern("I am one-third Arkansas"))).
Were she to be elected, the persona of "anti-GWB" would fall apart, and there is nothing to replace it.
Nothing.
2007-04-28 18:28:46 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
She is one of the better candidates right now.
Maybe 3rd on my list.
I do not like that she is so focused on women's rights and health care, because I believe she will not keep focus on the main issues of the wars and international relations right now.
Where we stand right now, we must solve our war problems first and international relations and policies, and these other issues after.
I am wholly in favor of Giuliani because of his history.
He has the talent to work on the war, relations, policies, health care, debts at the same time according to importance of issues, in order.
I especially like that he will call people out on the table and hold them accountable.
Problem is, he is republican and the larger population does not want a republican.
I am a democratic republican. Therefore holding no relations with either party, but judging solely by the work they have done.
I like Hillary as a Senator only.
2007-04-28 18:24:14 · answer #4 · answered by jenshensnest 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Hillary Clinton for changing decisions regarding the Iraq war can affect her candidacy for Presidency and the voters might not select her.
VOTE for your choice as US President on my 360 degrees blog and know who will likely win.
2007-04-28 18:17:07 · answer #5 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
"Why was she not smart enough to seek the truth for herself..." and "The rest of the civilized, however, disagreed"
Really? On the onset of the war, it had popularity ratings of 70%. You also forget the Commander in Chief is the one who pulled the trigger. He's the one running it and he's the one that is responsible for it, not Hillary.
2007-04-28 18:16:14 · answer #6 · answered by jon s 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
hello. she said she did check for herself--she asked her lying pervert husband and he said yes to wmds,if you believe him there is no way you should be president, he makes george look like a saint,maybe gore will run we know he never lies,but he did invent the internet
2007-04-28 18:21:10 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you assume it was lies, your vote probably doesn't matter anyways. Vote for a pet or something.
2007-04-28 18:15:01 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You dare question Hillary?? How dare you!
Hillary knows best. You'll agree if you know what's good for you.!
Want to get spanked???
2007-04-28 18:18:13 · answer #9 · answered by mdk 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
NO. She is the typical Clinton, tell her audience what they want to hear and go whichever way the wind is blowing.
2007-04-28 18:13:59 · answer #10 · answered by Max Power 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋