hypocrisy, ma'am!
2007-06-18 06:40:19
·
answer #1
·
answered by boricua_lilly 3
·
10⤊
5⤋
I think if the energy expended on strategizing for the next election by appotioning "credit" and "blame" were instead spent on ADDRESSING AND SOLVING THE COUNTRY'S PROBLEMS, we'd all be much better off.
I'm pretty much on the Republican side. When they came in in 1995, they did get a lot done - welfare reform, lowered taxes, lowered deficit, etc. - because they and Clinton found a way to work together. They didn't spend two years trying to make things worse so a Republican would be elected in 1996, and Clinton (to save himself, partly, and also because he was not a leftist) met them halfway on things, and got re-elected.
Maybe my memory is faulty. But to the extent people remember those years somewhat fondly, this cooperation (in the end, after wrangling) may be part of what they remember. Of course, impeachment was another matter. But it seems that as (I think Reagan) said, a lot of good can get done if people don't care who gets the credit.
Bush made the decision to go to war, but he did get congressional approval:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
Yes, it seems very disingenuous to repudiate one's vote totally once troops are in the field, saying one was "duped" by the president. (Everyone says he's so dumb, except when he outsmarts him all the time!) Saying "WE were wrong and it's time to come home" is much different from saying "Bush tricked us." The resolution, which very few average citizens have read, is very clear.
But again, I wish we could all drop the rhetoric and move forward with solutions.
2007-06-18 06:53:09
·
answer #2
·
answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
You can blame whomever you want for the war, but to give Hillary Clinton or other members of congress a pass on their vote is ridiculous. If they didn't read the materials that were available and voted anyway, they were to say the least negligent. The title of Al Gores book "An Inconvenient Truth" fits Hillary's life story better than it does the Gores Fairytale. Do you wonder what else these folks are voting on without knowing the facts????
I don't particularly care who voted how now, that's behind us...but you don't cut funding or stop supporting troops while they are on the ground fighting a war. In addition, in the age of instant news (or non- news) you don't give your enemy the impression that you are going to do anything but kick their ***!!!!
2007-06-18 07:19:57
·
answer #3
·
answered by rosi l 5
·
4⤊
0⤋
Because in the Democrat's book, it's okay to vote for the war before you vote against the war.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/29/politics/main646435.shtml
truth & police here you go buddies !
2001 war in Afghanistan, also known as Operation Enduring Freedom Taliban government of Afghanistan and al-Qaida S.J. Res. 23
September 14, 2001 98-0 420-1 George W. Bush Ongoing
Iraq War, also known as Operation Iraqi Freedom Iraq H.J. Res. 114,
October 16, 2002 77-23 296-133 Ongoing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States#Military_engagements_authorized_by_Congress
2007-06-18 07:37:54
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
Not to mention the UN.
They looked at all the available intelligence ,gathered over a period of years,and said it was time to replace Saddam.
Now,where they got the idea that it would be all over in a few weeks is hard to say.
Maybe ,they expected Saddam to be killed off quick,the army destroyed and we'd just turn around and get back on the planes and ships.
That would mean leaving Iraq to sink or swim with no government,no army to defend it and at the mercy of her neighbors.
2007-06-18 07:14:35
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋
If you don't know then let me advise you, Bush lied about WMD, clouds that would come down and swoop us all up , we'd be destroyed. He knew right where the weapons were in Iraq he could put his hands right on them, he had innocent Colin Powell to go to the United Nations showing all theses weapons and trucks coming in and out of Iraq loaded down with gases. that report we all heard. Did you read the report was you told to put foil and place in your windows that it would stop some of the poison gases from entering your home. Did you watch the State of Union that your great President told all the nation these lies, pure lies. did you believe him. Well, stop blaming Hillary and no Bill Clinton is her husband he is a man and she is a woman that is His wife. I can't believe some of the silly remarks people will make about Hillary and Bill Clinton, one day he is committing adultery the next he is wife. That is what you call silly people that care not about anything but some old silly remark that they think is cute about people that have done nothing to them. Get A life , We don't gave a damn who you blame.
2007-06-18 07:01:53
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
3⤋
I don't know or care why she says it's Bush's war. By your screen name I am wondering why you even care about what she says either.
I am with you, I blame Bush and Congress, and I wish Hillary would go away. I never liked her and I can't believe she won the seat in Congress in the first place. I am shocked that she didn't read the report before voting.
2007-06-18 06:47:17
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
2⤋
Very good question. The democrats who supported the war in Iraq, ie. John Edwards and Hillary, are now trying to distance themselves from that and pretty much just trying to glossover the fact that they voted for it altogether. Same political dance. Same thing happened to Kerry, all the stuff in his past came back to haunt him when he started advocating for the opposite.
Politicians naturally cant be trusted. If you want to do something good, look at their voting record and see who actually practices what they preach. The only one I know of (pres. candidates) from both sides that does that is Ron Paul. Hillary learned about the political dance from her husband.
The Republicans too arent without blame, as all these candidates now were stalwart supporters of the war. The only two that didnt like it from the start were McCain and Paul, but McCain voted but disagreed with how it was waged.
If you want to elect a politician, vote for one that at least speaks their mind and has a voting history to back it up, at least you know what to expect.
2007-06-18 06:44:53
·
answer #8
·
answered by DAVIDRZR 2
·
6⤊
3⤋
<>
hmm kind of like republicans trying to distance themselves from being weak on national security by trimming all of Clinton/Gore proposals to being useless, just before 9/11aye??
<>
nor would they expect it the use of military force to be thought of lightly and utilized without double checking intel, or performing the reguired checks that were stated in the bill.
2007-06-18 06:52:17
·
answer #9
·
answered by qncyguy21 6
·
2⤊
3⤋
Liberal Democrat mantra: Blame someone else.
See link in my profile for war quotes from snopes.com, proven to be TRUE.
2007-06-18 07:33:31
·
answer #10
·
answered by Truth B. Told ITS THE ECONOMY STUPID 6
·
3⤊
0⤋
"Why does HILLIARY insist that this is 'Bush's war' when she and a host of other DEMOCRATS voted for it?"
I copy and pasted your question and capitalized two words in it to show you were you answered your own question... riding the fastest bandwagon is just what Democrats do...
And for everyone out there saying " read the Authorization of Force", pull your heads out, congress does not give a president that authorization lightly nor would they give that authorization expecting the president to just not use it; also read the public statements of Clinton and other Democratic leaders, they were calling for action, military action, its all in plain English... The Congress gave Bush the Authorization of Force knowing full well and wholly supporting what he intended to do in Iraq...
2007-06-18 06:42:58
·
answer #11
·
answered by Ryan F 5
·
7⤊
3⤋