then why did she vote against the Levin amendment requiring the President to get another UN resolution specifically authorizing the operation?
And why didn't she read the national intelligence estimate?
2007-06-21 02:58:26 · 16 answers · asked by American citizen and taxpayer 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Clinton was maneuvering. She's shrewd and smart. Here's a link to an article that answers your question.
2007-06-21 03:03:48 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
From what I have been reading from back when the vote was called Hillary Clinton did state she had it on good information that this war is necessary... I don't have the link but it was posted here b4 u can google it. She in fact had no military intelligence and has back tracked now that she is a candidate for President.
As to her husband's efforts to thwart terrorist attacks? I really want to know those facts. In my opinion, they had the knowledge that attacks were possible just as they had Bin Laden's location and found other priorities and personal agenda. Iraq is a by product of these deficient qualities of the former administration to remain "popular". I can not recall any diplomacy on their end to resolve the civil war crisis and Saddam's genocide well in process during their watch. In peacetime they had over 4,000 casualties in the Middle East region and during that time these numbers meant what?
So given Mrs. Clinton's experience she is banking on she knew better. It was the popular thing to do at the time. She follows trends not convictions.
Thank you.
2007-06-21 03:10:49 · answer #2 · answered by Mele Kai 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
The Iranian defense force includes participants of terrorists companies from their previous. This stupid determination, is merely yet another understatement of the apparent. Hillary is merely recognizing that, would not advise something and he or she is merely CYA, in case that Iran provokes any united states of america. the reality that terrorists are actually "squaddies" of a actual protection rigidity, might supply the excuse for country's intervention. balloting against, may well be so lots greater damaging to her campaign, with the aid of fact the united states of a's inhabitants are already all "paranoid" approximately this new "boogie guy" Ahmed...regardless of his unpronounceable call is
2016-12-13 09:08:10 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh, be right back.
Sen. Clinton said she did read the intelligence estimate, but it was an estimate and she rounded the other way.
As far as voting the against Levin, She had this to say, "Carl Levin is from Michigan and they had just beat Syracuse, I needed to support my constituents.
2007-06-21 03:04:30 · answer #4 · answered by grinslinger 5 · 4⤊ 2⤋
The answer my friend, is blowin in the wind! Just like Hillary's stance on any subject, the polls must have changed, ergo so did she.
2007-06-21 03:04:04 · answer #5 · answered by booman17 7 · 7⤊ 1⤋
She was too busy reading the polls. She cannot think on her own.
2007-06-21 03:20:34 · answer #6 · answered by mamadixie 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I guess Iraq is her Archilles Heel. From what I see, she has little or no credibility in politics.
2007-06-21 03:10:18 · answer #7 · answered by Zabanya 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Good point. Clearly, the answer is selfish politics.
2007-06-21 03:07:02 · answer #8 · answered by Granny Gruntz 3 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Because she thinks she is better than everyone and will say anything to get elected
2007-06-21 03:04:32 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 2⤋
I guess I would have to ask her...but Bush SHOULD have used diplomacy...or at least tried. I hate the fact that the dems worked with Bush then, and I hate the fact that they are trying to work with him now. That's not what I hired them to do.
2007-06-21 03:02:22 · answer #10 · answered by hichefheidi 6 · 4⤊ 6⤋