How can Hillary say she was mislead on the war when she got the same report as everyone else?

Question

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePb6H-j51xE

PLEASE watch this short video and tell me what you think.

Liberals talking about Iraq and WMDs. They are ALL against Saddam and Iraq, and they believe Iraq has WMDs and is a major threat to our safety.

Answer 1

I would have a lot more respect for a politician who came out and said that "we were all wrong on this" rather than "we were duped." We could argue whether the war was right or wrong. But by constantly repeating that (1) Bush is an idiot and (2) Bush tricked us, it seems as though Democrats are basically saying that "we were tricked by an idiot." Not only are they trying to play the "blame game," they are shooting themselves in the foot in the process. (And I believe only 9 out of 100 senators even read the report.)

That's not a good reason to put someone in the position of president and having to negotiate with our enemies, where a keen mind and an ability not to be easily fooled are essential.

In Hillary Clinton's case, she is on recoord as having been lied to and deceived by our nation's past two presidents - Clinton about Monica, and Bush about Iraq. It's unfathomable that she has highlighted the assertion that she was duped by two presidents in a row. How can people vote for someone who by her own words apparently claims to be so . . . gullible? Or, if that's not the real story, someone who has cooked up lies herself because she believes that painting herself as a rube and a dupe is better than telling the TRUTH about her thoughts and actions? Which is it? It's either bad, or worse.

I don't get it.

Answer 2

I already have this video saved as my favorites on youtube and have it on my different pages for stuff.

Truth is they had the same information, and Hillary is doing the same thing she has always done as is Reid & Pelosi, deny something if it doesn't work in their favor.

It's scary that people are so far left that they can't see the damage they are doing to this country. Nobody wants people to die in war. If a Dem wins the whitehouse and if we leave Iraq now, the soliders deaths will be in vein, and we will be attacked again, and those deaths will be on the Dems heads who took us out of Iraq.

Answer 3

To many Liberals are driven by the Polls, her Hubby was an expert on it. Hillary should have been a Governor instead of a Senator, it it a lot easier to hide from your changing positions as a Governor running for President than as a Senator running for President, she has a voting record on national issues that she can't run from.

But she is trying.

I am not a Bush Supporter, but I do know that Socialism will not make America prosper, we did not get to be a great country under Socialism, we won't continue to be a great country under Socialism either. We should look at what is going on in France and RUN from Socialism.

May God help us all.

Answer 4

This is a great question. I am looking for ways to help people realize that Hillary is just popular, she doesn't have an idea in hell about what she is doing. She is a control freak yearning for power which she may get because of her loser husband.

Let's be honest, if Clinton wasn't "involved," if you will, with the Lewinsky scandal, would he honestly be THIS popular? And thusly, would SHE be this popular?

Your question serves as proof. She doesn't know what she is doing! How can we elect someone who hasn't the slightest idea about issues like a WAR?

Keep defending America,

Rob

Answer 5

The report everyone got only included the evidence that showed Iraq was a threat. So only 10% of the total evidence.

The report however did not include the 90% of evidence that showed they were not a threat. For instance, I can take any major league baseball player who has played for 10 years or more and give you 10% of their plays and at-bats and make them look like an all-star.

I dont think its wrong to change your mind when you find out the info you had was wrong. Bush claims to be a "stay the course" guy but if you find out the the river you were on is going to a water fall, I hope you change the course!

You cannot stay with the same decision and policy when it is failing and Iraq is failing. More troops die every month, and more insurgents appear despite the overly high number of them we "kill" in every confrontation.

Welcome to Vietnam #2.

Answer 6

Because at the time it was politically expedient to be for the war, now it is politically expedient to be against the war. The only way to reconcile these two postions politically is to have "been misled". It forgives her for changing her tune. In her personal life, it has been more politically expedient to stay with a guy who pokes anything in a skirt-than it was to be a divorcee running for the presidency or the senate either one.

Answer 7

Actually, it's worse. The information Bush used to justify launching the war mostly came from Clinton's administration, surely she had more insider information than anyone else outside the White House or intelligence agencies.

Answer 8

Hillary Clinton just like the rest of the bunch were all for attacking Iraq when Bill Clinton was in office. She had the facts. She probably had more information then Bush did because she the first lady at the time. She knew way before hand. She is liar just like the rest of the lot.

Answer 9

They say whatever is politically expedient at the time. The truth doesn't matter. Winning elections does. They are sure we have very short memories, are easily duped and will believe whatever they say at the moment. The media supports this. It never calls them on inconsistencies.

Answer 10

For Hillary it is a "convenient truth". Libs are always plying their opinions as facts. She, and all Senators, had the same information as the President and they did the right thing. Now they want to turn the war against us for political purposes. It's sad really. It's sad that they will sell our country short and the Iraqi people for political gains.