"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
2007-08-20 06:50:02 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Hilliary got the same intel that Bush got and, using said intel, came to the same conclusion that Bush did... and yet she would like you to believe that if she had been president we would have avoided the situation in Iraq...
Here's what would have happened if she HAD BEEN president at that time: we still would have invaded and our military would still have ousted Saddam's military... but, half way into the search for Saddam, she would have gotten cold feet and pulled out... a very pissed off Saddam would have laughed his way back to power, killed anyone and everyone who supported the U.S. invasion and probably would have joined the likes of Syria, Lebanon and even Iran thinking "now would be the best time because Hilliary doesn't have the guts to stop me"... and we would be in just as big a cluster-f*ck as we are now, if not bigger...
2007-08-20 06:55:30 · answer #1 · answered by Ryan F 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Didn't she base her comment on the faulty intelligence reports handed to her by Dick Cheney? He is the one that cooked the intelligence books. I'm not letting her off the hook, but it seems to me that Cheney and the Bush administration completely manipulated the intelligence. That's pretty well documented now. This president keeps spewing the same faulty reasons for being in Iraq and he lied through his teeth about the reasons going there. Hilary has at least changed her mind about it and knows it was wrong. She would be a hell of a much better president than GWB ever was. The fact remains that it was this White House administration that got us into this war and quagmire, not Hilary.
2007-08-20 14:03:45 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
In this time frame the reports used to originate this quote was found to be incomplete and wrong.
Most of the Congress and Americans who have been aware of current events realize this info was not a substantiated report and have stated hindsight is 20/20.
What we can do now is look to someone with some sense to get us out of this and quit the boo-hoo blame game because that is not the exit strategy needed is it?
2007-08-20 14:05:36 · answer #3 · answered by Nurse Winchester 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Who wasn't wrong about them back then? Or about how far Saddam had gotten in his nuclear program?
Here's one of the main reasons I support Hillary Clinton. I've watched a President stay on the same stubborn course for over six years. He was wrong, and most of us know that now. But in spite of all the evidence we have since been able to gather about the real story behind Saddam and the terrorists - no connection to 9/11, no Al Queda in Iraq pre-9/11, no WMDs of the type we expected to find - and the evidence that our current course has not been successful - he refuses to change that course.
I've had enough of politicians who are so stubborn and ego driven that they won't admit mistakes even when those mistakes are staring them in the face. I understand why Sen. Clinton voted yea on that resolution. I also understand her frustration after the fact because Bush did not meet the standards set out in that resolution. She also did not expect Bush to send our troops over there ill equipped and without a plan for the aftermath. Who did? We trusted him - after 9/11 we desperately needed to trust our President.
She sees Bush's chosen course has not worked. She is intelligent enough to change her mind when evidence tells her she needs to change her mind. What use to us are politicians who cannot change course when they clearly need to do so? At least for my part, I've had enough of that to last me a lifetime. Flip flopping? Changing your entire moral stance on guns, gays and abortion in a space of a few months is flip flopping. Changing your course on war because the evidence tells you change is desperately needed isn't flip flopping, it's called paying attention to reality and reacting accordingly.
2007-08-20 14:03:29 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Same now as it was then, she's repeating something said by someone else. She speaks not out of knowledge nor concern for the greater good. Her motivations and goals are strictly career-specific, HER CAREER.
2007-08-20 13:55:04 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
She will do and say anything to get elected. Also, the polls say and she will follow the polls. Peace
2007-08-20 13:58:24 · answer #6 · answered by PARVFAN 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, Hillary was brainwashed four years ago by conservative fact twisters and conmen. She has since healed and I believe she will do what's right and get us outta there and let the iraqi police take care of the situation.
2007-08-20 13:53:46 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 5⤋
She voted yes...changed her mind...and is now backing up Bush more and more...I suppose she is right...trouble is figuring out which time she was right! lol
2007-08-20 13:54:08 · answer #8 · answered by Erinyes 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
"intelligence reports show "
citing sources. she, and everyone else, was fed faulty information by the executive branch.
2007-08-20 13:55:02 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
And if someone makes an "oopsy" and invades a foreign country, should we trust that person at all....EVER again??
2007-08-20 13:54:05 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋