2007-08-24 08:11:25 · 15 answers · asked by David S 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The better question would be how could anyone support Hillary Clinton period?
2007-08-24 08:14:53 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 7⤋
Before the Iraqi invasion, the U.S. Congress was informed as follows:
1. Saddam was a brutal dictator who killed and tortured his own people and hated the U.S.
2. Saddam had chemical, biological and other weapons of mass destruction and was working on obtaining nuclear weapons.
3. Saddam and his cronies were partially responsible for 9/11.
4. there were people in place in Iraq who were willing to form a pro-U.S. democratic government if only given the opportunity.
Based on the above, the Congress, including the Democrats therein, overwhelmingly voted to invade. You're going to criticize Hillary for that? How terribly unfair.
2007-08-24 16:16:26 · answer #2 · answered by Stephen L 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'll tell you how. Because she is realistic and has approached the problem of Iraq in an intelligent and reasonable manner. I remain exasperated with those who cannot understand that when conditions change, a politician worth their salt will change their stance on it accordingly. We've seen what "staying the course," despite all evidence that should have told our President he DID need to change the course, has gotten us. I'm tired of politicians who aren't intellectually or egotistically healthy enough to look at a situation, weigh the changes that have occurred, and adjust their stand accordingly without worrying about their own ego, which can consequently drive them to stay with a failed course of action out of stubbornness.
Yes, she voted for the resolution. She also expected that Bush would adhere to the standards laid out in the resolution, which he did not. She also rightfully expected that he would send our troops properly equipped and have formed a plan for the peace and for the aftermath prior to the invasion. He did not.
She is very realistic and informed about our problems not only in Iraq, but all over the Middle East. She understands we cannot abandon Iraq completely unless we wish to hand it over lock stock and barrel to Iran and Al Queda. She understands we have to protect our interests, but will not continue to put up with the inaction and inability of the current Iraqi government to solve their political problem, so we can stop policing a civil war when we need to get busy dealing with Al Queda/Taliban in so many different areas. I trust her when it comes to foreign affairs. I trust her experience on the Armed Forces Committee, her experience in the Senate, and have paid close attention to what she has to say. I agree with it and so have no problem at all supporting Hillary Clinton.
2007-08-24 15:45:44 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Give us a real good reason you say Hillary , lets get all of them . You give me a better Democrat or Republican that would make a better President and I can give a little bit on each one of them that would eliminate each one. I'm talking about old Rudy. Rommy, just the whole caboodle. You want find one that is is as good as she is in any subject you choose. Whether you like it or not Hillary will be our next President of the United States, watch and see. Go, Hillary, Go
2007-08-24 15:22:49 · answer #4 · answered by Nicki 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
People ARE allowed to learn from their mistakes and to change their stance on issues as more information becomes available.
I don't necessarily support Senator Clinton, but this isn't the reason.
2007-08-24 15:17:08 · answer #5 · answered by Vaughn 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I don't know. I've been against the war from the very beginning and I have no intention of voting for her, primarily for that very reason.
2007-08-24 15:19:53 · answer #6 · answered by David 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Good question. She voted for it and now she is against it only because her far left base won't support her if she continues to suppor the war.
2007-08-24 15:15:28 · answer #7 · answered by Still Beautifully Conservative 5 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Because there are other big issues out there . . . the war is only one reason to choose a political candidate.
2007-08-24 15:15:16 · answer #8 · answered by CHARITY G 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Because, unlike any of the Republican candidates, she wants to eventually bring an end to this unjustified war. It's that simple.
2007-08-24 15:20:45 · answer #9 · answered by FootballFan1012 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Why not? She's not the President who decided to abuse Congress's authorization for force.
I love how people like you want to blame everyone BUT Bush for the war, yet you want him to have credit for any little good thing that comes out of it.
You can't have it both ways. He's either responsible for the war or he's not. Now choose.
2007-08-24 15:17:28 · answer #10 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 4⤊ 4⤋
Why would you be for her regardelss of her war stance
?
wake up dude smell the coffee
2007-08-24 15:22:36 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋