In 2002 Senator Clinton voted to authorize President Bush to do what was necessary to unseat Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein
AS a member of the Armed Services Committee after visiting Iraq in 2005 said U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would be a mistake.
In 2007 she voted in favor of a war spending- that required Bush to begin withdrawing the troops.
On June 19, 2007 Clinton told a union audience that she favored keeping some troops in Iraq "to protect our interests."
The following day, she told an anti-war gathering she wants the troops withdrawn from Iraq! On that day she dazzled the "Take Back America" conference by declaring: "We're going to end the war in Iraq and finally bring our troops home."
Then on the debates she states, " Who knows what we will inheirit?" Her stance on her own website is withdrawal of some of the troops, but some will have to remain to keep an eye on Al-quaeda and to keep Iran at bay.
website:http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/30/2199
2007-09-28
01:25:16
·
28 answers
·
asked by
Moody Red
6
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
The link is to a Democrat website
2007-09-28
01:25:52 ·
update #1
Thank you all for your answers!
2007-09-28
23:59:28 ·
update #2
I believe in 2002 she saw reality and, trying to do what is right as a freshman Senator, voted accordingly.
Since then she started campaigning for the Presidency and now she has put truth and reality aside and goes with what the George Soros controlled media and Move on dot org tell her to say.She is greedy for power and will do as she is told by those backing her.
Since she is power mad, she will continue that course if elected.
Like most Politicians, she was quickly corrupted by the Washington D.C. environment. (Not to mention her prior history under Bill.) I don't think she will EVER be able to regain a moral center, if she ever had one.
2007-09-28 02:42:55
·
answer #1
·
answered by Philip H 7
·
4⤊
0⤋
I believe that this month alone, she said both that if Bush doesn't take the troops out, she would and that she couldn't guarantee they would be out by January 20, 2013 - almost 5 and one-half years from now and longer than they have been there already.
This is a joke, but it's not funny because the Democrats have fanned the flames of defeat for years and now are scrambling. their mealy-mouthed performances show they are not serious at all about national security and should NOT be entrusted with presidential power.
I still think it's possible - maybe not likely, but possible - that Hillary Clinton will implode upon her first exposure to primary voters, which is yet to occur. Like the EU constitution, and New Coke, she may only last until the public gets a chance to have their say.
One can only hope!
2007-09-28 01:39:13
·
answer #2
·
answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7
·
5⤊
0⤋
What's wrong with that, she is tell everyone the same thing, withdraw some troops and end the war, well end the war part is an out right lie, because we already won the war. We are in Iraq to protect Israel and that will never end.
But I'm not voting for her and I won't vote republican either in this race so I guess I'll wait 4 more years and maybe by then we will have someone we want for a change.
2007-09-28 01:41:58
·
answer #3
·
answered by man of ape 6
·
0⤊
2⤋
Well, that's why I'd prefer to see Edwards or Obama get the nomination.
But to be fair, the Republicans have done lots of scuffling on Iraq as well. I think McCain is the only one really supporting the Surge, isn't he? He's the only one I hear.
The war is a disaster, and the withdrawal will probably be a disaster, as well. Remember Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge? Hopefully it won't be as bad, but it could be.
So we're left with lots of horrible options, almost all of which will end in genocide.
I think that give Hillary (and all the other presidential candidates, Republican and Democratic) the right to waffle a little.
2007-09-28 03:02:52
·
answer #4
·
answered by Mr. Bad Day 7
·
0⤊
3⤋
You can believe that Hillary will say anything to get elected. Her answers daily are guided by polls. Bill worked the same way. She is just taking a page out of Bill's play book. She is also covering in case Iraq goes well, then the Dems can take credit for it.
2007-09-28 01:48:45
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
6⤊
0⤋
because of the fact the angel Gabriel instructed me that Jimmy Carter will grow to be the Antichrist aka Dajjal (8th King in Rev. 17) and he will serve yet another term in workplace after the dying of Obama (seventh king). The angel Gabriel instructed me in Aug. 1973 while i grow to be in Phillipsbrug, Montana that Jimmy Carter will grow to be the Anti-Christ, and that he is going to alter his call, and divorce his spouse! Obama is going to die first after which the Anti-Christ aka Dajjal who grow to be between the previous 7 Presidents will take his place! Rev. 17:10 And there are seven kings: 5 are fallen, and one is, [and] the different isn't yet come; and while he cometh, he could desire to proceed a short area. All 7 kings have been all alive till the dying of Ronald Reagan June 5, 2004 while George W. Bush grow to be in workplace ; a million. Gerald Ford 2. Jimmy Carter 3. Ronald Reagan 4. George H. W. Bush 5. bill Clinton 6. George W. Bush.... is spoken of in the present annoying (and one is) because of the fact till Reagan died (June 5, 2004) all 7 have been alive! 7. Barack Obama.......and one is yet to return! he will die some days after he will develop taxes! Obama is likewise in Dan. 11:20 Then shall upward thrust up in his belongings a raiser of taxes [in] the honour of the dominion: yet interior few days he would be destroyed, neither in anger, nor in conflict. Rev. 17:11 And the beast that grow to be, and is not, even he's the 8th, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.
2016-10-20 05:15:34
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Just this weekend Hillary said we would be in Iraq at least 13 years.
OK left feel betrayed And you say this about the General. HA.
2007-09-28 07:27:40
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
The campaign Hillary is running depends completely on the premise that she has to fool the people into not knowing what she stands for, and what she would do if elected. If her true agenda were ever exposed she would have a hard time winning in DC
2007-09-28 03:10:21
·
answer #8
·
answered by espreses@sbcglobal.net 6
·
4⤊
0⤋
Mrs. Clinton is a socialist. We don't need her as President. She is saying whatever she thinks will get her votes. No one in his right mind would pull out of Iraq and leave 25 million people in jeopardy.
2007-09-28 01:34:00
·
answer #9
·
answered by regerugged 7
·
9⤊
0⤋
Chairwoman Mao Tse Clinton will say anything for a vote. She is a smart, slick, career politician. Voters Beware.
2007-09-28 02:09:43
·
answer #10
·
answered by Truth B. Told ITS THE ECONOMY STUPID 6
·
5⤊
0⤋