Now she is is making different excuses on why she did vote FOR the war in Iraq! IT'S TOO LATE! Why is she allowed to "take back" her vote while Bush is critized for it! THEY BOTH MADE A MISTAKE! As a President you CAN'T "take back" a decision! Here is what one article said about here vote on Iraq:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/her-way-hillary_b_49733.html
What is your thoughts on her decision? If she was President and Bush wasn't we would of been at war with Iraq anyways!
2007-10-18 18:55:49 · 19 answers · asked by Boomer 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
ONE MORE THING! Hillary said that she wouldn't have voted for the war if she had the intelligence info! SO WHY DID SHE VOTE "YES" TO THE WAR! Any INTELLIGENT individual would of said, "I do not have enough information so I will say "NO"."
2007-10-19 03:41:05 · update #1
Hilary Clinton doesn't know who she is. But the fact is, if 9/11 happened if Hilary had been President, the United States government would have virtually done nothing to prevent more terrorist attacks.
Hilary would have first taken the situation to the United Nations, and knowing the United Nations, they would eventually find out whose responsible and "chit chat" to the criminal nation.
In either case, we are headed for disaster if Hilary is sworn into office. Not just this country but this entire WORLD. God forbid. I seriously have no idea what to expect next year.
2007-10-18 18:58:20 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 3⤋
Who WOULDN'T have voted for the Iraq War at the time? Senators aren't all-knowing superhumans who can see into the future and read minds. When they are presented with a report and told it was compiled with the best intelligence available, they have no choice but to assume that is true when they make their decision. If it was assumed to be true that Saddam Hussein had helped al-Quaeda carry out 9/11, was harboring and training terrorists and had large stockpiles of nuclear weapons, who in their right mind wouldn't give a green light for a pre-emptive strike???
The reason Bush bears the brunt of the criticism for the Iraq War is because IT WAS HIS IDEA. When you want to start a war and you commission a report to be compiled and presented to the Senate, YOU and your administration are accepting responsibility for ensuring that that process is functional and the report is factually true. The Bush Administration grossly neglected to do any of this.
2007-10-19 10:45:16 · answer #2 · answered by soupisgoodfood 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"Bush lied."
Insightful. So, what you are saying is your choice for President was duped by a person all Democrats consider to be a buffoon? How smart does that make them?
My biggest problem with the "Bush lied" crowd is, if you have every major intelligence agency saying he had WMD (even those who were against an invasion) and a number of Iraq's neighbors saying the same thing, how is it a lie?
For instance, let's say that we all lived underground, and over the years the colour of the sky was changed from blue to green. If you were taught from the time you could read, that the sky was green by everyone you knew, even those disagreeing that there was a sky, and one day you went outside to find out that the sky was blue, would that be a lie, or just bad information?
We still do not know what was in those trucks that went into Syria before the war.
2007-10-18 19:10:18 · answer #3 · answered by The Patrioteer 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
The war issue is a mute one because they cannot undo what has already been done. There are other things or flip/flops that are equally important. Even after the war, she was for it. Then she later changed her mind and said that she was against it. For this, she lost some voters.
The last major flop has been minimized by the liberal media. She vilified Obama and called him immature because he said that he would speak with our enemies. He was saying that the only way to deal with issues is through dialogue and not ignoring them like Bush. She immediately confronted Obama on stage in Iowa. A few days ago, she changed her mind. She is now saying that she would speak with our enemies. Obama and Edwards stated that she was against it; now she is for it. A typical Hillary; she is Jezebel in the 21st Century.
2007-10-18 23:25:52 · answer #4 · answered by shawnLacey 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bush lied and misled whole of America.That Joker Of Ex - British PM was ready to follow suit Weapons of Mass Destruction were believed to be located. Evey one was gunning for the head of Saddam Hussein. When American public gets brain washed it works like the devastating Tsunami of December 2004. What will Hillary do or for that matter, even any wise men in the Republicans( if any were there) could not stand up and advise Bush any restraint.
So, time and again repeating the same slogan that she voted for the war in the beginning is enough to beat her for a life time does not take America any where.
2007-10-18 20:05:42 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Hey, more than 75% of the US population believed that Saddam had mass weapons of destruction then, and today only a handful of fools still believe so! Well, any surprise that Hillary should vote for the Iraq War then? Goes to show how clever the President and his Cohorts were at juggling tricks to fool so many in the US Congress (with Repugs in majority!) At least, Hillary has the guts to say that if she had the real facts then, as we have today, she wouldn't have added her name to the majority (Hey, to repeat, Congress had Repug majority then!!!) to give Bush that blank check!
2007-10-18 20:02:53 · answer #6 · answered by United_Peace 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Hillary only goes with the answer that is most popular with the poles at the time. She has never given a straight answer to anything... And stuck to her answer when the public opinion changed... That is why her policies are only exploratory right now. She wants to see how they are perceived by the people then dump it if it's not popular. $5,000 for every newborn is a good example, when public opinion wasn't well received, she came up with the the $1,000 government IRA... Not well received either... She justified and voted for the war... I am waiting for the day she commits to a choice she makes...
2007-10-18 19:16:28 · answer #7 · answered by DCP 2 · 4⤊ 1⤋
At best you can argue that Clinton voted for military force to enforce the UN resolutions and remove Saddam. This has been achieved. Bush has said he supports a 50 year occupation of Iraq. This is not part of the deal.
Jay - surely you know the answer to this question. When the president feeds false intelligence to congress and the UN - noone actually thought a US president would sink so low - so they believed him. She had the intelligence - she just didn't know it was all a crock of lies.
2007-10-18 19:19:04 · answer #8 · answered by Sageandscholar 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Excellant question. Why is sweet. there grew to become into no reason to vote for it in the event that they felt it grew to become into incorrect different than questioning it could fee them votes. on the grounds that she is pulling in over $seven hundred,000 from the lobbyist and Sen. Reid is tops for the demos at $900,000 it makes you ask your self. it could be exciting to make certain the ruin down on lobbyist. you're corrrect. I propose you inner maximum on your q/as by way of fact the hillery people could get when you and in case you bypass inner maximum they won't be able to. Take care.
2016-10-07 05:09:50 · answer #9 · answered by dorthy 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Honey, after 9-11 we all were for the war. After years and years of getting nowhere, we are all taking back our vote!!
2007-10-19 09:24:14 · answer #10 · answered by spool 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋