If the Iraq War was still popular today, do you think Hillary Clinton would be against it?

Question

I don't believe so because I think she's a woman completely obsessed with her own ambitions and she will therefore go along with whatever is popular rather than doing what's right for the country. Her staunch support for the war and every anti-terrorism bill Bush wanted until 2005 bears this out. "Failure in Iraq is not an option" was her mantra for 4 years. Sound familiar? For this reason, she would NOT make a good president because she's only looking out for her own interests rather than the country's. I don't believe the same can be said of Barack Obama. And for those of you who say she was duped by Bush, she's not that dumb folks. She wasn't fooled, she just knew it would be politically beneficial for her to support the war back then, even if it was bad for America. She would do the same today. If you're a Democrat, why the heck would you want a person like this to be president when there are better options available?

Answer 1

I've been against the Iraq war since before we went in, because the justifications sounded like complete crap. I also think the Hillary bashing from the right is absurd in it's exaggerated proportions.

Having said that, if the wind was blowing the other way right now, she'd be doing her hawkish routine and backing the war 100%. She's such a complete political creature, I don't think she's capable of thinking in anything but in terms of political calculus.

Her career over the past couple of years has been trying to walk the weasel line of keeping democratic support while trying not to piss of the conservatives too much.

She was duped by Bush, since he withheld the entire picture and showed cherry-picked intel as the real thing. However, a lot of that is her own fault, because she was all too willing to suspend critical thinking to go along with the popular political tide. Had she had any inclination to ask tough, unpopular questions, she could have seen through the charade. Asking those questions (ala Feingold and Obama) is what leadership is all about.

Answer 2

did you recognize... that each physique your listed supplies are shown leftist media supporters! omg.. perhaps once you get the actual info you are able to come decrease back and supply each physique your dissertations then... till then, collect info for the two factors and examine what you're speaking approximately, perhaps then you certainly might have the skill to grant an smart answer and not something you have been brainwashed to have self belief via leftist-liberals! approximately eighty 5% of people supported bush while he began the conflict, now it has dropped plenty through fact civilians do no longer see the magnitude of continuous the operation. on your suggestions, the media not often comments independent info, regularly this is not even the fact. you may probable look into your supplies formerly attempting to remark on the "info" which you heard from somebody else. Why do no longer you kind your very own comments extremely of attempting to emulate somebody else's. this is not in any respect smart. extremely.....(perhaps you may watch greater Fox information, a minimum of they get the info appropriate a number of the time.)

Answer 3

"If the Iraq war was still popular?"

When was this war ever popular?

Unfortunately, after the events of 9/11 the nation believed anything Bush said and did not challenge his manipulation of the facts concerning Iraq. Our elected officials were all afraid of appearing weak.

The president has access to intelligence that Congress does not get to see, and Bush used this to his advantage to exagerrate claims against Iraq. Your claim that she was not "duped" by Bush is flat out wrong. All those who did not have direct access to the White House intelligence were fooled.

If Bush had followed the advice of his commanders on the ground, we wouldn't be in this mess today.

Even Peteaus who spent his entire military career writing the "Army Field Manual For Counter Insurgencies," says that we need one troop for every 40 civilians to effectively control insurgencies. this means we needed 650,000 soldiers in Iraq, and Bush, Rumsfield, Cheney etc...were not about to commit this level of involvement, becaue it would mean establishing a draft.

All those previous generals who requested more troops on the ground were fired by Bush for their efforts.

Bush & company thought they could do it on the cheap, and 4,000 of our soldiers have paid the ultimate price, and another 40,000 of our soldiers are permanently disabled because of the errors of this administration.

No one can blame Hillary for that.

Answer 4

Absolutely not.
She's not 'for' or 'against' any real issue.
She's FOR herself
She's AGAINST losing the election, which she thinks she has sewn up.
If group suicide were popular right now, she'd support that in the media. I believe her position was made clear in the debate, when she couldn't decide if she's for or against giving the licenses to illegals.
She had not heard a position from the popular media yet.

Answer 5

I was going to say she's a human weathervane and will turn towards whatever way the "wind" is blowing, but you said that, in a rather longer fashion.

Answer 6

No. It seems that her statements are all very carefully calculated to respond to what is deemed popular at the moment, not to her core beliefs (if any).

Answer 7

Great job! You just answered your own question.

Answer 8

I don't believe the Iraq "war" was ever popular. I think every politician who voted for the bogus "war" should be booted out on their butt.

Answer 9

You're right, in my opinion. Her quest for power leads her to say and do whatever is politically advantageous for her.

Answer 10

No, but then again, history proved invading Iraq a bonehead move of epic proportions.