If the reports of WMD's had been right would Clinton's vote have been wrong, and later her vote against right?

Question

• "The president is authorized to use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, and (2) enforce all relevant United Nation Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

Answer 1

Hillary Clinton should be convicted of corruption and being a Pedophile like her husband should be.

Answer 2

There were no WMD in Iraq. Even Bush, himself, has admitted that "we did not find the wmd we were looking for."

I'd love to know where you ignorant posters are getting the idea that we found wmd in Iraq? Fox news, Rush Limbaugh?!

We did find 20 year old degraded, chemical type weapons in Iraq, but these old degraded worthless wmd were not the reason we invaded a nation that never attacked us!

You have to understand that Clinton's original vote was based on the intelligence that the White House allowed Congress to see.

Congress does NOT, I repeat, does NOT, get to see the same intelligence that crosses that desk in the Oval Office!

We'd have no security at all in this nation if all 100 Senators, and all 435 representatives had access to the same intelligence as the president.

The Bush administration cherry picked the data they thought was best suited to justify this war, and ignored all intelligence that did not support their case for war.

We had inspectors, on the ground in Iraq, telling Bush that they could find no wmd, and requesting 3 more lousy months to finish their work, but Bush dragged their butts out so he could begin the invasion.

What president, in his right mind, would take us to war based on conflicting evidence?!

Answer: A president who wanted to reward his corporate cronies and contractors with huge contracts paid by the blood of our soldiers. A president who had some false inflated ego that establishing democracy in Iraq would secure his legacy...and he risked our economy and our soldiers to attempt this most disastrous foreign policy in U.S. history.

Ever wonder why only 25-30% of Americans still support Bush?

The rest of us have woken up.

Answer 3

We define weapons of mass destruction as chemical, biological or nuclear (to the best of my knowledge). Some chemical weapons were found. Unfortunately the administration strongly implied that nuclear and biological weapons were the threat when the invasion was sold to the American public. So now there is a mass belief that no weapons of mass destruction were ever found. What was found didn't pose a credible threat to the United States.
There was valid justifications to go to war. That I won't argue. There were other justifications besides the weapons. The question is, was there enough justification to offset the cost in money and lives. Was the threat credible enough to engage in a long occupation, hundreds of billions in expense? I believe that what congress was told concerning potential nuclear and biological capability was sufficient justification. She did right. Changing her stance later is what I hold against her.

Answer 4

Clinton is either a political opportunist or a George Bush clone. Either way she doesn't deserve to be elected President.

Answer 5

The reports were correct. Some people simply do not want to accept this. Clinton was right to vote to go ahead. She was wrong to flip flop with the wind afterward.

Answer 6

The reports were correct.....Washington post and the BBC both reported on the find of more than enough to kill most every Kurd and Shiite in the country....but I guess those facts aren't acknowledged by the left

Answer 7

Without an appropriate "focus group" to make the decision for her, the world will never know.

Answer 8

If the reports were correct, then we would have been justified going to war, unfortunately, they were not, and any conflicting data was ignored.