Does Hillary's excuse that she voted for the Iraq war based on false intelligence hold water?

Question

http://www.truthdig.com/interview/item/20070320_scott_ritter_robert_scheer/

Answer 1

Hillary has no excuse for voting for the War, nor does anybody else, as Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich have been vocally against the War from the start (and in Paul's case, he opposed it for 5 years before it began) and anybody with a satellite dish can tune to channels which debunked war propaganda even back then.

If Hillary Clinton does not pay any attention to the speeches that her colleagues in Congress give, then that alone would prove that she is unfit to be president. If she did pay attention and ignored the truth, that would also prove that she is unfit to be president.

We can't have a president who votes for a War when even some members of Congress recognize that the War is a scam. Nor should anybody who voted for the unconstitutional Patriot Act be permitted to be president.

Hillary's vote for the Iraq War Resolution only proves that she has no knowledge of the Constitution or that she knows about the Constitution and chooses to ignore it. The Constitution clearly says that Congress must DECLARE war and that Congress cannot delegate its power to do so to the president. The War Powers Act is also unconstitutional, as it grants the presidential power to wage war whenever he chooses, which is a power that Congress does not have to grant. All wars since WWII have been illegal and anybody who fails to recognize that is unfit to be president and should be impeached if they happen to get into Congress or the Supreme Court.

Answer 2

Hi,
The US and UK went into Iraq, based on the intelligence that said there were Biological, Chemical and Nuclear weapons (not just one, but all three - which might have made some commentators question the reports...).

At the time Senate, Congress and Parliament believed the reports. They had no reason to suspect they were in error. They made a decision in good faith based on the information they had available.
Importantly, the populations of the US (and to a lesser degree, the UK) also felt the same way. It is easy to think back now, with the knowledge that we now have, and condemn Senators and Congressmen, but we must remember that we, the populations of the US and UK believed it, too (mostly).

Congress, Senate and Parliament were wrong. We should give due credit to their members when they come forward and admit they were wrong, for whatever reason. It is rare that our governments ever admit to being wrong, when they obviously were, would you prefer they stubbornly stuck to their guns (pardon the turn of phrase)?

Only 30% of Americans now support the war in Iraq. That is vastly less than the 80+% that supported it at the start. If 50% of Americans can change their mind - many of them because of what they now know, compared to what they thought they knew then - why can't Clinton?
Isn't it more of a surprise that many of the other candidates haven't also changed their minds?

Do you want as a president someone who doesn't recognise and learn from their mistakes?

Answer 3

Everybody in congress had false intelligence, yet the majority of the Democrats voted no, but all those planning to run for president voted yes. Even it the intelligence had been correct, all it claimed was that Saddam had poison gas, not a nuclear program, and I can not believe that the congress is made of of people who didn't understand the difference, although the public may have been confused by the talk of WMD and mushroom clouds. Someone once said that no one ever got elected president by opposing getting into a war, and I think Hillary believed this, and voted yes. The public has an opportunity to disprove this in the upcoming election, but I think they will not.

Answer 4

Hillary voted in favor of the war. When she was called out on this by the left wing liberals she decided she was against the war. And yet she has repeatedly voted for funds to continue the war.
Her newest stand is a masterpiece of fence straddling. She has decided she is in favor of the war in order to protect America. She will do this by pulling out MOST of the troops, not all. With not enough military on the ground then the terrorists will take over Iraq. Then she can point to this defeat and say that is why she has ALWAYS been against the war.
It's pretty convoluted but makes great sense if you are a liberal.

Answer 5

truthfully not. She replaced right into a fraud long in the previous she replaced into exceeded the Senate gig as a reward for keeping her catch close in the process her husband's stint in my view adorning the Oval Offive rug. keep in mind, she helped suitable the famous-day electoral fraud returned in 1992 whilst she helped place invoice as a doting father and husband who could bypass as presidential cloth. The motto? marketing campaign suitable - govern left. The media marvelled on the 'spin gadget' on the time. that's variety of like complementing the variety of the used automobile salesman who in basic terms offered you a broken down rubbish truck and confident you it replaced right into a uncommon Corvette Indy %. automobile. Now, her accomplices interior the media are allowing her to "circulate to the midsection" on many themes (different than the Iraq conflict - on that difficulty she is traveling today to Obamaland). Liberals at the instant are not held to any of their words with the help of their friendly press. David Gregory would not have dared pursue his unabashed rudeness with any Clinton press secretary, yet does so with aplomb with Tony Snow. no person dares ask an unapproved question to Hillary, fairly if the respond places her in an unflattering mild. Hillary Clinton has yet one theory: potential. The direction to potential? Populist Socialism particularly, in spite of the place she 'strikes' her royal soccer in the process election time. in the process the 2009 State of the Union handle, she is between the various which could proceed to be along with her fellow socialists, firmly interior the applause producing/seat warming area, not turning interior the speech. specific notice to all liberals who're nevertheless unable to settle for that Al Gore lost the 2000 election: Even the l. a. cases Florida recount qualified the unique result. If Al had carried his domicile state, he could have been President. It did not take place, he lost. as nicely, your fellow socialists now are on top of problems with the two properties of Congress. Take some solace in that. delight in it on a similar time because it lasts. Darth intense

Answer 6

Hillary never read the intelligence report. One of her staffers did. And then reported back to Hillary. But when She and Bill were in the White House regime change in Iraq was desperately needed. Hillary wants things both ways, again.

Answer 7

Nope. She voted that way because it was the way the political wind was blowing at the time. Let popular opinion swing to favor the war and she'll be back on the bandwagon again. She's a politician in pursuit of office, pure and simple.

Answer 8

it was a bad vote but at this point we need a democrat in the whte house. Nader ( possibly paid ) ran as the true left candidate last two times and the result was this diaster the lesser of two evils has to apply her before they ( rep ) turn us into a third world country with a ruling elite and impoverished masses which is where we are going

Asuuming she does what Bill did it wont be perfect but it will be good and if we hold out for perfect we will get a smarter but just as evil version of bush n Guiliani/Romney

Answer 9

Probably not. She voted with the popular decision at the time. Nothing else.

Answer 10

Well if, god forbid, she were elected President, then she'd be in a position to not do anything about the intelligence reports she receives, just like Bill did.