Is Hillary Clinton just as responsible as Bush, Rice, and Cheney for this war in Iraq?

Question

She voted for the war as the senator of New York so why is not alot of the blame shifted at her as it is for Bush, Cheney, and Rice.

Answer 1

No, there is a difference of degree and kind. The Senators who voted to authorize force against Saddam were not responsible for the Commander In Chief's ultimate decision to go to war or for all the decisions that went into the conduct of the war over the next five years. Although the collective votes of many Senators permitted Bush to get his initial war funding, no single vote, including Hillary's, turned the tide. Hillary should have voted no in the fall of 2002, and she should have withdrawn her support for the war much earlier than she did. But once she voted yes, the cat was out the bag, and there was nothing she could do to influence the prosecution of the war. Therefore she and the other Senators are in no way just as responsible as the instigators, architects and decison makers: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Pearle, Wolfowitz, Feith and Rice.

Answer 2

Not to be sexist or anything. But do you really want a woman as the president. Think about how Hillary Clinton acts when PMSing. *Watches her press the launch button on 1,000 nuculear missiles* Ya... I hope you guys also realise the president was almost killed during the 9/11 attacks. The one plane that crashed into farmland, was headed for the whitehouse. Don't deny that. Though unlike the other planes, the people on that one plane were smart. President Bush is not doing this war for himself, he's doing it for the safety of America. The rest of the Government is curropt, I do believe however Bush is not, but some in the Bush Administration are.

Answer 3

Hillary voted for the war as did the majority of both parties because of faulty intelligence. A major reason for invading Iraq was the belief that Saddam had WMD's and was seeking nukes. As early as 1998 the Democrats under Bill Clinton were calling for Saddam's removal along with his WMD's but it took 9/11 and the fact that we were already in Afghanistan to light a fire under the Democrats. As late as 2002 the Dem's were still claiming that it was imperative that we rid the world of Saddam and his WMD's. Of course, when no WMD's were found, the Dem's did a 180 and called Bush a liar for getting us into what they now called an illegal war even though they voted to give Bush approval to invade Iraq.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNgaVtVaiJE

The NIE screwed up with regards to Saddam's WMD's and they were 4 years too late in finding out that Iran had dropped its nuclear warhead program.

Answer 4

She, like most Senators, voted for the resolution giving the President the power he required to make the right decision. He didn't adhere to the requirements set out in the resolution right off the bat - getting UN approval and exhausting diplomacy. I'm not silly enough to think that those who voted "yea" didn't think he was going into Iraq. But I am realistic enough and have enough memory cells left to remember the clever campaign carefully waged by Bush and Co to plant the seeds of a connection with 9/11, and a convincing lie that Iraq was a nuclear threat. I'm not going to blame Hillary, or any other member of Congress for believing in their President while we were all still recovering from the shock of 9/11. How unthinkable, to trust one's President and their Administration, in a time of panic and uncertainty. How unthinkable to trust that President with the well being of this country.

Whatever blame you wish to throw Congress' way is neither here nor there. This is Bush's War, make no mistake. He made sure he reminded us of that too, when he informed us all that he was The Decider by God, and we all better remember it, especially Congress. I'm way past laying blame at the door of Congress for this mess. I know who to blame, and it sure isn't Hillary Clinton. What I want to know now is that the next President is going to be capable of cleaning up this mess when Bush finally and thankfully exits.

Answer 5

Of course. It is a matter of public record that she voted in support of it, then voted against it. Or did she vote against it, then vote for it? Knowing her, she probably did both! I guess it had to depend on which way the political winds were blowing each time...
SAGEANDS:Once again, you are blinded by ideology. What on earth is the difference between "authorizing force" and "voting in support of it"? I guess this proves that just because your eyes are open wide doesn't mean you can see clearly.
TO JOHN W: Just because WMDs were not discovered in Iraq when the multi-national force went in doesn't mean they were never there. Remember, it was close to six months before some our spineless allies voted to allow passage. That's a lot of time to transport most anything from one region to another.

Answer 6

End the Clinton/Bush reign on America. I have had enough. I am ready for a new Republican and a new Democrat (Not Clinton). As of right now these 2 families have ruled America for 20 consecutive years!!!!! Bush Sr. 4 yrs, then Bill Clinton for 8 years followed by George "W" 8 years. Do we really want Hilliary in Office. That will bring the Clinton/Bush reign on America to 24 consecutive years & possibly more. Stop it!

Thumbs Down are u nutz! Must be Hilliary fans out there? humm

Answer 7

of course she could have some accountability, but keep in mind it was the bush administration's plan from the start and they acted upon it. haha this isn't hillary's war, it's the responsibility of the bush administration and they deserve to be held accountable for any misdeeds and abuses of power. in fact, the american people deserve to see that the powers that be are held fully accountable lol.

Answer 8

No... She didn't vote for the war. She voted to give him the authority to go to war as a last resort... Admittedly, she shouldn't have done it, and only did (like most democrats) to avoid being painted as "soft on terror" right after 9/11... But all that aside, voting to give someone authority is not the same as voting for war.

Answer 9

Wrong...



Everyone who supposedly voted for the war didn't vote for the war. They voted to grant the President the power he needed to go after the people behind 9-11.

As we see now, he didn't do that. He launched his own war, which is illegal under all circumstances.




As far as her voting for funding the war; she did it so she wouldn't be hauled with hate. Imagine what FOX News would do to her if/when they found out she didn't vote to fund it.

"CLINTON - UNPATRIOTIC"
"CLINTON DOESN'T SUPPORT AMERICA"


Blah, blah, blah. Of course, they did that anyways, only under different terms.

"CLINTON - FLIP FLOPPER"
"HYPOCRISY IN THE CLINTON OFFICE"






Wake up, America!!!

Answer 10

Constantly repeating something untrue does not change the fact that it is untrue.
Clinton voted to authorize force in order to enforce UN resolutions against Iraq - not to an illegal invasion and ongoing occupation.