Which Democrat said this: "We need to stay the course in Iraq," and "Failure is not an option," in Nov 2003?

Question

The answer is Hillary Rodham Clinton in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. She also stated ''We have no option but to stay involved and committed'' in Iraq and called her vote to authorize the war "One that I stand by." She basically echoed Bush's position on the war all the way until 2005 and only stopped when it was no longer politically feasible. THOUSANDS of soldiers have now died because of her and she simply cannot be trusted with the presidency. Integrity is FAR MORE important than experience and like Bush and Cheney, she has very little. Why in the world would you vote for someone who puts her own ambition ahead of the country's best interests? Vote for Barack Obama who's been against this stupid war from the start. He may not have as much experience but he more than makes up for it with INTEGRITY.

Source: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE3DC1430F930A35755C0A9619C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=

Answer 1

And she continues to say this - what's your point!?

Answer 2

Hillary.
Which Republican said this when questioned?

Q: Do you think the U.S., or U.N. forces, should have moved into Baghdad?

A: No.

Q: Why not?

A: Because if we'd gone to Baghdad we would have been all alone. There wouldn't have been anybody else with us. There would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq. None of the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq.

Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off: part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it -- eastern Iraq -- the Iranians would like to claim, they fought over it for eight years. In the north you've got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey.

It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq.

The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action, and for their families -- it wasn't a cheap war. And the question for the president, in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad, took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth?

Our judgment was, not very many, and I think we got it right.

Answer 3

I do not agree with Senator Clinton's stances on Iraq either, but your contention that SHE is responsible for the deaths of thousands of soldiers is downright ludicrous. Bush would have started and continued this war, regardless of the stance of Senator Clinton (and others).

Put the blame squarely where it belongs....on the dufus in the Oval Office at the present moment.

Answer 4

Remember, we had been trying to remove Saddam since 1991, and with good reason. Al Gore talked more about getting rid of him than Bush did in the 2000 election. Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998. Our policy on Saddam never changed, and it was supported by Republicans and Democrats alike - getting Saddam and helping Iraqis wasn't just Bush's idea, but he was the one who had the courage to do it. You'll never see a democrat with the courage to do what needs to be done, if it requires more courage than it takes to recycle plastic.

Saddam violated the peace treaty for years, and the UN didn’t do its job to enforce its threats, giving us every reason to believe they had WMDs. They were developing weapons that weren't allowed and were 2 months from having mustard gas when we stopped them. Violation of a peace treaty is reason alone for ending the peace treaty.

The anti-war cult, at best, has a short memory. After 9-11 President Bush said "Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.” Congress and the majority of the country agreed with him. Now there are people who claim that the fight against terror in Iraq has distracted us from our war on terror, and they think that makes sense.

There is no question Iraq was a safe-haven for terrorists. Terrorists are still flocking there to fight our young men and women. (Perhaps we have distracted them from their mission in this country?)

The question after 9-11 was who attacked us. The answer turned out to be Al-Quida. Which is why Bush said "we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

After 9/11, anyone who doesn't see the danger of allowing terrorists to burrow into their safe havens is missing something essential.

There were other reasons for the war in Iraq as well. Saddam was a self-proclaimed enemy of the U.S., he started two wars of aggression, supported suicide bombers, and brutally tortured his own people. We justified sending troops to Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti, and Somalia for humanitarian reasons, but it's acceptable to let Saddam use people for road building material in Iraq?

The U.S. decision to get rid of Saddam was the right thing to do, it was the first step to allow the Iraqi people to build a better country and have a better life. There is no question it is in our own best interests to root out all terrorists, no matter where they are.

Answer 5

Which President has a memory shelf life of less than 6 months?

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." —Washington, D.C., Sept. 13, 2001

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." —Washington, D.C., March 13, 2002

Answer 6

You have Hillaryitus. An obsession with Hillary brought on by incessant listening to Rush, Hannity, and Savage.

Answer 7

This is the only thing she has not flipped flopped on yet!!! Like ethanol

Answer 8

Thats right NO democrat can be trusted. Do not elect one.