red states rule
01-31-2007, 07:43 PM
Poor Hillary. The libs have told us for years how she is such a strong willed women, now she is blaming others for her actions
Sounds like she wrote the script for Bill when he would bite the lower lip and ask for understanding and pity
Hillary's big lie grows
The senator needs to end the victim act and
stop blaming Bush for her vote on Iraq
There she goes again. Hillary Clinton told another whopper. Actually, it's the same whopper she and her husband told before.
In Iowa last weekend, Clinton was asked about her 2002 vote to suppport the Iraq war. It's a tough question for her, given the war's unpopularity among Democrats. Moreover, her two leading opponents for the 2008 presidential nomination have crowd-pleasing positions. Former Sen. John Edwards said his vote for the war was a mistake and he regretted it, and Sen. Barack Obama opposed the war before the invasion.
So Clinton's camp sees her pro-war vote as heavy baggage. She has never denounced it or said it was wrong, but, at times, has done something worse. She has lied about the reasons for it.
Sunday in Davenport, Iowa, was one of those times. Asked about her vote by a man in front of a mostly adoring rally, Clinton trotted out the whopper. She said she was misled by President Bush about the resolution. "He said at the time he was going to the United Nations to put inspectors back into Iraq, to figure out whether they still had any WMD," she said, adding, "He took the authority that others and I gave him and he misused it."
That's very similar to how Bill Clinton defended her last year. In an interview with ABC News, he said Dems who voted for the resolution did so only to force Saddam Hussein to give up, not to use force. "They felt, frankly, let down" about the invasion, Clinton said, painting Dems as dupes of Bush.
It's a clever argument, but it's not true. It's not even within spinning distance of being true.
Here are the facts. The resolution passed the Senate on Oct. 10, 2002, by a vote of 77 to 23, with support from Clinton, Edwards and about 20 other Dems.
Its purpose was clear from its title: "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq." Opponents, including Sens. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), voted no because they thought it meant war was inevitable.
They had good reason to worry. Bush made it clear he intended to "disarm" Iraq and the resolution gave him that authority. He could use our armed forces, Section 3 said, "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" to defend America and enforce UN resolutions. Separately, an amendment requiring Security Council approval for an invasion was defeated. Clinton helped to defeat that amendment.
To hear the Clintons fudge now, you would think the invasion began the very next day. In fact, it began five months later, in March 2003. During those months, as U.S. troops massed in the Mideast, there is no record of Hillary Clinton opposing the invasion or claiming she had been misled.
Indeed, an article in The Washington Post on March 9, 2003, lamented that Congress had been mostly silent since the resolution passed. The only major exception came when Kennedy, Byrd and some House members urged Bush to let weapons inspectors finish their work. Clinton was not recorded as being part of that effort.
That the war has gone badly is a tragedy and a disaster. It is why Democrats won Congress last year. But anybody who wants to be President and commander in chief cannot play the role of victim when the going gets tough on the campaign trail. Blaming others for your own conduct and fudging history are not the right stuff for the Oval Office. Even, or especially, when your name is Clinton.
Originally published on January 31, 2007
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/493272p-415451c.html
Sounds like she wrote the script for Bill when he would bite the lower lip and ask for understanding and pity
Hillary's big lie grows
The senator needs to end the victim act and
stop blaming Bush for her vote on Iraq
There she goes again. Hillary Clinton told another whopper. Actually, it's the same whopper she and her husband told before.
In Iowa last weekend, Clinton was asked about her 2002 vote to suppport the Iraq war. It's a tough question for her, given the war's unpopularity among Democrats. Moreover, her two leading opponents for the 2008 presidential nomination have crowd-pleasing positions. Former Sen. John Edwards said his vote for the war was a mistake and he regretted it, and Sen. Barack Obama opposed the war before the invasion.
So Clinton's camp sees her pro-war vote as heavy baggage. She has never denounced it or said it was wrong, but, at times, has done something worse. She has lied about the reasons for it.
Sunday in Davenport, Iowa, was one of those times. Asked about her vote by a man in front of a mostly adoring rally, Clinton trotted out the whopper. She said she was misled by President Bush about the resolution. "He said at the time he was going to the United Nations to put inspectors back into Iraq, to figure out whether they still had any WMD," she said, adding, "He took the authority that others and I gave him and he misused it."
That's very similar to how Bill Clinton defended her last year. In an interview with ABC News, he said Dems who voted for the resolution did so only to force Saddam Hussein to give up, not to use force. "They felt, frankly, let down" about the invasion, Clinton said, painting Dems as dupes of Bush.
It's a clever argument, but it's not true. It's not even within spinning distance of being true.
Here are the facts. The resolution passed the Senate on Oct. 10, 2002, by a vote of 77 to 23, with support from Clinton, Edwards and about 20 other Dems.
Its purpose was clear from its title: "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq." Opponents, including Sens. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), voted no because they thought it meant war was inevitable.
They had good reason to worry. Bush made it clear he intended to "disarm" Iraq and the resolution gave him that authority. He could use our armed forces, Section 3 said, "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" to defend America and enforce UN resolutions. Separately, an amendment requiring Security Council approval for an invasion was defeated. Clinton helped to defeat that amendment.
To hear the Clintons fudge now, you would think the invasion began the very next day. In fact, it began five months later, in March 2003. During those months, as U.S. troops massed in the Mideast, there is no record of Hillary Clinton opposing the invasion or claiming she had been misled.
Indeed, an article in The Washington Post on March 9, 2003, lamented that Congress had been mostly silent since the resolution passed. The only major exception came when Kennedy, Byrd and some House members urged Bush to let weapons inspectors finish their work. Clinton was not recorded as being part of that effort.
That the war has gone badly is a tragedy and a disaster. It is why Democrats won Congress last year. But anybody who wants to be President and commander in chief cannot play the role of victim when the going gets tough on the campaign trail. Blaming others for your own conduct and fudging history are not the right stuff for the Oval Office. Even, or especially, when your name is Clinton.
Originally published on January 31, 2007
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/493272p-415451c.html