Comments on: Hillary Clinton Says She Wouldn’t Have Voted For Iraq War

By: legion

legion — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 22:23:07 +0000

sigh? The British seem to see it a little differently...

In the testimony revealed today Mr Ross, 40, who helped negotiate several UN security resolutions on Iraq, makes it clear that Mr Blair must have known Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction. He said that during his posting to the UN, "at no time did HMG [Her Majesty's Government] assess that Iraq's WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK or its interests."

If you really want to call the degraded, decade-plus-old mustard gas cannisters left over from before Desert Storm 'WMDs', I suppose you could try to argue that point, but it'd be rough since about the only threat they posed was if someone tripped over them...

By: charles austin

charles austin — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 21:12:57 +0000

And if Hillary knew then what she knows now, would she have more strongly encouraged Bill to take Osama bin Laden into custody when he had the chance. I mean, if you want to play the hindsight game, you have to play it fair no matter how the chips may fall.

By: McGehee

McGehee — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 21:06:39 +0000

There were no WMDs, and that fact was known (and concealed) by the administration at the time.

[sigh]

By: Electric Venom » Blog Archive » Hindsight’s 20/20 For Hillary

Electric Venom » Blog Archive » Hindsight’s 20/20 For Hillary — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 19:38:03 +0000

[...] Hindsight’s 20/20 For Hillary Spewed by Venomous Kate in Liberals Bite Hillary Clinton says she wouldn’t have voted for the Iraq war if she knew then what she knows now. S’okay, Ms. Clinton. Most folks who voted for your husband feel the same way. 12.19.06 at 1:29 pm | More like this:»Early Bird»Hillary Clinton Calls For Inquest»Hillary Plays The Waiting Game Send Trackback Trackback URL for this post: http://www.electricvenom.com/2006/12/19/hindsights-2020-for-hillary/trackback/ [...]

By: anjin-san

anjin-san — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 18:55:54 +0000

Sorry Hillary, you can't have it both ways.

By: legion

legion — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:33:35 +0000

Al,
Right on! The whole for it before I was against it' meme is a pile of crap - a lot of people trusted Bush & took his warnings at face value. There were _no_ WMDs, and that fact was known (and concealed) by the administration at the time. Iraq was _not_ a threat to anyone outside the ME. Hussein was _not_ in league with Bin Laden. The invasion has _not_ decreased terrorism, made the US safer, protected US interests overseas, cost less than a couple billion $$, spread democracy, etc., etc. Oh yeah, and we've let Afghanistan slide back into the hands of the Taliban & AQ - the people who _actually attacked us_.

I'm hardly a Hillary booster, but has there been _anything_ about invading Iraq the Bush & his enablers said that has proven correct and/or true?

By: Al

Al — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 16:57:23 +0000

I agree. I knew enough to be against the war before it started, and Hilary's supposed to be smarter than me. That said, it's important to acknowledge that everyone was fed incorrect information about Iraq. It's valid to say, "I was misled, and if I hadn't been I would have voted differently." To return to the baseball analogy, what if you'd been told that the Cubs had signed Pujols and Santana? Well, I still would've bet against them, 'cause...jeez, it's the Cubs. But at least those hopeful few would have had half an argument.

By: Bithead

Bithead — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 16:55:11 +0000

As I said at my place, this morning:

Denying that her vote then was the right thing to do, aside from that denial being the wrong thing morally to do.. (What hold do morals have on this woman, after all?) … is not exactly political cover, except for those alone among the far left. I grant you, that the far left is the first hurdle she’s got to go over given the primary structure. But it does strike me that she’s going to have a larger hurdle to get over with the general election , at which point she’s going to have to backtrack on her placating the far left.

At this stage of the game, were this anyone else, I would be asking questions like “why doesn’t she just tell the truth?”. The problem is, I don’t think she knows what that is. Or, cares, for that matter.

By: Anderson

Anderson — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 15:58:38 +0000

Hillary's statement would indeed be unremarkable ... if Cheney and others weren't on the record saying that, if they'd known etc., they *still* would've invaded Iraq.

By: LJD

LJD — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 15:36:11 +0000

It appears Clinton and Kerry are sharing a brain... Now if only we could run a country based on 'If we knew then what we know now...'

By: Bandit

Bandit — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 15:34:31 +0000

I would have bet on the Cardinals in the WS if I knew what I do now.

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 15:09:56 +0000

You don't run for President based on the votes you would have cast, you run for president based on the votes you did cast.

By: Sister Toldjah

Sister Toldjah — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 15:05:46 +0000

Hillary supported the war before she was against it...

Sounding very John Kerry-esque, Senator Clinton announced yesterday that she would not have voted to go to war with Iraq if she had known then what she did today:
Clinton has often been asked if she regrets her vote authorizing military action and she ...

By: charles austin

charles austin — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 14:40:35 +0000

So, Hillary has adopted JOhn Kerry's winning strategy of voting for it before she was against it. Such a blatant, explicit reliance on hindsight and it is treated as news. Jeez.

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 13:29:31 +0000

If Ms. Clinton decides to retire from the Senate (or when she leaves the presidency if that should happen), she can always teach a course at a prestigious university in the Dept. of Having Your Cake And Eating It, Too.