Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Hillary Clinton Spins Her War Vote Like a Top (UPDATE)
Posted by: McQ on Friday, February 09, 2007

Hillary Clinton should get a clue. I swear, these people act like we haven’t had newspapers, video tape, archives and the internet since 2002 (or before). Hello out there in political oblivion land ... there’s a record of what you say:
New York Sen. Hillary Clinton today insisted her 2002 vote for a resolution authorizing an invasion of Iraq was “not a vote for a pre-emptive war,” but was instead a show of support for further United Nations-directed weapons inspections.

The Democratic presidential front-runner has been criticized by hard-line anti-war groups for making that vote more than four years ago and for not apologizing now, as fellow candidate John Edwards has done.

“I will let others speak for themselves,” she said in a telephone interview from Washington.

“I have taken responsibility for that vote. It was based on the best assessment that I could make at the time, and it was clearly intended to demonstrate support for going to the United Nations to put inspectors into Iraq.

When I set forth my reasons for giving the President that authority, I said that it was not a vote for pre-emptive war,” the former first lady said.

She said the Bush administration forced an end to the final round of weapons inspections and invaded prematurely. The administration is responsible for the status of the war, she said, and for being “grossly misinformed” or for having “twisted the intelligence to satisfy a pre-conceived version of the facts.

“Either interpretation casts grave doubt on their judgment,” she said.
Their judgment?

Or her selective memory?
October 10, 2002. Mrs. Clinton addresses the Senate on the use-of-force resolution. "The facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt," she declares, citing Saddam's record of using chemical weapons, the invasion of Kuwait, and his history of deceiving U.N. weapons inspectors. "As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets," she continues, adding that Saddam "has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members."

While she expresses her preference for working through the U.N. if possible, she adds, "I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 U.N. resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998."
So if it was inherent in the resolution's mandate as she claims and believes, she knew precisely what she was voting to do.

On December 15, 2003, while addressing the Council on Foreign Relations and talking about her vote she said:
"I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote."
Yet today she claims she didn’t vote for “pre-emptive war” or war at all?

In a word: nonsense.

As for being "grossly misinformed" or for having “twisted the intelligence” charge she’s quoted in October of 2004 as saying this:
[Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York said] "The intelligence from Bush 1 to Clinton to Bush 2 was consistent" in concluding Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and was trying to develop a nuclear capability . The senator said she did her own "due diligence" by attending classified briefings on Capitol Hill and at the White House and Pentagon and also by consulting national security officials from the Clinton administration whom she trusts. "To a person, they all agreed with the consensus of the intelligence" that Saddam had WMD".
And on Larry King Live, April 20, 2004, in answer to that specific question she reiterated that her information came from both the Clinton and Bush administrations:
Asked whether she thinks she was "fooled," she replies: "The consensus was the same, from the Clinton Administration to the Bush Administration. It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared about the weapons of mass destruction."
Are people actually going to let her get away with this disingenuous and revisionist crap?

UPDATE: Commenter timactual zero's in on Hillary's line about "Either interpretation casts grave doubt on their judgment", and points out:
Speaking of bad judgment, given the Democrat’s opinions of the intellectual capacity and character of Bush, their vote to authorize Bush to use force is equivalent to giving a loaded weapon to a malicious three year old. And yet they express surprise and shock at his use of that authority and blame him exclusively (and Karl Rove, of course) for the results. Bad judgment indeed.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
I think the ruse here is she like a lot of the Democrats think that if the media don’t say anything, home free. It is really a show of her true character to think she can outright lie and get away with it. After all, her hubby did the same, so why not.

Times change though. America would be a lot better off if the media were to go out of business tomorrow.
 
Written By: bill
URL: http://
Are people actually going to let her get away with this disingenuous and revisionist crap?
If by people your refering to the MSM, your question is rhetorical.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
"...disingenuous and revisionist crap."
Well now, let’s be adult about this. World events move quickly. We may need a president who is talented at dealing "disingenuous and revisionist crap" by 2008. If so, we have our candidate.
 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
She is trying to win over the nutroots, just like Edwards reversal or whatever to keep the bloggers.

The election is close to two years away and she figures she has enough time to put her hypocrisy behind her with the rest of us. So for now, she is trying to repair her relationship with the nutroots.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
I fear that when Hillary wins the Dem nomination for ’08, Republicans will self-censor and NOT call her to the carpet on her many previous statements. Any questioning of Hillary for her past statements will be assailed by her camp as an unjust attack on her personally. In an attempt to placate the undecided ’moderate mom vote’, white male Republicans will lock their family jewels away for fear that any tough questioning of Hillary could be seen as Old White Guys attacking poor Mom... Remember when Rick Lazio got too close to her during their debate??
 
Written By: BWIII
URL: http://
Are people actually going to let her get away with this disingenuous and revisionist crap?
In a word, yes. You got no beef in this burger, McQ.

Why?

Perhaps because the country has been numbed by this kind of tactic on various issues by the Former Party In Power (tm).

Republican’s like Cheney and Rove taught us (and The Hill too, I’m sure) that it is OK to change positions when the facts do not suit the paradigm.::coughWMDcough:::

And just look at how the Repubical Congressional survivors have rallied round the Prezdints war....flip.

Flop.

What type cheese do you expect with your whine? She is acting like the perfect Republicrat! Wheres the beef again?
 
Written By: Rick Day
URL: http://goplobby.org
She is trying to win over the nutroots, just like Edwards reversal or whatever to keep the bloggers.
I agree. When a politician speaks, ask yourself who the is the target audience for this particular script.

Opposition to Hillary based on her Iraq war positions has been hardening in the Moonbatosphere and among the Democratic party "base." This particular demographic is disproportionately influential in Democratic primaries.

Of course Hillary is well aware of the history that led up to the Iraq war, but many of the people in her target audience were in junior high school ten years ago, and, in any case the Moonbats have their own "intelligent design" narrative that cannot be reconciled to the historical record except through faith, conspiracy theories, and "evidence" culled from homemade websites.

Therefore, any reference that Hillary made to actual historical facts in an attempt to explain her war vote would only anger her audience further. The only way for her to make peace is to sit down and drink the Kool-Aid with them. After she gets the nomination watch for her to tack back to the center.


 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
Are people actually going to let her get away with this disingenuous and revisionist crap?
One word answer: Yes

Did you expect anything else? BUSHLIED has become an article of faith among the left.

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
The fly in the left’s ointment is they are so heavily invested in defeat that success will doom them. Many mistakes were made in Iraq early on, but one irrefutable truth still stands out, Iraqis want to be free. How else do you explain the recruitment rates in the Iraqi army and police? Iraq still wants to be free, has had enough of dictators and tyrants and will likely prove it if given the chance.

If the surge works, and I think it will, principally because who has been put in charge. General Petraeus, the very same general who defeated the terrorist in Fallujah, wrote the brand new 282-page Army Field Manual called FM 3-24 on fighting insurgencies, and now is back in charge of it all. The new FM up front and above all else, recognizes each conflict is unique and tactics must be fluid and adaptive. Practice makes perfect, he is one of the best.

The evidence is beginning to assemble, this time it’s for real. It’s still a noble cause, and the berserk left is in for a whipping. The natural state of the human condition is to be free.
 
Written By: bill
URL: http://
""Either interpretation casts grave doubt on their judgment," she said"

Speaking of bad judgement, given the Democrat’s opinions of the intellectual capacity and character of Bush, their vote to authorize Bush to use force is equivalent to giving a loaded weapon to a malicious three year old. And yet they express surprise and shock at his use of that authority and blame him exclusicely(and Carl Rove, of course) for the results. Bad judgement indeed.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
The Dems will do all they can to insure that the surge does NOT work and hope that the anti-war mood and anti-Republican mood a year and one-half from now will be so conflated that NO ONE will bother to think about comments from 2004. The mentally deficient peaceniks have way too much power in the base and primaries and the leadership has way over-sold the anti-war theme to their Liberal center. Kerry on This Bleak with George "the Caveman" Stephanopoulos today as much as admits that he didn’t stand a chance in the primaries—and it’s largely because of these facts. Hillary will be doomed ONLY IF the media thinks Obama has a chance and then THEY will parade out these quotes and show her to be a vascillating scoundrel, NOT the brave new FDR that she will then be trying to depict herself as.
 
Written By: Dumb Ox
URL: http://thomistic.blogspot.com
On channel 5 we see carefully researched "Hypocrisy of the Right" and on channel 7 we see carefully researched "Hypocrisy of the Left."
And over here we see re-runs of both shows.

When does the new season start?
 
Written By: kindlingman
URL: http://
I had to break it to you, but this goes beyond "hypocrisy". We’re into outright lies in this particular case. New enough season for you?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
hardcore or [url=http://amazing-gallery.info/]hardcore[/url] or http://amazing-gallery.info/ airline tickets
 
Written By: Hardcore
URL: http://amazing-gallery.info/
I feel most Humans at one time suffer from Foot in Mouth Disease, which by the way is curable.

Actions speak louder then words.

I do believe Colin Powell suffered from this same epidemic and stood down as to not face further redicule for his voice while infected with this disease. I do understand his decission, and departure.... his way of appologizing. He has my highest respects.

On the other hand Hilirary has choosen to appologize for the effects it had on her and remain in the ring.

So far she has my respect for doing so, and as I would not condem the average Joe for past transgressions when an apology has been extended, I do not condem Sen. Clinton for her’s as she has asked for FORGIVENESS.
 
Written By: Creamyyy
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider