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.
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.
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.
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??
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.
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.
""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.
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.
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.