• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Hillary's Malleable War Opinion

katrina

Well-known member
Listening to Hillary Clinton’s clumsy attempts to paint herself as a longtime opponent of the war in Iraq, one has to wonder just how dumb she thinks the American voters are. She now seems to be claiming that her vote for the war resolution in 2002 was really not a vote to go to war!

In lines reminiscent of her husband’s famous “it depends on what the meaning of the word is,” Hillary told the New Hampshire Union Leader last weekend that her vote for the 2002 Joint Resolution, authorizing President Bush to deploy U.S. military forces in Iraq, was “not a vote for a preemptive war.” No, according to Mrs. Clinton, her vote was actually “a show of support for further United Nations weapons inspections.”

Huh?

After several days of contentious debate in the Senate on what she described at the time as “the hardest decision” she had ever made, did she really think that she was voting to make the weapons inspectors feel better?

Did she actually read what the bill said before she cast that most difficult vote? Because the bill clearly said that:

“The president is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate…”

Was that so hard to understand?

Apparently only in hindsight.

Hillary voted ‘Yes” on the resolution, along with the Senate Republicans. At the time that the bill passed in October of 2002, she was in the midst of yet another makeover campaign. This time, she was repositioning herself as a centrist, to show that she wasn’t just a knee-jerk liberal. Being a hawk on Iraq was part of the strategy. And, with the polls showing overwhelming support for the resolution, Hillary’s vote was a cinch.

Two months later, after a trip to Iraq, Mrs. Clinton was still supportive of the war effort. In her first appearance on a national news show since her election in 2000, she told Tim Russert on Meet The Press that she wasn’t concerned about whether Saddam had actually had WMDs:
''I think that Saddam Hussein was certainly a potential threat'' and ''was seeking weapons of mass destruction, whether or not he actually had them.”

But now she claims that she was mislead and would not have voted for the resolution if she had known then what she knows now. Which is what? She’s known for years that there were no WMDs.

Now she’s against a troop surge in Iraq, too. But in late 2003, she also told Russert that we needed “more troops” in Iraq.

At about the same time, she spoke to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. According to Salon.com, “Clinton made four key points: She doesn't regret voting to authorize the president to go to war; she's "delighted" that Saddam Hussein was captured; American troops should stay in Iraq for as long as they're needed, and at higher levels than present, if necessary; and the postwar fight to secure Iraq is crucial.”

But that was then and now is now. At this point, she’s a presidential candidate and she’s suddenly adamantly against sending more troops. Why? Because she can’t afford to be a hawk in a field of anti-war democrats.

Apparently Mrs. Clinton believes that even though she voted for the war resolution, she, in fact, opposed it because she gave a speech on the Senate floor, saying she was not voting for a new “preemptive doctrine.”

And speaking of preemptive, what is Hillary talking about? Did she think that the Congress authorized the President to use troops in the event that Iraq attacked the U.S.? Of course not.
If the speech was meant to be a CYA memo, it won’t fly. The Senator who claims that she has the ‘responsibility gene’ and stands by her pro-war vote is trying to have it both ways. So when Mrs. Clinton says she knows more now than when she cast the vote, she must be referring to polling data showing that Democratic party primary voters don’t agree with her vote. That’s the only thing that’s new.
 

jigs

Well-known member
this is the best you dems have to offer????? some old hag who thinks we are all dumb enough to fall for crap like that??
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Hillary won't last...and Obama will fade away.

His major problem is gonna be that the blacks won't accept cause he's half white...and a lot of the whites won't accept him cause he's half black.
 

jigs

Well-known member
so, Kola, who will wind up the front runner on the ticket for you cut and run/tax and spend/babies vacuuming/ poor oppressing democrats?
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Gosh could ya be a wee bit more melodramatic there?


Not sure....it's hide and watch for both sides right now.

Really right now , even though he's one of yours, I kinda like Rudy G.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
jodywy said:
Really right now , even though he's one of yours, I kinda like Rudy G.
but will he leave my hand guns alone?

City people have a different mentality towards guns than country people. Gangs, crime and irresponsibility of and fear of fellow men/women are part of their judgment towards guns. Country folk believe the Smith and Wesson is what has made the West equal.
 

memanpa

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
jodywy said:
Really right now , even though he's one of yours, I kinda like Rudy G.
but will he leave my hand guns alone?

City people have a different mentality towards guns than country people. Gangs, crime and irresponsibility of and fear of fellow men/women are part of their judgment towards guns. Country folk believe the Smith and Wesson is what has made the West equal.
no it was MR COLT that made us equal! :D :D
mr smith and mr wesson only jumped on colts back to help :D :D
do not forget mr winchester!
or mr higgins
 

Steve

Well-known member
KolanuRaven:
Really right now , even though he's one of yours, I kinda like Rudy G.

Maybe it is because he often acts like one of yours.....

Rudy Giuliani on Abortion,...* Pro-choice; no ban on partial-birth abortions.

Rudy Giuliani on gay rights,...* Opposed Pres. Bush's ban on gay marriage. * Pro gay rights. * Extended all city benefits to same-sex couples. (yet ..."Opposes prayer in school")

Rudy Giuliani on civil rights,... * Supports affirmative action.

Rudy Giuliani on Gun Control,...* All gun owners should pass written test. ,...The only "gun right" is to self-defense against criminals and the right to a secure home and a secure person. Tighten registration rules and keep guns away from kids.

Rudy Giuliani on Immigration,...* Supports Senate guest worker plan & path to citizenship.

as for his inability to maintain a stable relationship....???

but other then his northeastern liberal tendencies, he would make a great candidate
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
as for his inability to maintain a stable relationship....???

but other then his northeastern liberal tendencies, he would make a great candidate

That pretty well sums up my impression of Rudy G. too
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Steve said:
KolanuRaven:
Really right now , even though he's one of yours, I kinda like Rudy G.

Maybe it is because he often acts like one of yours.....

Rudy Giuliani on Abortion,...* Pro-choice; no ban on partial-birth abortions.

Rudy Giuliani on gay rights,...* Opposed Pres. Bush's ban on gay marriage. * Pro gay rights. * Extended all city benefits to same-sex couples. (yet ..."Opposes prayer in school")

Rudy Giuliani on civil rights,... * Supports affirmative action.

Rudy Giuliani on Gun Control,...* All gun owners should pass written test. ,...The only "gun right" is to self-defense against criminals and the right to a secure home and a secure person. Tighten registration rules and keep guns away from kids.

Rudy Giuliani on Immigration,...* Supports Senate guest worker plan & path to citizenship.

as for his inability to maintain a stable relationship....???

but other then his northeastern liberal tendencies, he would make a great candidate



Maybe you're right....besdies what's wrong with a written test to own a gun? You have to pass a test to drive? You have to pass a test to get a hunting licenses?
 

IL Rancher

Well-known member
DEpending on the state and your age you don't have to pass a test for a hunting licsense. In Illinois if you were born after 1981 you have to take hunter ed but you are nit required to if you were born prior too that year. In Montana, at least when I was there, I just walekd in and bought a liscense. An archery liscense required a class but you could also bring a valid liscense from another state and that would count.. This would have be 1999 so things might have changed since than.
 

Mrs.Greg

Well-known member
Trust a Canadian when we say Gun control only "controls" the legal....the illegal guns are not being registered.Someone who wants to own a gun illegally will NOT register themselves or thier guns....Canada's living proof of that :!:
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
I didn't say take away guns....just have as a part of the paperwork you fill out upon purchase of your weapon a test that is sent in with the required papers.

I know rules and laws differ from state to state but surely you can't say that gun education is a BAD thing? So many people don't know the proper way to handle a gun.

I say this as my father is and has always been Fed firearms dealer and I KNOW the proper way to handle firearms and I see soooooo many people who do not know the correct way and get hurt or killed.

As a supporter of the right to bear arms I don't see anything wrong with registration of the weapon to the owner nor education in the use of said weapon. Ignorance in this case will get you killed.
 

passin thru

Well-known member
You know every single person I know that handles a firearm..........knows how to handle one. I remember Hunter Education classes, now if that wasn't a joke. Kind of like an EPA Pesticide Applicators Card....a joke. But you can say one thing, the goveernment know who we are that has an EPA or Hunters Card.............they know right where they have to go to confiscate your guns.
But this is a liberal tactic, we can handle it all but my neighbor CANT so we(gov) needs to help him. Once liberals learn that we can not legislate against all stupidity and prevent all accidents we will be a he77 of a lot better off.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
I didn't say a test was in the 2nd Adm. DUH!!! EVERYONE who owns a gun knows how to shoot one correctly and safely?

Have you been hunting with Dick Cheney? I can give no better example of foolish and sloppy and dangerous use of a weapon. What about all these shootings, esp during hunting season, that happen where the people say, " I thought that shotgun was empty". Well ' I thought' don't cut it...when it's a weapon you should KNOW...PERIOD!!!

It's not a liberal or conservative thing....it's a 'smarts' thing! If you're that stupid to think that people are ' born' knowing how to handle a gun, then PT I've given you WAY too much credit for being a responsible individual.
 
Top