BF2S Forums Hillary Clinton: For the war, before she was against it

Rewind back to Clinton administration and he was saying exactly the same thing The President and his Cabinet have said regarding Iraq.  Given they held the same opinion about Saddam and his regime, I find it curious that the president who actually did something instead of sitting around is the only one criticized.  Arguing WMDs further is pointless because it's obvious you won't acknowledge what the UN and the Clinton administration said in relation to Saddam, let alone Bush.  Imo, removing Saddam in and of itself was a good enough reason to go in, I hope we can agree on that.  I've found no one that can logically advocate Saddam's continued leadership given the treatment his citizens endured.

I agree with you there that a de-fund and pullout would be a serious blow to any stability.  In whatever manner stability can be achieved I hope it happens soon.  However, I think it will be difficult with insurgents being sent in from the outside specificaly to de-stablize the region.  Whether it's 3 states divided by religious affiliation or some other means, we need to get the Iraqis in control of their country.  Destroyed the country? It's better now that before we came in, the media just refuses to report to immense progress that has been achieved.

Last edited by Stingray24 (2007-01-30 09:38:29)

topal63 wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

I would like you guys to throw some blame towards the Iraqis once and a while.

That's right the Iraqi people brought this on themselves. Gee, how did everyone miss that?

When the French helped us kick the red coats back to England, we built a country.  Now, how the fuck was anyone supposed to know the only way to control the entire Iraqi population was thru rape rooms and mass ethnic killings?  Kind of hard to predict something like that.

^^ I see a big difference though.  Back then there was basically no infrastructure or basic services, no real laws or organization.  We (a lot of countries) are offering to help build and supply everything they need to move forward.  The post Rev War US did not have that.  Now, if the Iraqi people would stop letting insurgents blow up supply convoys and stuff like that, they would be much better off right?

topal63 wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

^^ Spin it all you want, they have all the help and money they need, but are pissing it away IMO.

Dude, I am not spinning anything... it is what it is.

Well, my opinion is formed from what I have seen up close with my own eyes and ears.  It may be wrong, but time will tell I guess.

topal63 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

topal63 wrote:

^^ You are smarter than that political statement - you just regurgitated.

Hillary is smarter than that as well. That was my point.

It is obvious to me, you didn't get my point... so here it is.

It is in equality to say:
(1)
"Clinton did not do enough as President - and left the seeds of terrorism for another, he was not the right Guard for the Post."

As it is to say:
(2)
"Bush did nothing about terrorism during his first year and half as President, prior to the 9/11 event, and was not the right Guard for the Post."

Both statements are political BS, and are common meaningless hind-sight garbage you simply hear over and over; then NOT; until someone regurgitates it again.

And . . .you could not possibly think, or argue effectively, that Hillary considered statement (1) at the time she made her statements in March 2003. . . those nonsensical politicized Hannity-type or Posner-type statements that Clinton should have arrested Osama Bin Laden & could have - happened after that; or entered into existence as another media sound-byte; after that Video.

So how is she smarter than that - is she clairvoyant?

Bush was in office only 7 months before the attacks. I think it's quite obvious the planning was taking place while Clinton was responsible for protecting America.

By smarter she should no better than to say such comments. That is my point.

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-01-30 16:22:06)

Stingray24 wrote:

Skip the lame song at the beginning and get right to the good stuff at 6:34. . . she completely contradicts her current mantra. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYATbsu2cP8

Fav quotes:
"I have no belief Saddam Hussein will not disarm . . . this is something I've followed for more than a decade.  If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming . .. For nearly 20 years the principal reason that women and children in Iraq have suffered is because of his leadership."

She further states that she looked over the intelligence she had access to in detail and supported the action against Saddam because of his "obsession with weapons of mass destrution".  Now she says she was deceived.  Wait a sec . .. the "smartest woman in the US" deceived?

This is why I find it so ironic that conservatives hate her.  She's very close to being Republican herself.

Screw Hillary...  Obama FTW

Stingray24 wrote:

Even if Hillary was close to Republican, she's not conservative in any way, shape, or form.  Hillary and Obama are equally liberal along with the rest of the Democratic party.  The only difference is that Obama has a more polished exterior and presentation.  Look at their voting records and I would bet they're remarkably similar.  Obama is positioning himself as a moderate, but his record proves otherwise.

Hillary is pro-war.  That's a conservative view, for the most part.  She's in favor of censoring violence from video games -- social conservative view (although some other liberals support it too).  She's pro-death penalty (another conservative view).

There are plenty more that I can name where she takes the conservative stance.

Obama is more liberal, but ironically, he resonates better with moderates.

As for the Democratic Party...  You can't tell me that Ted Kennedy and Joe Lieberman are equally liberal.

Obama is just proof that liberalism isn't as far off from the mainstream as conservatives would like to believe.

Granted, you are correct that much of his appeal is from his presentation.  That's very true of several other popular politicians though -- Reagan was probably the most well known and well liked politician for his sheer charisma, even though his policies were typically more conservative than the mainstream.  So yes, presentation can be very important to getting elected....