Or are you a baffled as I am that both Bill and Hillary Clinton now act as though they did not support the war in the beginning?

Bill Clinton's Claim of Opposing Iraq War From Outset Disputed

Bill Clinton's statement against March 2003 invasion of Iraq

Bill was maybe trying to cover all the bases at the time of the invasion - so he could share the credit or avoid the blame, depending on how things went.

Hillary (along with many other Democrat politicians - I believe Scotty has a list of them somewhere...) certainly voted for giving Bush the power to invade. Anyway, however she tries to spin it now, she facilitated the invasion.

By why feel baffled by what they are trying to do? They're politicians; they're 'bending the truth' because that might help them get into power. Even with the much-celebrated 'success' of the surge, the war in Iraq is not popular, and is hardly a success from a wider perspective, so the Clintons must have decided they need to dissociate themselves from it.

This kind of thing is maybe not cricket, but it's surely not baffling - it's been happening for centuries.

A timeline of Hillary on Iraq.

It doesn't make any difference whether Bill Clinton supported the War in Iraq or not; the important thing is that he didn't invade Iraq when he was president and put the US in another Vietnam.

With regard to Hillary, I don't blame her, or any of ther other Democrats nor any of the Republicans who voted to authorize bush to use his judgment. All they really had to go on was intel from the administration, which we now know was bogus, cherry-picked, and ill-informed. (Had I been in her shoes, I would not have voted to give bush the authority to anything until we had wiped out the Taliban and captured the guy behind the 9/11 attacks. But obviously, I am in the minority on caring about solving that particular problem.)

I DO blame Hillary for not supporting Murtha's and other resolutions to get us out of that mess. I hope that a better candidate from the Democratic party emerges. But her actions aren't too much different than the leaders in the Republican party's race.

Is she different than McCain, who is now sucking up to the same people who viciously smeared him 8 years ago and who he called dangerous? Where is the moral principles there?

Is she different than Thompson, who is against abortion, but is certainly willing to work for people who advise some pregnant women to abort and give them legal advice, as long as his price is met? (Did they pay him in silver? How many pieces, Fred, did it take to buy your principles?)

Is she different than Giuliani, who now takes credit for tax cuts that he worked against, who talks about stopping "record crime" as mayor, when crime started dropping in New York a few years before he was elected, and who had to be dragged kicking and screaming for his office after his last term, saying that the laws regarding his term ending and the new mayor's term starting should be changed because "New York Needs me"?

Is she worse than Romney, who has danced with every partner that looks like they'll take him home in his quest to get elected? Just what are his current positions on things, and how long before they changes yet again?

Hillary is a politician, just like the leading Republican candidates. She, like them, looks out the window to see which way the wind is blowing before leaving in the morning. The real shame here is that we always manage to elect these types of people.

DG ,you say that the important thing is Clinton didn't invade when he was President. That is not to say he would never have invaded, whatever the evidence and whatever the circumstances. Judging by what he said before,in what circumstances would he have invaded ?

It is my opinion that no matter who was president in March 2003, we would still have invaded Iraq, and that president would be getting the same treatment as Bush is now. Regarding military actions, the US president is just a patsy.

So who actually was the driving force behind the decision to invade?

On Clinton - I guess she needs to be seen as "anti-war" at the moment to see off the challenge from Obama, who had the wisdom to be against the invasion from the start. Once she secures the nomination, will she drift back towards the notion that this catastrophe has somehow been worth it?

Who, ultimately, was in position as Commander in Chief, at the time that the invasion was launched? Is there a scurrying about among those who support the president, now if not then, to spread the culpability for having lauched an ill-advised fiasco? Since when has the excuse, "Well, I wasn't the ONLY one who blundered!" been acceptable? The guy responsible was also they guy who could have abstained. As HST said, "The Buck Stops Here" at the president's desk. Could Dubya have waited until Hillary et al were begging him to invade?

quote:

Or are you a baffled as I am that both Bill and Hillary Clinton now act as though they did not support the war in the beginning?

Not at all! Isn't that what liars do?
They are expert liars.



Er that would depend on what the
definition of is is.

Fred, we know he didn't invade, even though, according to many bush supporters, he felt Saddam had WMDs. What changed with regard to Iraq between his last day in office and the day bush invaded? Before bush invaded, we knew al Qeada and bin Laden were behind 9/11. UN inspectors had not found any WMDs. Saddam hadn't become a worse tyrant to his people, and his days of gassing the Kurds were during Reagan's term. Why would Bill Clinton suddenly have decided to invade Iraq in 2003 if the situation hadn't changed since his last day in office?

In any case, he isn't president, bush is. And he didn't start a war with Iraq, bush did. And Hillary's shifting position on the war are not too much different than some of her fellow senators on both sides of the aisle nor are shifting positions unusual for politicians trying to get their party's nomination.

quote:

Originally posted by newnickname:
So who actually was the driving force behind the decision to invade?

The DOD of course. They advise the president, not the other way around.

NNN I am baffled, even though it has been going on for centuries, because there is such a clear trail of evidence to the contrary. No couple is more public in the United States than the Clintons.

Clinton's military action against Iraq

By the way, and perhaps a shock to some of you, I still think Hillary Clinton's floor speech to authorize the use of force against Iraq was quite well crafted and reasonable. She should never be ashamed of it.

Yes, Clinton (Bill) would have been a great used-car salesman - assuring you that having the wheels off is a feature.

There's a difference, though, between limited airstrikes and an invasion/occupation. The crazies in the current administration are advocating airstrikes against Iran, for example, but even they are not crazy enough to be talking about another 'liberation' with the full shock-and-awe plus ground forces.

Politicians have been telling bare-faced, patent lies for centuries, too. I guess even obvious absurdities are swallowed by supporters, somehow. Maybe the bigger the lie, and the more po-faced the telling of it, the better it goes over. On November 11, for example, Bush trotted out the "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here" line yet again, without getting jeered off the podium, as he should have been.

And, yes, that floor speech is interesting - "A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort," for example. Clearly, at the time, she was not 'voting for war' - although that's how Bush took the resolution.

This isn't baffling, but it is ridiculous; apparently, Karl Rove is also trying to put some distance between himself and the Iraq invasion.

'...He went on to paint a picture of a White House pushed into war, and laid the blame for much of what has happened since on a Congress that had "made things move too fast." If not for Congress, you see, there would have been more time for weapons inspections, and to build a broader coalition...'

So Bush & Co were pushed into the invasion by Congress? Looks like everybody just ganged up on poor old George and made him do it.

Seriously though, is all this "Wasn't me!" maneuvering a sign that things in Iraq are about to get really bad, or is it just electioneering?

This kind of thing is really nothing new for Bill Clinton. He was always a master at getting to know what kind of an audience he had and giving a speech telling them just exactly what they want to hear. Yet his blind supporters eat it right up. Historically Bill Clinton never took a stand he wasn't willing to change later on to satisfy the audience he was talking to. And if recent debates show us anything, Hillary is the same way.

Yeah, I'm baffled too. How come so many people who have supported the war in Iraq from the gitgo, who think it's going so swimmingly, now want to share the credit with so many people who were even remotely involved???

Is there a single one of the leading contenders of either party who has not done a complete reversal of their declared policy or opinion on anything significant ?

quote:

Originally posted by FredPuli:
Is there a single one of the leading contenders of either party who has not done a complete reversal of their declared policy or opinion on anything significant ?

I believe that would have to be Dennis Kusinich. (sp?) Oops, I guess he's not leading.

quote:

Yeah, I'm baffled too. How come so many people who have supported the war in Iraq from the gitgo, who think it's going so swimmingly, now want to share the credit with so many people who were even remotely involved???

Because most of you of the left persuasion refuse to believe the truth about all of your lefties that supported the war. You want to put all of the blame on the President.