When it comes to flipping on an issue and making you believe he never said (or did) what, in fact, he said (or did), no one can top Bill Clinton. He makes you want to believe him because he is such a good old rogue with a unique gift of persuasion. Had he not been selling himself to voters, readers of his book and audiences at six-figure honorariums, he might have been the top salesman at any car dealership in the country. Bill Clinton could sell snowmobiles to Miamians.
Not so with Hillary Rodham Clinton, who thinks the Democratic Party notion of entitlement entitles her to be president. We are asked to believe that this woman is the most intelligent woman in America, a person with deep convictions, unique vision and the experience to lead the nation in troubled times.
In Iowa last weekend, Sen. Clinton showed why she shouldn't - and I believe won't - be president. She deliberately misled the audience about her vote to authorize President Bush to use force against Saddam Hussein. The big media has, so far, ignored her flip in favor of pursuing their storyline about the "historic" progress women are making in politics. But thanks to YouTube and other Internet sites, Clinton will not be able to escape even her recent past.
Last weekend in Des Moines, Clinton attempted to explain her 2002 vote in favor of a Senate resolution "to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq" (S.J. Res. 45): "I said that we should not go to war unless we have allies. So (President Bush) took the authority that I and others gave him and he misused it, and I regret that deeply. And if we had known then what we know now, there never would have been a vote and I never would have voted to give this president that authority."
Speaking to the left wing, anti-war organization, Code Pink, on March 7, 2003, which can be found on YouTube, Clinton tried to justify her pro-war vote: "There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I've followed for more than a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. : I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information, intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount the political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way part of this decision."
Clinton also told the Code Pink women that sometimes the United States has to go it alone and she specifically compared Iraq with Bosnia and Kosovo "where my husband could not get a Security Council resolution to save the Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. And we did it alone as the United States, and we had to do it alone."
So much for the necessity of seeking allies and additional U.N. resolutions to follow previous unheeded resolutions before America acts.
In her Senate floor speech on Oct. 10, 2002, Clinton said: "It is clear : that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape in the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."
Later in that speech, Clinton criticized the United Nations, saying, "It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates." Adding to her conviction that Saddam must be toppled, Clinton said, "I want this president, or any future president, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war."
One wonders what took such a smart woman until last weekend in Iowa to conclude that she had been duped and, if she can be misled by so many people in whom she has confidence, how will she be able to see clearly as president?
Unlike her husband, she won't be able to get away with the political equivalent of "of course, I'll respect you in the morning."
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
jonas (anonymous) says…
No, no. Those are saved for throw-away references, without specificity, towards the ends of his articles, so he can say that he is fair and balanced.
cough
ksmoderate (anonymous) says…
I wonder what Cal thinks of all the Republican Senators who are trying their damndest to "disown" that same vote. Maybe many are of the 20 or so that are up for re-election next year?
Cal reminds me of a guy who, after being disciplined at work, goes home and beats his wife.
dorothyhr (Dorothy Hoyt-Reed) says…
Oh, so Cinton was fooled by Bush's false accusations of "weapons of mass destruction", just like the majority of Congress and citizens of the US. There are still people out there who think Iraq had something to do with 9/11. At least the majority of people are finally opening their eyes. Cal needs to open his.
ksmoderate (anonymous) says…
RT, if you expect me to trust your source, then I'd like you to trust something posted from moveon.org!
BOE (anonymous) says…
Nice "car salesman" analogy Cal.
Cute.
If only this "...greeted as liberators with flowers and sweets", "$25 to $50 billion 'tops'", "we know where the WMDs are", meat-grinding lemon we're married to, were as easy to dump as a '71 Chevy Vega.
Cal almost never fails to hoist himself upon his own petard, with his projectionist baloney.
=======
" Last weekend in Des Moines, Clinton attempted to explain...."
---
Hillary is culpable for her part in turning a wild juvenile elephant loose in the Pottery Barn/¢, and she wouldn't be my pick for the Dem nomination, but for someone seeking the office of President, the notion of owing an explaination for anything is ... well ... a step in the right direction.
-
"I'm the commander - see, I don't need to explain - I don't need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the President. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."
- George W. Bush, 11-19-02
jcantspell (anonymous) says…
What's Bill Clinton got to do with any thing now.
it's not where we been.
It's where are we going
Godot (anonymous) says…
"What's Bill Clinton got to do with any thing now.
it's not where we been.
It's where are we going"
Finally someone on this forum who agrees that we do not need anymore of the Clintons!
BOE (anonymous) says…
by jcantspell :
" it's not where we been.
It's where are we going "
=-=
true dat
BEEN:
-
Nightline: Project Iraq
April 23, 2003 Wednesday
Source: ABC News
Interview with Bush appointee, Andrew S. Natsios
ted koppel
(Off Camera) Our guest tonight is andrew natsios, administrator of the Agency for International Development, the lead agency that is responsible for rebuilding the infrastructure of Iraq. He joins us here in our Washington studios.
ted koppel
i understand that more money is expected to be spent on this than was spent on the entire Marshall Plan for the rebuilding of Europe after World War ii.
andrew natsios
No, no. This doesn't even compare remotely with the size of the Marshall Plan.
ted koppel
The Marshall Plan was $97 billion.
andrew natsios
This is 1.7 billion.
ted koppel
All right, this is the first. I mean, when you talk about 1.7, you're not suggesting that the rebuilding of Iraq is gonna be done for $1.7 billion?
andrew natsios
*** Well, in terms of the American taxpayers contribution, I do, this is it for the US. *** The rest of the rebuilding of Iraq will be done by other countries who have already made pledges, Britain, Germany, Norway, Japan, Canada, and Iraqi oil revenues, eventually in several years, when it's up and running and there's a new government that's been democratically elected, will finish the job with their own revenues. They're going to get in $20 billion a year in oil revenues. *** But the American part of this will be 1.7 billion. *** We have no plans for any further-on funding for this.
====
GOING:
-
Bush budget hikes war funding
By andrew taylor, Associated Press Writer
5 minutes ago
Feb 02, 2007
washington - Keeping troops in Iraq for another year and a half will cost nearly a quarter-trillion dollars - about $800 for every man, woman and child in the U.S. - under the budget President Bush will submit to Congress Monday.
Bush will ask for $100 billion more for military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan this year and seek $145 billion for 2008, a senior Pentagon official said Friday. Those requests come on top of about $344 billion spent for Iraq since the 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein.
Curtiss (anonymous) says…
Hey, r_t, just to make sure we're on the same page, this Dick Morris who's going to take Hillary down, this is the same guy who said she'd never run for the senate, right?
The same guy who predicted, the day before the election, that she'd lose?
Isn't this also the guy who hires prostitutes so he can suck their toes?
Is this big attack he's doing going to be as effective as when he was on Fox the other day, lying about Obama going to a "madrassah" and lying about Hillary being the source of that information? Because everyone except avid Fox watchers now know that story was made up by the Moonie Insight magazine, and that anybody who repeated it was an idiot. In fact everyone knew that already, and that it was a complete falsehood, well before Dick Morris was smearing it around on Fox.
So basically, everyone knows he's a lying fool, and that he's planning on lying a lot about Hillary.
Is this what we're all going to be so impressed about?
fliesinyoureyes (anonymous) says…
No amount of turd-polishing is going to make me believe that Clinton, Kerry, Obama, et al. had the right answers at the time of the Iraq invastion but were innocently "misled" by meanie W.
If a US Senator is tricked by such a "dummy" president on a matter of such significance, that person has to be considered unworthy of holding a Senate seat much less the presidency.
When looking for people to blame for our current state of foreign affairs, why on earth can we not include the enemy? The jihadists are not simpletons like most US voters. They understand the media. There's very little free press in those countries. The jihadists love our media to death. They've one-upped the good ole boy network at every turn... and anyone should admit that's quite a feat.
KWCoyote (anonymous) says…
RT, the media is center-fluffy to corporate-controlled rightwing. If the media were leftist, there'd be a lot more well-informed people and a lot fewer ignorant folks like you. Viewers of Fox News have been found to be the worst-informed group of news followers about Iraq and other international matters. Listeners to PBS are among the best. Of course, Public Radio makes its pitch to intelligent people, the university crowd, while Fox aims its shows at T&A jiggle fans.
KWCoyote (anonymous) says…
RT, I should also have mentioned, the Iraq situation got as bad as it has become because of grievous incompetence during the first six months or year of occupation. If it's lost, it was lost three years ago. For starters, the only facilities Rumsfeld secured in Iraq were the oil ministry building and oilfields. Ammo dumps were NOT secured or destroyed. They remained to be looted by every Saddam supporter, every Saddam opponent, everyone who wanted Americans to be driven out, and everyone worried about all the others who had guns. The ammo dumps were rich sources of explosives for roadside bombs, etc. US troops didn't have the body armor and vehicle armor they needed, and suffered needless casualties. They didn't have adequate water in 120-degree heat, at least in the first year. The administration blew huge amounts of money in graft for Halliburton and other corporate cronies of Bush. They failed to fix up the damaged water, electric, sewer and other services for the Iraqi people. Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney lost the hearts and minds of Iraqis long ago, and that didn't have a hoot in hell to do with news reporters.
What's going on there now is not a fight with "terrorists." Our troops are stuck in the middle of a civil war in which BOTH sides want us out. Iraqi leaders don't want our troop buildup. It's so small it wouldn't do any good anyway. It would take one or two hundred thousand troops to crack down on the violence and keep things cool. Want to propose that to the Bush administration and pay for it with higher taxes? Or more debt?
KWCoyote (anonymous) says…
200,000 MORE troops, I should have said.