• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Hillary Clinton Says She Wouldn't Have Voted For Iraq War (1 Viewer)

jujuman13

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Messages
4,075
Reaction score
579
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Isn't hindsight a truly wonderful thing?
Link
Political Radar

It is probably true to say that if we knew then what we know now, then there would not have been an Iraq war.
And there are actually democrats who are stupid enough to vote for this woman, wow!
 
And there are actually democrats who are stupid enough to vote for this woman, wow!

I agree. And she did the same thing with the patriot act. When everyone was waving the flag and caught up in patriotic fervor, she was all for it. Now that it has become politically unpopular (not to mention the fact that it does actually suck), she's all against it. What the **** ever. That's not leadership.

When we needed leadership and people to stand up for what was right, most of the Democrats scurried away and hid like a bunch of roaches running away from the light. Leaving honorable men like Max Cleland to get squashed.

(And I do give some credit to Murtha for eventually doing the right thing.)

Kerry lost any credibility he had, IMO, with his "I voted for it before I voted against it" nonsense.

How about this: Instead of making cold, calculated decisions on what positions you hold based on what seems to be most advantageous politically, base your opinions on what you think is right or wrong. And in the short run you will catch hell, but in the long run you can live with yourself.
 
Last edited:
Isn't hindsight a truly wonderful thing?
Link
Political Radar

It is probably true to say that if we knew then what we know now, then there would not have been an Iraq war.
And there are actually democrats who are stupid enough to vote for this woman, wow!
Maybe they will vote for Hillary and some times later they are like "If I knew what I know now, I wouldn't have voted for her." :mrgreen:

Hopefully they think a lot before they vote, I don't want her to become President.
 
I agree. And she did the same thing with the patriot act. When everyone was waving the flag and caught up in patriotic fervor, she was all for it. Now that it has become politically unpopular (not to mention the fact that it does actually suck), she's all against it. What the **** ever. That's not leadership.

When we needed leadership and people to stand up for what was right, most of the Democrats scurried away and hid like a bunch of roaches running away from the light. Leaving honorable men like Max Cleland to get squashed.

(And I do give some credit to Murtha for eventually doing the right thing.)

Kerry lost any credibility he had, IMO, with his "I voted for it before I voted against it" nonsense.

How about this: Instead of making cold, calculated decisions on what positions you hold based on what seems to be most advantageous politically, base your opinions on what you think is right or wrong. And in the short run you will catch hell, but in the long run you can live with yourself.

Well to be fair, politicians sometimes DO change their minds, just like voters do. At the start of the Iraq war, about 2/3 of Americans supported it. Now only 1/3 do. I don't think it's unreasonable in theory to assume that some senators could be among the 1/3 who truly changed their mind.

But I agree that in this particular case, it does seem to coincide with her presidential ambitions. This is probably her biggest obstacle: The fact that she's willing to do or say anything to get elected. I think the American people would rather have someone who stuck by their principles - even if those principles were (slightly) unpopular - rather than someone they perceived as not having any principles at all.
 
Even if she genuinely is now against voting for the Iraq war in 2002, she is still using it to her advantage to try and pull some more people to vote for her.The problem is I don't think she realizes that this won't help her at all, especially because everytime she's asked about it she repeats the same thing.

Obama would have my vote before her, if it were between the 2.
 
Kerry lost any credibility he had, IMO, with his "I voted for it before I voted against it" nonsense.

How about this: Instead of making cold, calculated decisions on what positions you hold based on what seems to be most advantageous politically, base your opinions on what you think is right or wrong. And in the short run you will catch hell, but in the long run you can live with yourself.

I have never understood why people have said there was something wrong with John Kerry initially supporting something and then, after learning more facts, changing their mind. What is wrong with that? This doesn't happen to everybody at some point in his/her life? It certainly has happened to me on multiple subjects.
 
Well to be fair, politicians sometimes DO change their minds, just like voters do. At the start of the Iraq war, about 2/3 of Americans supported it. Now only 1/3 do. I don't think it's unreasonable in theory to assume that some senators could be among the 1/3 who truly changed their mind.

But I agree that in this particular case, it does seem to coincide with her presidential ambitions. This is probably her biggest obstacle: The fact that she's willing to do or say anything to get elected. I think the American people would rather have someone who stuck by their principles - even if those principles were (slightly) unpopular - rather than someone they perceived as not having any principles at all.

I totally agree with you, Kandahar. You articulated this better than I did in my post above.

As for Hillary, tell her to STFU. I will be disgusted if she is the Democratic nominee. I cannot stand her!
 
I totally agree with you, Kandahar. You articulated this better than I did in my post above.

As for Hillary, tell her to STFU. I will be disgusted if she is the Democratic nominee. I cannot stand her!
How come? She's smart, articulate, an excellent Senator, has a great support system and group of advisers? I think she's fine. I'm not committed to her yet as my first choice but I would definitely vote for her versus almost any Republican.

I wrote two years ago that a Clinton / Obama ticket would guarantee the White House to Democrats for the next 16 years and I still truly believe it....

Look at it this way? Compare Hillary to George W? Where does W do better than Hillary?
 
How come? She's smart, articulate, an excellent Senator, has a great support system and group of advisers? I think she's fine. I'm not committed to her yet as my first choice but I would definitely vote for her versus almost any Republican.

I wrote two years ago that a Clinton / Obama ticket would guarantee the White House to Democrats for the next 16 years and I still truly believe it....

Look at it this way? Compare Hillary to George W? Where does W do better than Hillary?

World Champs, she rubs me the wrong way. I don't like her personality, and I personally think she is a beyotch. I can't help it! I loooooooove Obama, though.
 
World Champs, she rubs me the wrong way. I don't like her personality, and I personally think she is a beyotch. I can't help it! I loooooooove Obama, though.
I think she's OK. I've heard her speak and she's very impressive especially when answering questions, you know, without having a prepared speech. Ever hear Bush answer questions? He seems to always crack a joke and do his little "heh heh" thing or he avoids the answer.

Hillary is not the perfect candidate and she has some things that she's supported that I do not support but that is true of every candidate. Her pluses out weigh her minuses in my book.
 
So far as I am concerned HRC is a definite NO NO, not because she is a woman nor even because she is an opportunist democrat.
My main objection is because of her involvement in ' White water', do not forget this affair, nor should you forget what the Clintons did when leaving the White House after the Dems were defeated in 2000, according to reports I heard, they almost trashed the place.
For any administration to do that indicates to me precisely the sort of person they are, not to be trusted with the US.
Obama will be a better choice, although he is awfully inexperienced, Edwards might be better so how about an Edwards/Obama combination?
 
I have never understood why people have said there was something wrong with John Kerry initially supporting something and then, after learning more facts, changing their mind. What is wrong with that? This doesn't happen to everybody at some point in his/her life? It certainly has happened to me on multiple subjects.

I have no problem with people changing their minds based on facts. I have a problem with people who make up their mind in the first place based on what is popular, then latter change their mind because the breeze is blowing in a different direction.

byw, I voted for Kerry, as he was the more honorable of the two candidates.
 
So far as I am concerned HRC is a definite NO NO, not because she is a woman nor even because she is an opportunist democrat.
My main objection is because of her involvement in ' White water', do not forget this affair
Let me get this straight? You're convicting someone who was exonerated by independent investigations? That's what you're writing, right?

You talk about trashing the White House but Bush has literally sent hundreds of thousands of people around the world to their death!

No candidate is perfect but Hilary has a lot going for her, most importantly her husband Bill. The intellectual capacity of both of them is top of the charts and the current White House resident has dramatically shown how a lack of intelligence can bring down this country!
 
Isn't hindsight a truly wonderful thing?
Link
Political Radar

It is probably true to say that if we knew then what we know now, then there would not have been an Iraq war.
And there are actually democrats who are stupid enough to vote for this woman, wow!

I think many would not have voted for the war had they known what it appears the Bush Administration knew then. And given the disasterous way it has been handled, I'd be surprised if many would say they would still have initially supported the war. Things were far better when Hussein was in power.
 
I have no problem with people changing their minds based on facts. I have a problem with people who make up their mind in the first place based on what is popular, then latter change their mind because the breeze is blowing in a different direction.

byw, I voted for Kerry, as he was the more honorable of the two candidates.
He didn't change his mind about that because the wind shifted. He voted against it the 2nd time because a bunch of non-military pork was added to the bill (bridge to nowhere, etc).
 
He didn't change his mind about that because the wind shifted. He voted against it the 2nd time because a bunch of non-military pork was added to the bill (bridge to nowhere, etc).

It was $87B both times.
What military non-pork was taken out, and what non-military pork was added between the 2 votes?
 
I think this says everything we need to know about you, Iriemon.

LOL you contend things are better off in the ME for the US now? How?

With Hussein we had a relatively secular leader (with a Christian foreign minister!) who maintained stability in Iraq, and acted as a check against Iranian hegemony. Hussein exhibited a degree of braggadocio not uncommon to dictators and politicians from Texas, but represented no threat to the United States. He and Iraq had never been implicated in any terrorist attack against the United States, and the extent of his involvement was paying a few thousand to Palestinian families whose husbands/fathers died sticking it to Isreal. While Hussein had brutally put down insurgencies in the past, relatively few death could be attributed to him since the CIA inspired insurgencies in the early 90s.

We now have an Iraq in chaos. Scores if not hundreds of thousands have died, many times more maimed. The US has expended hundreds of billions, adding to its skyrocketing debt. Iraq is in civil war with scores dying daily, things are trending worse, and US forces, the best in the world, have been ineffective to stop it. We have paved the way for a shiite dominated government that is likely to be closely aligned with Iran, if most of Iraq is not outright annexed by it. There is a very real possibility that Iraq will end up with a radical anti-America radical fundamentalist leader, or that Iraq will break down into isolated state that are perfect breeding grounds for anti-American terrorists. Bush's misadventure into Iraq has turned a world that was behind us after 9/11 into one largely antagonistic to us. It has encouraged anti-America hatred and terrorism in the region, witnessed by two of the more democratic states, Iran and Palestine, electing anti-American radical leaders. The Iraq disaster will haunt the US for decades.

How exactly are things better now that Hussein is out of power?
 
He didn't change his mind about that because the wind shifted. He voted against it the 2nd time because a bunch of non-military pork was added to the bill (bridge to nowhere, etc).

Not quite, the first bill explained how the US government would repay these expenses. Congress was attempting on a balanced budget and not going more into debt by just hemorraging money without a way to pay it back. Bush didn't like the way the bill was written and rejected it. They revised it without a concrete way to pay the loan of $87 billion dollars back and that's why Kerry voted against it. It was based on pecuniary concerns.
 
shuamort said:
Not quite, the first bill explained how the US government would repay these expenses. Congress was attempting on a balanced budget and not going more into debt by just hemorraging money without a way to pay it back. Bush didn't like the way the bill was written and rejected it. They revised it without a concrete way to pay the loan of $87 billion dollars back and that's why Kerry voted against it. It was based on pecuniary concerns.
You're absolutely right, I was misinformed about why he voted against it. My apologies!

FactCheck.org Did Kerry Vote "No" on Body Armor for Troops?
 
He didn't change his mind about that because the wind shifted. He voted against it the 2nd time because a bunch of non-military pork was added to the bill (bridge to nowhere, etc).

And that is true. But the language he used was wormy. Just say what you mean, for crying out loud.

But the problem is that he backed the war to begin with strictly due to personal political concerns. Now the war is unpopular, so everyone can be against without much political consequence.

Crap like that makes me want to puke.
 
I think she's OK. I've heard her speak and she's very impressive especially when answering questions, you know, without having a prepared speech. Ever hear Bush answer questions? He seems to always crack a joke and do his little "heh heh" thing or he avoids the answer.

Hillary is not the perfect candidate and she has some things that she's supported that I do not support but that is true of every candidate. Her pluses out weigh her minuses in my book.

I'm not a big Hillary fan. It's obvious that she's angling herself to win the caucases/primaries with statements like these. I think this one's purely political and has very little to do with her personal convictions. She's too much of a politician, and after GWB, we're going to need someone a little more down home & populist - Edwards and Obama fit the bill quite nicely. I'd prefer Obama-Edwards, but vice versa works almost as well with me. (If we had Edw.-Oba. in that order, it'd be just like '04, when half if not more than half of the party wished the ticket was the other way around.)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom