COMMENTS:
She supported the war didn't she?
Tsk. This kind of ballot is beneath you.
Her position and previous votes are on record and readily available to anyone who is truly interested in verifying. Why make a ballot if your intent is to find this info?
Or is the real intent merely to deride her position/ change?
A lot of Congressman who initially supported the war have changed their positions, as the web of lies and spin that led up to the war has been uncovered.
"She isn't sure what her official position should be yet"
- Hmmm... she isn't sure what her official position is yet, or is it rather that she doesn't want to say what her official stance on it is yet?
Actually I'll add that as a ballot choice.
Her latest statement is "If I knew now what I knew then..."
Leaders don't lead by hindsight. People in her own party voted against the war with the same information she had. Our country (Canada) declined joining that war with the same information.
I'm wondering how long it'll be (if at all) when she'll claim her support for the war was a mistake.
^ i think she did in iowa. at least i'm pretty sure she said it was a mistake. who can keep up with politicians.
Voted : Comment
She did acknowledge her own fault in her (minor) role in the situation.
As far as I know she supported it when it seemed more like a good idea (i.e. Saddam and nuclear weapons) and now is opposed to it after it's clearly been revealed to have been a mistake.
I really don't view altering one's viewpoint based on changing circumstances as a sign of weakness or irresponsibility if one's motivation is sincere. It's easy to assume her motivation is insincere because she's a politician.
On the other hand, I view not changing one's mind in light of new circumstances which conflict with and supersede old circumstances in terms of rational analysis of the situation--as a sign of deliberate ignorance for fear of being perceived as weak or indecisive. Perhaps it would be better if our current President looked beyond his image and his career and focused on the will of the American people.
What's the Republican position on the war this year? Other than cut-and-run (the Republicans, I mean)?
Voted : She isn't sure what her official position should be yet
Consistency can be the same as never learning anything and repeating mistakes of the past. Some things are worse than flip-flopping.
Applerod
Even after CIA’s final report declaring: "No WMD in Iraq" Hilary continued to claim that the war was justified. It's obvious that she's playing politics pure and simple.
Yes, Cranky the Republicans are worse but that's another ballot.
Voted : Comment
There were many people duped into believing untruths (I think deliberately) when they thought it was best to support the President...as for the current situation...you can't buy them off, you can't talk 'em out of it, and you stand just as good a chance of stopping the rain so it's not if, it's when are you ready to concede it was a doomed adventure from the start and an unnecessary one at that...this Administration succeeded in making a bad situation worse...which was advised but ignored...these are the same people that was such a threat to the U.S. that the President needed to the mention mushroom clouds ??? Those of us who still can't see the folly of this catastrophe is far more troublesome...
Every politician who wants to advance has to play politics. That's part of the reason why she hasn't come out strongly, clearly, and decisively in "favor of" or "against" what one has to admit is a very complex situation. To the degree that was motivated by the anticipation of being attacked for her viewpoints on Iraq when running for office, constructing a more passive, centrist, and ambiguous or open-ended stance was probably the best way to go. That's because she'd be a much easier target if she was a powerful proponent of one single-minded viewpoint or another.
Of course, if I didn't think she actually possessed genuine, thoughtful, nuanced views of how to address this nightmare I wouldn't be in support of her at least running. Those who are simply opposed to her out of hand and are unwilling to give her the benefit of a doubt will be opposed no matter what. Honestly, I gave Bush a chance after 9/11, and he blew it when he decided to invade a rather large country; (that's how I felt at the time and my convictions have only deepened.)
Consider the following analogy. A man is driving in a van with most of his family. After awhile, his kids say they're going the wrong way. He dismisses them. Then his wife joins in and he dismisses her, though he pretty sure he's traveling in the wrong direction. Then his grandfather, two brothers and half-sister join in, convinced they're going the wrong way. But he continues traveling in the wrong direction and keeps his legs crossed for some reason. With almost the entire family protesting, he is too embarrassed to admit that his testicles have swollen to the size of beach balls and have somehow pressed up against the accelerator, and he can't slow down! His wife sees a pained look on his face.
"Honey, what's wrong?"
"Not now, dammit!"
"But we're going the wrong way!"
"...Listen to me very carefully, DEAR; and this goes for the REST OF YOU: I'm the father, I'm driving the car, and --aaaaaaagggghhhh!!!" They're headed straight for a cliff. But luckily he spots a burning tanker truck jacknifed on the freeway and figures if he hits it just right the car will slow down. He hits it--and breathes a sigh of relief. But the sigh is short-lived, because not only has the car not slowed down, but it's now ON FIRE; PLUS they're still headed for the cliff. And as flames engulf the car, his family's screaming:
"OH MY GOD WE'RE BURNING ALIVE!!! NOOOOOO I CAN'T FEEL MY LEGS!!!"
A few hours later the meatwagon rolls up to the scene of a horrific accident. The medic gets out and says:
"Oh my God."
The new guy's in the corner puking his guts out... all because the husband didn't want to slow down or change direction.
'Guest User' - So you believe that simply asking a straight-forward and simple question makes her look bad? I've never heard of questions making people look bad, usually its the answers.
"A lot of Congressman who initially supported the war have changed their positions, as the web of lies and spin that led up to the war has been uncovered."
- I think the web of lies should have been obvious to most. Besides which, she still voted in favour of a war that the sacred UN was against.
Voted : She doesn't want to say what her official position is yet
Her position on the war, or any topic is that she will say and do anything to get her more votes at that particular moment, with that particular crowd.
I shudder to think what she'd be able to get away with if it weren't for the great mass communications we have via the internet (because the mainstream media would do their best to give her a break if they still had their monopoly).
Applerod
You do know that when her position on Iraq changed there was no new information on Iraq's WMD, right? The only thing different was the public's overwelming opposition to the war. You don't see a connection? You don't think you're cutting her some slack?
Do you have a source on that, CI? (Sincere, not argumentative)
I admit I'm cutting her a little slack but I think my point about playing politics as intrinsic to being a politician was valid.
Applerod:
October 7, 2004
No WMD
The chief U.S. weapons inspector for Iraq, Charles Duelfer, reported Wednesday that Iraq had begun destroying its weapons of mass destruction in 1991 and had none by 1996, contrary to what the White House asserted before the Iraq war. After a background report, two senators give their take on the report.
November 29, 2005
"I do not believe that we should allow this to be an open-ended commitment without limits or end. Nor do I believe that we can or should pull out of Iraq immediately. I believe we are at a critical point with the December 15th elections that should, if successful, allow us to start bringing home our troops in the coming year, while leaving behind a smaller contingent in safer areas with greater intelligence and quick strike capabilities. This will advance our interests, help fight terrorism and protect the interests of the Iraqi people."
Sincerely yours,
Hillary Rodham Clinton
If you want to read it in its entirety google "Letter to Constituents on Iraq Policy"
Applerod
Point taken re: playing politics is all part of the game.
|
