Hillary Clinton said that Saddam " gave aid, comfort and ....

sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members" in her speech casting her vote for the IWR, Oct, 10, 2002.

What was she talking about? Does this ( her acquiescing in this apparent canard) explain, at least in part, her refusal to support phased withdrawal?

she is trying to be politically correct now.

Hillary is not a leader, but a follower.

z-z-z-z-z

I think Hillary Clinton would be a superb president. She has the brains and heart to be the best president in a long, long time.

Unfortunately, she too often turns with each direction the wind takes. That makes her look unprincipled and pliable. That turns many voters off.

She has so much potential for us all. I wish she would anchor herself and articulate stronger liberal positions that resonate with most American families.

She does turn in the wind...and oh, those liberal positions we're all waiting to see, well, those will turn in the wind too. She will say anything to get elected, some people find that just great and dandy.

She also said that the women of Iraq and Afghanistan are now better off.

Look, our country is in bad shape, we need a leader. Hillary will never be a leader because leaders lead. Poll driven egos need not apply.

She said that? :grr:

What planet is she living on?

The women of Iraq, especially, have been reduced to chattle. The women of Afghanistan might not have to wear burkas with the fall of the Taliban, but I hardly think a Bush-puppet government is good for women (or men or children, for that matter).

Good Lord, has the woman gone insane? Or does she just not care anymore?

For the record, I don't think she can win a national election, but I never thought the woman was stupid and into propaganda. I always thought she, at least, had some brains and a heart. *sigh*

are in exactly the same condition now as they were before the war. Most of the country is run by warlords who do not differ substantially from the Taliban as far as their treatment of women. Since we decided to only control Kabul, and to cede the rest of the country to warlords, the changes for women are largely cosmetic and not real.

And of course, most women are vastly worse of in Iraq since the invasion. I think Hillary only cares about saying the things that she thinks will get her elected president.

A superb president doesn't turn with each direction the wind takes. Until she "anchors" herself (which I don't believe will ever happen) she doesn't have a chance.

<-- These two guys -->

was he ever cute, and still is to this day.

Man - I have that picture up at my desk at work! LOL!

we will have to see what happens in the next three years.

It's been too long and I'm too tired to go dig it up again. An Iraq and al qaeda meeting back in 98 or so. Also a supposed courier between Iraq and the other terrorist group in Kurdish territory, ansar al islam. I don't remember what was said in Oct 2002 and what was debunked then or later.

current lie to protect her future options. I just gasp sometimes.

it is clear the * admin lied about the facts. All Dems should have pointed fingers at * when Downing Street Memos came out.

Hillary, Kerry, *, Cheney, and anyone who uses any of the hundred reason why we had to invade Iraq need to rethink the situation.

It doesn't even matter if any of the reasons were right and the right thing to do(they weren't). It has no bearing on the situation in Iraq today.

Do they even know we are losing ground in the war and in our standing with the world? Not to mention a few young, and not so young troops every day?

Times change, get with the new agenda, and get us out of Iraq!

I'm guessing that's what the OP is referring to. It didn't say anything about Hillary saying anything about al qaeda and Iraq today. There's an RNC ad that's taking a bunch of quotes out of context to get them off the hook for lying about the WMD threats AFTER the vote.

I'm getting pretty sick of the intellectual dishonesty from all corners.

And I don't even like Hillary.

in GOP ads.

In fact, I'm a NYer trying to look for a reason NOT to send $$$ to Hillary's DEM primary opponent, an obscure upstater named Steve Greenfield.

The quote is not out of context, unfortunately and you will agree if you google Hillary Clinton + Iraq.

I don't like her either, but I'm looking for reasons *not* to support Greenfield. So far I'm not finding much, frankly.

If you're talking about what she said in 2002, and intentionally ignoring why she said it, then you aren't looking for reasons to support her at all. I don't like Hillary either, but I can find genuine reasons to support a different candidate. I think you should support Greenfield, I think it's important to have a universe of ideas in primaries. But he's a Green and it is dishonest of him to pretend to be a Democrat because it blurs what the Democratic Party stands for. Democrats are not and never will be Greens. Stop trying to turn Hillary into a Green, or demonize her as a Democrat, and your decisions will be easier and probably more honest.

You say I am "intentionally ignoring why she said it". This requires explanation from you. Why *did* she say it? Did she believe it? If so, on what basis? Did she *prefer* to believe it? If so, why?

Also, why did twenty plus DEMS vote against the IWR? Did they believe, as Clinton said she did, that Saddam was harboring Al Qaeda? Anecdotal evidence ( in addition to common sense) tells me they did not. And if Clinton was deceived, why were so many others NOT deceived?

If she's easily deceived, that's important to know. No?

You are jumping to all sorts of conclusions about Greenfield ( and about me). Do you know for a fact that he is "pretending" to be a Democrat? There is an upstate newspaper story, available on line, in which he makes no such pretense.

Your last sentence: wild, inaccurate assumptions leading to an insulting conclusion. Not only am I wrong, I'm dishonest.

Nothing could serve the progressive cause in this country better than Hillary's defeat in the Democratic primary.

If Greenfield were nominated he'd likely lose to a Damato-style republican.

Do we really want to lose the seat? Clinton may only be marginally better than Damato but every seat the DEMS keep gets the party closer to a majority.

at worst he's to blame for expecting a President to not lie us into war. He spoke out against war BEFORE the invasion. Do you people realize saying these things lets Bush off the hook?

He and Hillary are not on the same page on Iraq. Hillary still supports the war. Kerry does not.

But even so, putting either one on the same level as Bush and Cheney is just bizarre. Do you raise them up to the level of lying monsters or do you lower Bush and Cheney down to the level of "misled".

I would suggest separating your Dems from your Republicans, and then remembering who really started this war.

And if "I would still authorize the invasion of Iraq even knowing there were no WMD's" was not what Kerry said a while ago, I'm sorry if I put someone else's quote in his mouth.

If anyone is "misled" now, they deserve to be on the same level as * and Cheney! Like I said, I don't care how you voted, I don't care if you led the charge into Baghdad, I don't even care if it was the right thing to do! But it is wrong to stay there now. Let's get out!

the ambiguity during the campaign was that Kerry answered questions on the vote itself - which was not a vote to go to war or not - Kerry's position here is very different from people like Edwards who were still in favor of the war itself as long as 7 months after invasion - explicitly saying he favored the war for reasons other than WMD. (Harball Oct 13, 2003) Remember Kerry spoke against going to war BEFORE the invasion and called the regime change at home after it happened.

Kerry about a month ago went further, saying that knowing the lies and deception of the Bush adminiatration is capable of, he think even the vote was wrong. (Putting this together with his comments from last year, this is a very damning statement.)

Kerry has:
- Took the lead in demanding WMD part 2 referencing DSM in a letter to the Intelligence committee signed by 9 other Senators. The response by Sen Roberts saying he wasn't going to do it was useful when the Reps claimed it was going to completed soon after the Dems took Congress into closed session. Kerry's anger at this seems genuine. Last Monday, after Bush attached him, Kerry gave a brilliant Senate speech that lists specific cases where Bush misled the country and puts comments of his that Bush quoted into context. (The comments Bush took were sentences from a long floor speech which supports Kerry's position today that Bush broke his promises.)

- Came out with a detailed plan for withdrawal that would take approximately 12-15 months, demanded a political solution bringing in the Sunni neighbors to push the result to a more secular government with minority rights rather than the Iranian influenced theocracy that will occur without this, immediately turning over search and destroy missions to the Iraqis and having US soldiers in less contact with the population (taking the target off their back).

in Israel. Obviously the al Qaeda thing was a mistake. But Saddam was as bad as they come.

Their country lies in ruins, the infrastructure has collapsed, and there are no jobs, or public services. There isn't a single family that has not lost a loved one since the US war of aggression began.

Are Iraqis better off now than they were under Saddam? NO!

Good he is gone in and of itself. Bad incompetents like Rummy (perhaps that incompetence is in his heart too) cut down the number of troops from the plan by half. And cut out the UN (so Big Oil would have control not the UN).

Saddam did offer to hold elections in a year. Then he offered to move to another country at the last momment. No - Bush wanted war and the glory of "smash & grab" I mean "shock & awe" and pulled off the WMD inspectors when it looked like they were not going to find anything and undo the reason the WH had built up for war.

Saddam could have been gone in a few other ways than the one that happened.

I don't get this constant Hillary bashing in any way.

you might see it is not what a serious leader would be saying.

hillary is contending for the greatest fence post..she should just get out of the way.

So who's your idea of a "serious leader".....Nader?

leader as hillary.

Dean and now I'm still viewing my options for 2008 as we head into the 2006 elections.

don't you?

And Dean is well to the right of Hillary on just about every issue.

and I know what Dean stands for..and hillary is always bobbing and weaving.

She was only spouting AIPAC's propaganda to please the Brooklyn rabble.

To Hillary, it is all about the money and getting what she wants. Morality? I don't think so.

Read Assassins' Gate, no one in or out Washington should have 1) doubted that bush wasn't going to the UN--he was going to war 2) known that it was a dumb idea. The shout-outs were coming from everywhere that non-neocons could raise their voices.

Look...Hillary wants to be president (and so does Bill) and unfortunately as a woman, she may not be trusted with the title CiC. Her solution is to be a hawk. Bill had problems with the Pentagon, so he solved it by handing it over to the republicans. That may have solved Bill's problems, but it left the Dems without a "former" SoD to speak out during the buildup and subsequent 04 elections.

The Clintons get credit, which they are due, for being master politicians, but that doesn't mean that the "common good" is always considered. Hillary chose the wrong vote--for herself, but more importantly, for the country. Now we get spun.

Bush said imtelligence showed this.

Everyone knew...and if they didn't...then are they actually leadership material?

I knew, and I swear to you, I live in the middle of the North Woods with only Google and dialup.

So far it is filling in all of those years of the birth of the neocons that I blithely ignored.

I knew, too, and I live in the wild, wild west. But then, I wasn't in the Senate, and I didn't represent one of the largest Jewish populations in the world. I had nothing to lose except the respect of my Republican husband who thinks I am just terribly misinformed.

This is my opinion of Hillary. I know for a fact that she would never have taken us to war with Iraq as a response to 9/11. She would never have "misled", as they say, America. She would never have ignored the world in the way the neocon idealogues have. I don't care if she voted yay....because she worded her response oh-so-carefully. It was a bizarre time and most of America was ready to take the cup of Kool-Aid.

I personally am waiting until 2007 before I even begin to think about who I'm supporting in the primary. I can just hardly wait!

20-plus votes against and I'm reasonably sure other senators were skeptical of the Saddam-Al Qaeda tie at the time of the vote.

Hillary was not. This is important. No?

She's power hungry and will say or do anything to keep and retain more power.

If she had listened to the active, Democratic base instead of going along with the fake perceptions that Bush & the media had put out there, this talking point against her would not exist.

Having said that- I do agree with her that "if we had known now what we know then, there would have never been a vote..." The average voter actually has no problem with the postion- "I trusted the president."

I have no problem with her taking that angle-she seems to be a pretty good senator for NY- hopefully she has learned from this mistake...

She rejected Murtha's proposal and opposes a phased withdrawal.

And has she disavowed Saddam=Al Qaeda? Did she *ever* disavow her recommendation of the abominable Bernard Kerik for Homeland Security director?

If she's learning anything important about providing real leadership, vision, reponsibility.... she's having a difficult time demonstrating same.

Politicians do that

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

It's 9 paragraphs down.

I mean anyone could have put this out.

at the bottom of the page.

She is Lieberman in drag!

Too much the "politician". She just doesn't resonate.

It's not a bad speech.

Nonetheless, the inclusion of the Al Qaeda misinformation raises troubling questions about her 1. judgment; 2. savvy; 3. motivation.

None of these have been addressed satisfactorily... IMHO... in this thread thus far.

Sorry, I didn't see that you'd already posted it.

I know what you're saying; I don't have any answers about that, either. Perhaps she felt a need to make that connection in order for her vote to be supported in NY? I don't know... :shrug: