Are we still angry at President Bush for saying these things?

[CoffeeCat]

Are We Still Angry at President Bush for Saying These Things?

"Intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical, biological and weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Queda members.

It is clear however, 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 of the Middle East, which we know all too well affects American security."

Please read all of the Poll Choices before voting on one!

[Hart2008]

1. Oh this is going to be good!

:popcorn:

[shenmue]

2. Flamebait.

Against the TOS, just so you know.

Also, did you leave out the fact that when the president first introduced the bill, he said the use of force would be a last resort and we'd be out of there in six months? That he proffered more than one bill and there was a lot of wrangling before it passed? That she was not the only person who voted? That she is not the whole reason for the war, like you want us to think? That it's not a monarchy and she didn't make it happen by fiat?

Yes, you left out those things. Bush got us into this war, he lied and he dragged everybody into a quagmire. Clinton supported the troops and she supported the U.S. effort to force Hussein to comply with U.N. mandates. (You forgot about the rest of the U.N., too.) Of course you do; in your mind, only one person is at fault for every different angle of the whole war. To hear you talk about it, there's only one person in Congress.

Where were you when Obama expressed admiration for Reagan? Where were you when Clinton was dragged through the mud for supporting national health care long before Obama even ran for office? Where *are* you when Obama publicly takes a great deal of support from a gospel singer who says God "took him out" of homosexuality?

Because I'm not hearing a lot about all those facts.

Keep up the weasel words, they're doing well for you. You're winning in a lot of open primary states, where people don't vote *for* Obama, they vote *against* Clinton.

[CoffeeCat]

3. Because of Hillary Clinton's power, her stature...

...and her position on the Senate Armed Services committee, she had an opportunity to stop this war.

America would have listened to her.

If Hillary had spoke out against the war--a war she knew was a lie--this war possibly may have been avoided.

Bush pulled it off because credible, powerful voices like Hillary Clinton's--remained silent.

Hillary Clinton knew the Iraq war was a revolting lie. Instead of standing up, she parroted Bush's talking points.

Hillary knew Bush's Iraq war was a lie--because the neocons sent then-President Clinton a letter in 1998, asking him
for war with Iraq. Here is a copy of that letter. http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Bill Clinton said no, and the neocons crawled away. Fast forward to 2001. These same neocons, led by
Bush--asked for war with Iraq, again. Hillary Clinton--as she spewed the White House talking
points on the Senate Floor, understood very well that these same neocons had been shopping around the Iraq
war for years. They had asked her husband for it.

Hillary said nothing about the letter. She didn't even say the word neocon.

Hillary went on to refuse that her Iraq-war vote was a mistake. Furthermore, she once again gives legislative
gifts on silver platters--to the neocons--by voting to declare an arm of the Iranian government "a terrorist
organization."

Hillary has never said no to the neocons in her votes.

Don't speak to me about what Obama has or hasn't done about some off-hand comment about Ronald Reagan's
presidency--when we've got Hillary Clinton enabling the neocon war machine and voting right along side them.