Hillary rewriting her history again BUT IS CAUGHT ON IT

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Back_to_Iraq.html

---------------------------------------

X First Lady Triangulator said;


In Nashua, Hillary skates on the edge of Iraq revisionism:

"After 9/11, I would never have taken us to war in Iraq," she said. "I would have stayed focused on Afghanistan because the real threat was coming from there."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

OH REALLY Madame ready on the 1st day;

response from Obama campaign'

Obama spokesman Bill Burton takes a shot:

Hillary Clinton may try to rewrite history, but it's hard to believe she didn't know what would happen after she voted for a resolution with the title ?A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.? While Hillary Clinton continues to make the same kind of attacks that voters are rejecting, Barack Obama will continue telling voters about his consistent opposition to the war in Iraq from the start, and his plan to bring our troops home

==============================================
BAMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

Hillary is going to lose this fight, told y'all!
Lobbyist NONSENSE, or Iraq War MONGER...which is more important????????????

The hit-pieces aren't exactly necessary.

Repeating a lie is not a problem for them.

was asked. He ran down the whole list of things that knock this argument irrelevant. Wish I could remember enough of his explanation to give you an idea. Maybe someone else heard him and will have a better memory than I.
My grown daughter asked why Hillary didn't explain this herself. My opinion was she is to busy trying to cover her back from the tag team boys.

NOT...but it makes sense from a Hillary supporter....
TOO MCH...
Oh if Hillary is ready for day 1 of the presidency, why is she sending BigDog out to give HER answers....
NO SALE

Because it is about Hillary?

Hillary likes to talk big and is on the attack, so should they just let her speak....OH YEAH, I know it is sexist .....

Didn't you know? Any criticism of Hillary Rove-ham Clinton is a hit-piece, and the only reason anyone wouldn't support her is that they're sexist. :sarcasm:

It's a hit piece because it's complete non-sense. Just intended to send a negative view out there without having any substance to it at all.

Would Obama say "I would have went to war with Iraq after 9/11"? Would Edwards? Of course fucking not. It's a ridiculous premise. So Hillary saying she wouldn't is different, how? Any sane candidate would say this.

Speaking the truth is not a hit piece.

HRC voted for that fucking resolution, so she needs to own her vote and be a man about it like Insane McCain.

She voted for that fucking resolution when 23 of her Dem peers did not.
She voted for that fucking resolution when many (notably Robert Byrd) cautioned against the need for such a resolution, cautioned against the haste in voting on it in (notably before the 2002 midterms) and most importantly, cautioned against the rush TO WAR.

Does HRC think she we're too stupid to see her attempts to rewrite history?!
Oh, but she's a woman (so am I) and it's a sexist, low blow to call her out on her BULLSHIT. Sheesh

The new internals must be showing a developing problem after last night's debate.

It's hard to pay attention with a runny nose.

Politico, asked for a response from them.
If thwere was a problem we would have seen his people on the tubes. they are being asked for responses so why shouldn't Obama respond.
Hillary started it it!

I would say his internals are doing fine. But we will see.

:)

And Hillary would never have come up with the idea to invade Iraq on her own. She was with Bill for eight years and they never wanted to invade.

Oh, and being with Bill counts as her experience.

John Kerry voted for IWR also; he has made statement similar to Clintons.

She didn't vote for war. Read her speech. She tells what she voted for and why and indeed, what she did NOT vote for.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/14184

HRC, like John Kerry, can twist and turn as much as possible to try to deny the consequences of their own action, but it ain't workin'. Everyone knew Bush would invade if IWR passed, and anyone who claims otherwise (now or at the time) is merely fooling themselves.

It's like giving a case of whiskey to a known alcoholic, and then, after said alcoholic has killed a bunch of people in a drunk-driving accident, bleating plaintively that you didn't intend for that person to drink it himself, merely to have it on hand in case guests came over. :eyes:

coincide with what the resolution actually does. The fact is the vote gave him the authority to wage war on Iraq. Otherwise, the esteemed Senator should have spoken up before we invaded and fought him saying the IWR didn't give him the authorization to invade. She didn't, so it can be reasoned that she agreed with his actions and the authority given by the resolution.

Everyone knew Bush wanted to go to war against Iraq, the resolution just gave him cover.

Cheney's secret energy meetings were all about carving up Iraq's oil fields.

PNAC spelled out invading Iraq and even wrote Bill about doing so in 1997 (and remember being with Bill is part of Hill's experience).

Common sense told many Americans (who protested back in 2002 and later) that a country decimated by the US in 1991 and kept under sanctions for 12 years was not (could not) be an imminent threat. Yet Bush, Powell and the MSM sold the WMD lies and HRC went along to get along.

She voted for that fucking resolution when 23 of her Dem peers did not!
She voted for that fucking resolution when notably Sen Robt Byrd cautioned against:
- the need for such a resolution
- the timing and haste of the vote (JUST before the 2002 midterms)
- the rush to WAR!

HRC did indeed vote for war and just gave that CYA speech. Now she wants to rewrite history with nonsense like: it was not a vote for war or if I'd known than what I know now...

Sheesh, spare me. She should own her vote like a man, like Insane McCain.
She showed political cowardice and poor judgment then.
Simply going along with that simpleton Bush speaks volumes.
And if that's experience, I --for one-- will pass.
Past is prologue.
Thank heaven the Iowa voters showed her the door. May the NH voters do likewise.

I mean, her vote on the IWR isn't exactly the biggest secret in Washington. I can't see how anyone could believe today's statement, even HRC herself.

Maybe, from now on, she can be known as Cleopatra, because she's the Queen of Denial.

thanks

Illegally invade Iraq?

so his position there is not as relevant.

How is this even something worth discussing? Seriously. This sort of thing is as bad as the MSM.

That doesn't stop them. It's invented the internet all over again.

but to help her and everyone along:
A Resolution to Authorize the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
(she says she TRUSTED W. Bush... trusted Bush... think about this... what was she smokin???... or is she just trying to get off the hook?)
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program (what weapons Hillary???)

................

President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

What a dumbass.