posted on April 22, 2004 02:12:41 PM new
BY JAMES TARANTO
Thursday, April 22, 2004 10:45 a.m. EDT
Hillary: My Hubby, Not Bush, Lied
Sen. Hillary Clinton appeared Tuesday on CNN's "Larry King Live," and CNN describes an interesting exchange:
The lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq contradicts years of intelligence indicating Saddam had such weapons, which also was the conclusion of officials in the Clinton administration.
"The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration," she said. "It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared.
"But I think that in the case of the [Bush] administration, they really believed it. They really thought they were right, but they didn't let enough sunlight into their thinking process to really have the kind of debate that needs to take place when a serious decision occurs like that."
So the Clintonites and the Bushies both said Saddam Hussein has weapons. The difference is that the latter "really believed it." The former didn't really believe it, but they said it anyway. So it turns out it was CLINTON who LIED!!!!
"The Secret Service has announced it is doubling its protection for John Kerry. You can understand why — with two positions on every issue, he has twice as many people mad at him." —Jay Leno
posted on April 22, 2004 02:48:26 PM new
I think your cut and paste malfunctioned Bear... you didn't get it all. Here... let me help ypu...
[b] "That's one of the reasons why I think it's important to have a president who asks a lot of questions, who is intellectually curious, who seeks out contrary points of view, who doesn't just surround himself with people who see the world the same way," she said.
"You have to have a decision-making process that pushes a lot of information up and asks a lot of hard questions. You don't get that sense from this White House."
Clinton also said her impression of the Bush White House is that "it's a very close-knit, quite insular team that basically talks to itself and has very strong convictions -- which is admirable -- that are not shaken by evidence or any factual differences in what they intend to do." [/b]
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on Apr 22, 2004 02:50 PM ]
posted on April 22, 2004 02:58:05 PM new
Sorry, No c&p malfunction. The entire artile is in the 2nd link.
"The Secret Service has announced it is doubling its protection for John Kerry. You can understand why — with two positions on every issue, he has twice as many people mad at him." —Jay Leno
posted on April 22, 2004 03:50:01 PM new
bear....it's GOT to give you a laugh to read that. It sure did me.
Look what fenix quotes hillary saying. Then go search for her words about how SHE did investigate the threat of womd...she used people SHE could trust and they agreed.
That's why SHE VOTED TO GO TO WAR AGAINST IRAQ.
How funny to listen to her now. They must all have very short memories of previous quotes they've made.....especially hillary when she was defending her YES vote in front of a group of college students who weren't very happy she had.
posted on April 22, 2004 05:09:37 PM new
No, no--this is the really hysterical part:
"But I think that in the case of the [Bush] administration, they really believed it. They really thought they were right, but they didn't let enough sunlight into their thinking process to really have the kind of debate that needs to take place when a serious decision occurs like that."
She's saying they were too stupid to really think about the data or what they were doing.
******
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
Me thinks that some of the Democrats on this board are now shaking in THEIR boots after reading this, or at least shaking their heads and thinking about how stupid could she, Clinton, have been to make this statement.
This one had to have stung just a little, awww.
So it turns out it was CLINTON who LIED!!!! Again, LOL.
posted on April 22, 2004 09:10:08 PM new
Talk about putting words in somebody's mouth...good grief
___________________________________
When a dog howls at the moon, we call it religion. When he barks at strangers, we call it patriotism. - Edward Abbey
posted on April 22, 2004 09:18:13 PM new
It appears some here don't remember Bill clinton's words and legislation passed during HIS administration about regime change in Iraq. The threat that saddam posed to his own people, the countries around him and the world [according to bill clinton].
It also appears to upset the dems that BOTH kerry and hillary voted FOR the war....although they've both flip-flopped now and of course, being election time, want to project it all as Bush's fault for not letting the same threat they saw linger 12 more years.
The dems are more interested in winning this election than in acting in our nations best interests.
posted on April 22, 2004 09:36:46 PM new
Here is the transcript of the Hillary Clinton and Larry King interview for those who wish to read things in context.
posted on April 22, 2004 09:54:24 PM new
And the transcript of hillary defending her yes vote for war on Iraq...her own statements as to who she checked out the information with [names and people she trusted to give her the truth] and her continued support that invading Iraq was the correct more....can be found by doing a google search.
Hillary appeared at a college [ I don't remember the name of the college] and was interviewed by Chris Matthews of Hardball when he was making his college 'rounds'.
She's a hyprocrite and a liar....and this is all for political gain for the democrats, rather than being how she felt during that interview.
Maybe this is becoming a new democratic trend....reverse yourself and deny...deny...deny. flip-flop....flip-flop....truth be damned.
posted on April 22, 2004 10:41:24 PM new
Linda speaking of 'flip flop'....
someone told me today, some radio talk show, NO not Air America but one, that everytime they played Kerry speaking, they played the music and lyrics to 'Flipper'. (remember that show with the dolphin as a pet?) And they were calling Kerry Flipper
Hey I didn't say it, some radio host did!
__________________________________
"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known."- Carl Sagan
posted on April 22, 2004 11:50:51 PM new
LOL - NearTheSea.....Hey...ma be that will become kerry's theme song.
And I believe as the election draws closer, we're going to be seeing/hearing/reading at lot about all his flip-flops... He'll be questioned on his past positions, his votes and why they're not matching what he's saying his positions are now.
posted on April 23, 2004 12:10:07 AM new
Here's one example of kerry's flip-flopping....
It's hard to believe anyone can support this waffler.
Taken from The Strait Times:
Iraq's where Kerry may meet his Waterloo
His inconsistent stand draws flak from fellow Democrats and reinforces his image as a wishy-washy liberal
By Roger Mitton
WASHINGTON - The Democratic challenger for the United States presidency, Senator John Kerry, has a huge problem. It is called Iraq.
Senator John Kerry speaking to New York students as protesters criticise his confusing stand on the Iraq war. -- AFP And the problem is largely of his own making.
Back in 1991, Mr Kerry voted against using force to liberate Kuwait after it was invaded by Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. He believed economic sanctions would compel Saddam to leave.
Instead, then president George Bush assembled a US-led coalition army that drove Saddam out of Kuwait.
More than a decade later, although Saddam had been essentially contained and had not invaded any other nation, Mr Kerry voted for military action by the current President George W. Bush on the grounds that Iraq had developed weapons of mass destruction.
Another US-led coalition invaded Iraq last March and deposed Saddam.
Then, perplexing many Americans, Mr Kerry voted against approving US$87 billion (S$147 million) in funds for post-war work in Iraq.
Mr Kerry thus voted against the first Iraq war, for the second one, but against funds to support the second one.
As if that record were not bad enough to defend, the presidential contender now argues that since US troops are already in Iraq, they must 'stay the course'.
In other words, if Mr Kerry is elected president, US forces will stay in Iraq until the situation has stabilised. This is essentially the same position as that of Mr Bush.
And when Mr Kerry tries desperately to argue that it is not, it tends to reinforce his image as a wishy-washy, flip-flopping liberal.
That is his problem. And he has come under fierce criticism for it, notably by members of his own party.
Campaigning in New York last week, Mr Kerry was greeted with signs demanding 'troops home now', while derisive cries of 'stay the course' were followed by booing and hooting.
At another New York meeting attended by Senator Hillary Clinton and other prominent Democrats, Mr Kerry endured a tirade of brutal heckling over his inconsistent Iraq policy.
Retired mathematics professor Walter Daum said Mr Kerry's stance was criminal, imperialistic and put him on a par with Mr Bush.
Said Mr Daum: 'I want the Americans out.'
'Yes, and I want the Americans out,' said Mr Kerry.
'No, you don't, you say, 'Stay the course',' said Mr Daum.
'Stay the course of leaving a stable Iraq,' said Mr Kerry.
But that line merely echoed the position of Mr Bush. So why would voters who seek a way out of the Iraq morass want to switch to Mr Kerry in November's presidential election?
This is a question that Mr Kerry has been unable to answer satisfactorily.
And it helps explain why he has made such little headway in the opinion polls against Mr Bush.
Given the bad news that the President has endured over Iraq and the 9/11 hearings, this is a disastrously bad reflection on Mr Kerry's performance.
It bodes ill for his chances in the polls.
The problem for Mr Kerry is that many, including fellow Democrats, increasingly complain that when he says something, they do not know if he means it.
His tortured Iraq policy is a prime example of that.
FLIP
In 1991, after Iraq invaded Kuwait, Mr Kerry voted against using force against Saddam Hussein and instead recommended economic sanctions to drive the Iraqi dictator out.
FLOP
In 2002, Mr Kerry had a change of heart. He backed an invasion of Iraq although it had not invaded any country but was believed to be developing weapons of mass destruction.
FLIP
Then in a move that confused many Americans, he voted against disbursing money for post-war operations in Iraq but will let US troops stay in Iraq should he become President.
-------------
That's what Americans will think of when they go to vote......'does he really mean what he says'. There's no doubt President Bush does.
posted on April 23, 2004 12:26:31 AM new
And, again, for those who so quickly forget....a little reminder:
Weapons of Mass Destruction
WMDs can be Atomic, Biological, Chemical, or Verbal!
Years before George W. Bush became our president, most prominent Democrats wanted Saddam Hussein's head on a platter.
Now those same Democrats say that George W. lied to us and Hussein never had any WMDs, and the only reason president Bush went into Iraq was for the oil.
The next time one of these "Demon-crats", masquerading as a politician, start spewing their Verbal Weapons of Mass Destruction; send them a copy of this web page.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) and others, Dec. 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda 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."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.
"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
-----
If you find any errors in the facts or logic of this web page, or simply differ in philosophy, I am interested in your feedback. Please no unintelligible rants or raves. Sophomoric or un-referenced responses will be directed to the bit-bucket. J.R. Whipple
Many of the above citations are from national news services. Many news services delete, or move, their old stories over time. If the link seems broken, contact the root web page and/or email the editor for verification, please save your bandwidth, and don't bother to tell me.
It seems, during this election year, a few of the news services are removing some of the above articles in a fruitless attempt to spare "their guys" further embarrassment.
If you find alternative sources for any of the above missing links, please send them to me.
"Words Start Wars - Guns End Them!"
-J.R. Whipple (Who has more guns than words
posted on April 23, 2004 12:47:46 AM newNow those same Democrats say that George W. lied to us and Hussein never had any WMDs
No. What they say is that Hussein had no WMDs when we invaded Iraq. He had them 8 or 9 years before we invaded, yes. But not when Bush was claiming we needed toinvade because he was a threat to us. The plain truth is that Hussein hadn't done anything outside his own borders for 9 years.
Get real--if Hussein had had WMDs at the time we invaded, he would have used them. He didn't.
******
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on April 23, 2004 12:50:12 AM new
And I'll let anyone else who is still up to post or repost Bush's flip-flops. I'm off towatch a little Dark Shadows before going to bed.
******
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on April 23, 2004 01:18:56 AM new
Oh yes....here we go again.
Since they haven't been found yet....all the above democrats were telling the truth and were believed then [about the threat saddam posed right up to the end of the clinton administration]....but as soon as President Bush was elected...they all of a sudden disappeared. No longer a threat because the dems say so NOW.
Only problem is the dems/anti-Bush people can't explain where they went. All they can do is repeat this President has lied to us.
And do any of them blame saddam for not following the UN resolution to prove he didn't have them???? No....they're willing to take saddam's word he destroyed them over a US Presidents claim he continued to pose a threat just as the prior administration they supported thought.
FACT is: Hillary and Kerry both voted for the war during the Bush administration, even though their above statements were during the clinton administration, not 8-9 years ago.
Bunni - 2001, 2002 and kerry's 2003 statements are not 8-9 years ago.
And I hope some have noticed hillarys statement about the AQ link too.
And those who argue we were lied to have no statements of proof to defend their position.....like where did all these weapons the previous administration [in quotes] go???? Did they just suddenly disappear when Bush was elected? That's what the anti-Bush supporters would like us to believe.....but we don't.
posted on April 23, 2004 07:31:29 AM new
I saw the interview and understood it this way, that Hillary would have liked the current administration to have done more examining before acting and going into Iraq. But unless we each have the opportunity to question her ourselves we can only judge what she said and what she "really" meant when saying it.
*******************************************
CLINTON: No, I don't regret giving the president authority, because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade.
What I regret is the way the president used the authority. I think that the short-circuiting of the inspections process, after going to the United Nations, and then basically not permitting the inspectors to finish whatever task they could have accomplished to demonstrate one way or the other what was there. The failure to plan is the most hard -- of all the things is the hardest for me to understand. I mean, how could they have been so poorly prepared for the aftermath of the toppling of Saddam Hussein? And there's just a number of questions that, you know, we still don't really have answers for.
CLINTON: Well, I favor the fact that now that we're there, we're going to have to make the best of it. I think it could have been handled differently. That's why I say I regret the way the president decided to use the authority.
And it's been bewildering to me, you know, the idea that they would reject out of hand all the planning that was done in the State Department, that they would, you know, basically ignore the warnings that so many people gave them about what would happen when the oppressive, you know, heavy hand of Saddam Hussein was lifted off. For the life of me, I don't understand how they had such an unrealistic view about what was going to happen.
KING: And you can only go sometimes on what you're given, right? And if the people around you tell you, this is it...
CLINTON: Well, that's one of the reasons why I think it's important to have a president who asks a lot of questions, who is intellectually curious, who seeks out contrary points of view, who doesn't just surround himself with people who see the world the same way he does.
You know, there is no one world view that encompasses every reality that exists on this planet, and you have to have a decision- making process that pushes a lot of information up, and asks a lot of hard questions. You don't get that sense from this White House.
CLINTON: Well, you know, it was just a totally different approach to decision-making. You know, the Bush team came in and said, we're going to, you know, have a very disciplined, corporate- like approach to solving these problems, so information has to come up through the hierarchy. We're not going to let somebody like Dick Clarke, who is in charge of counterterrorism in the NSC actually brief the president.
Well, that's not at all what my husband did. You know, he wanted people to argue in front of him. He wanted people to present different points of view. Because he at the end of the day knew he had to make the decision. I mean, the buck does stop. The president has to make a decision.
posted on April 23, 2004 09:13:15 AM new
[clinton] We're not going to let somebody like Dick Clarke, who is in charge of counterterrorism in the NSC actually brief the president. Well, that's not at all what my husband did.
Yea....like he listened and followed clarke's advice. LOL clinton didn't listen nor follow clarke's advice about the threat AQ posed to our country either. Appears no one saw the situation the way clarke did.
You know, he wanted people to argue in front of him. He wanted people to present different points of view. Because he at the end of the day knew he had to make the decision. I mean, the buck does stop. The president has to make a decision.
Just as this administration does....but when they do it the dems call it a division in the administration....in fighting. lol
Thankfully we had a president in office who was *finally* willing to take action and remove the threat.....not discuss it for what? 8 years. Way too much talking and handwringing about what to do. Finally someone willing to make a decision after seeing what in-action for so many years allowed to happen - 9-11.
posted on April 23, 2004 09:38:31 AM newThankfully we had a president in office who was *finally* willing to take action and remove the threat.....not discuss it for what? 8 years. Way too much talking and handwringing about what to do. Finally someone willing to make a decision after seeing what in-action for so many years allowed to happen - 9-11.
Except you forget to mention one little fact. Bush took it upon himself to do it without knowing all the facts and didn't listen to advice from others and he screwed up bigtime. Look at the consequences.
And some of you are really mixed up on this one, Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11...... the terrorists were mostly Saudi citizens and those in Afghanistan, not Iraq. Now Iraq is full of terrorists too so how is that removing the threat? It's only made things much worse for all.
posted on April 23, 2004 11:20:38 AM new
Who is "HE"? I just love your cut and pastes. Suggest you enroll in a course in critical thinking.
Friends don't let friends vote Republican!
posted on April 23, 2004 11:25:01 AM new
Check the dates of the one you just quoted and the Larry King transcript, Linda. Two different times and situations changed between Oct 2002 and April 2004.
I certainly don't think the same on all issues as the years progress but then that's just me.
You are assuming you know what Hillary says and means and that I don't. Like I said above, we would have to ask Hillary the questions to know for sure and then we may not even know.
posted on April 23, 2004 11:33:41 AM new
I remeber this show, yikes, it ran 1964-1968
(I looked this up )
They call him Flipper, Flipper, faster than lightning,
No one you see, is smarter than he,
And we know Flipper, lives in a world full of wonder,
Flying there under, under the sea!
Everyone loves the king of the sea,
Ever so kind and gentle is he,
Tricks he will do when children appear,
And how they laugh when he’s near!
They call him Flipper, Flipper, faster than lightning,
No-one you see, is smarter than he,
And we know Flipper, lives in a world full of wonder,
Flying there-under, under the sea!
posted on April 23, 2004 11:43:22 AM new
dave - Well...then I'd suggest you take a course in reading skills if you can't figure out who 'he' is from all the democratic quotes I posted above, and reposted for kiara's benefit.
------------
Oh yes, kiara.....a direct quote from hillary is not to be believed. right..... Of course the dems have changed their tune....they want the WH back and they're willing to flip-flop on all the issue to get there.
posted on April 23, 2004 11:51:41 AM new
And adding to kerry's *Waterloo* [for dave - it's mentioned above ^^^^]
Rasmusson reports also says:
More Troops to Iraq:
Americans are evenly divided as to whether or not we should send more troops to Iraq.
However, the dynamics of the issue present a special challenge for the Kerry campaign.
Seventy-two percent (72%) of Kerry supporters oppose their candidate's position on this issue… and only a very small percentage of his supporters are aware of the discrepancy.
---------------
posted on April 23, 2004 12:02:17 PM new
What you have trouble understanding Linda, is that quotes can be interpreted many ways and you choose to only read into them what pleases you whereas others like me are willing to question the true meaning if we're not sure. Sometimes we never do know the true meaning. And what one person quoted years ago may not be how they feel on an issue today, I'm smart enough to know that.
As far as all this flip-flop crapola that you're so tweaked out over I will say that I would rather choose a candidate that can change as situations evolve and change. I also admire anyone who can come forward and admit that he may not have always made the wisest choices.
Not like Bush who got a personal vendetta against Saddam years ago and ignored current events and warnings and the importance of finding terrorists and just went forward with his own little plan, even though it was a dangerous and stupid thing to do.
posted on April 23, 2004 12:17:49 PM new
It's called flip-flopping....can't decide which side of the fence to come down on when you're trying to please everyone at the same time.
And another area I believe you're wrong in is this wasn't a personal vendetta. Saddam has been a thorn in the side of America for a long, long time....under three administrations....who ALL FELT HE NEEDED TO BE REMOVED.
