Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
TheCid

FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton

Recommended Posts

So HRC voted for the Iraq invasion to ensure she didn't lose support when she ran for re-election for the US Senate?     If that is the case that is a worst reason then why Bush and Cheney wanted to remove Saddam.

 

Sorry, I'm not buying it.     My view is that HRC is just a hawk.    

 

Oh you naive young man.

 

OF COURSE that was the reasoning behind her vote. She thought if she voted against that IDIOTIC incursion into Iraq and "looked weak on America's defense", that would hurt her chances in the 2008 nationwide PRESIDENTIAL election, NOT her reelection as the NY Senator.

 

Yep, she was thinking THAT far ahead!

 

(...and no, THIS was NOT a "worse reason" than those used by that numskull sitting president and his stone-hearted puppeteer of a VP at the time to START that idiotic war...not even close)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh you naive young man.

 

OF COURSE that was the reasoning behind her vote. She thought if she voted against that IDIOTIC incursion into Iraq and "looked weak on America's defense", that would hurt her chances in the 2008 nationwide PRESIDENTIAL election, NOT her reelection as the NY Senator.

 

Yep, she was thinking THAT far ahead!

 

(...and no, THIS was NOT a "worse reason" than those used by that numskull sitting president and his stone-hearted puppeteer of a VP at the time to START that idiotic war...not even close)

 

On reflection you could be right.   But then HRC doesn't know how to read tea leave very well,  since Obama voted against the invasion and he beat HRC in the Dem primary.  

 

When I said 'this was a worse reason' I meant that the Admin reasons were not made for political gain like HRC but instead because GWB and Dick head really believe an invasion was necessary,  that Saddam was a threat to the USA etc....   Of course they were flat out wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On reflection you could be right.   But then HRC doesn't know how to read tea leave very well,  since Obama voted against the invasion and he beat HRC in the Dem primary.  

 

When I said 'this was a worse reason' I meant that the Admin reasons were not made for political gain like HRC but instead because GWB and Dick head really believe an invasion was necessary,  that Saddam was a threat to the USA etc....   Of course they were flat out wrong.

 

As to thought No.1 of yours up there, yep, that was probably my reason No.1 for my Obama vote in 2008. I don't know how many times back then when Hillary's name came up I said I had a hard time forgiving her for her apparent political capitulation to W's Iraq invasion plans.

 

And re your thought No.2 up there, don't believe THAT for a minute young sir, as Cheney, the driving force behind those plans had not only politics on his mind when drawing them up, but many other nefarious reasons, also.

 

(...and if THAT man ESPECIALLY ever truly believed that "invasion was necessary", then THAT man was/is a LOT dumber than I've ever given him "credit" for being) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to thought No.1 or yours up there, yep, that was probably my reason No.1 for my Obama vote in 2008. I don't know how many times back then when Hillary's name came up I said I had a hard time forgiving her for her apparent political capitulation to W's Iraq invasion plans.

 

And re your thought No.2 up there, don't believe THAT for a minute young sir, as Cheney, the driving force behind those plans had not only politics on his mind when drawing them up, but many other nefarious reasons, also.

 

(...and if THAT man ESPECIALLY ever believed that "invasion was necessary", then THAT man was/is a LOT dumber than I've ever given him "credit" for being) 

 

As for #2;  It was a mistake for me to lump GWB and Cheney into the same tub;   GWB is really dumb while Cheney is really calculating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lead_large.jpg?GE2DGMBRGQ2DKNBYFYYA====

 

o-DONALD-TRUMP-facebook.jpg

 

Flag manufacturers must make a fortune just with political candidates alone.

 

 

I hope both candidates understand what the flag stands for. :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So HRC voted for the Iraq invasion to ensure she didn't lose support when she ran for re-election for the US Senate?     If that is the case that is a worst reason then why Bush and Cheney wanted to remove Saddam.

 

Sorry, I'm not buying it.     My view is that HRC is just a hawk.    

 

That's not the four-letter word that I think of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many Democrats vote for military adventures they might otherwise not have for the very rational fear that Republicans will paint them as weak on defense.

 

Useless weak-kneed trough suckers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Useless weak-kneed trough suckers.

Well, that's one way of putting it. Most were

in definite need of a spine transplant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While Obama was against the Iraq War, he was not

yet in the Senate when the vote to invade was taken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On reflection you could be right.   But then HRC doesn't know how to read tea leave very well,  since Obama voted against the invasion and he beat HRC in the Dem primary.  

 

When I said 'this was a worse reason' I meant that the Admin reasons were not made for political gain like HRC but instead because GWB and Dick head really believe an invasion was necessary,  that Saddam was a threat to the USA etc....   Of course they were flat out wrong.

Made for political and corporate financial gain and because Sadam fooled Daddy Bush and caused him to lose face.  There never was a threat to US nor did the Bush administration ever state there was a threat to US itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So HRC voted for the Iraq invasion to ensure she didn't lose support when she ran for re-election for the US Senate?     If that is the case that is a worst reason then why Bush and Cheney wanted to remove Saddam.

 

Sorry, I'm not buying it.     My view is that HRC is just a hawk.    

It's called representing the interests of the people who put you into office.  Politics is perception - always has been, always will be. Every elected official and most appointed do this all the time.  It is part of the system.

Incidentally, Congress voted to give Bush the authority to use military force if it became necessary.  Did not actually vote on going to war in Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's called representing the interests of the people who put you into office.  Politics is perception - always has been, always will be. Every elected official and most appointed do this all the time.  It is part of the system.

Incidentally, Congress voted to give Bush the authority to use military force if it became necessary.  Did not actually vote on going to war in Iraq.

 

So the majority of voters in NY supported an invasion?   Mostly likely that was true at the time (US didn't have war fatigue like we do now) but didn't you post about a week ago that politicians should be leaders and take unpopular stances?     Or does that just apply to GOP politicians?      (hey just kidding with that last line). 

 

But like Dargo said,   Obama was willing to stick to his principles and that was a primary factor why he beat HRC.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the majority of voters in NY supported an invasion?  

 

Who knows? There is so much "manufacturing consent" going on from American political leaders and the Media they favor, we're lucky if we ever get anything right. Ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the majority of voters in NY supported an invasion?   Mostly likely that was true at the time (US didn't have war fatigue like we do now) but didn't you post about a week ago that politicians should be leaders and take unpopular stances?     Or does that just apply to GOP politicians?      (hey just kidding with that last line). 

 

But like Dargo said,   Obama was willing to stick to his principles and that was a primary factor why he beat HRC.   

What politicians should be and what they are are two different things.

Again, the bill was to authorize the Bush administration to take military action if necessary.  Unfortunately, Congress has to rely tremendously on the executive branch to make determinations for actions.  No way can they know all the information about all the agencies and all the functions going on 24/7.  Heck, the agency heads themselves don't know everything going on in their agencies.  No human could.

I commend Obama for being opposed to the war, but he hasn't got us out has he?  Situations change and the view from the inside is vastly different from what's on the outside.  Trump may discover this too late.  Nixon was going to get us out of Vietnam, but it took him several years and then only because we essentially abandoned South Vietnam - and he and Kissenger knew it.  Reagan was going to restore peace in Lebanon, but got 300 Marines killed and abandoned the mission.

Not defending Clinton, but people who do not get elected and stay in office cannot serve their constituents or make changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...