Hillary Has No Credibility On Iraq
July 28, 2016 at 4:25 p.m.
By Gary [email protected]
Maybe nuts is too strong a term. How about delusional?
I am so tired of listening to her "If I knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have voted ..." nonsense.
Honestly, who is she trying to kid?
I understand politics. I get the fact that many politicians stick their finger in the political wind and adjust their positions accordingly.
But Hillary's flip-flop on Iraq makes John Kerry's infamous "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it" idiocy look downright reasonable.
Has the woman lost her mind? I guess she figures nobody will remember all her previous pontifications on the topic.
Nobody will remember that her husband's administration - with her full support - was the first administration in U.S. history to draft a policy of regime change in Iraq.
Nobody will remember a testy little document passed by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton called "The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998."
The act "declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government. ..."
Nobody will remember her quite eloquent floor speech in October 2002 on S.J. Res. 435, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.
"Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. ..."
Later in the speech, she gives us a little history. She talks about 1998 and how Saddam got the U.N. to lift sanctions and blocked U.N. weapons inspectors.
"When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets."
You remember that, right? Those were either WMD sites or baby milk factories they bombed, depending on who you asked.
Then she notes her husband's regime-change policy.
"In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change ...
And of course, she touched on Saddam's penchant for amassing weapons of mass destruction.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001."
And she outlined the likely future threat:
"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 as we know all too well affects American security."
And, of course, there's a nod to her husband's adept dealing with the problem of Saddam.
"And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them."
And finally, "So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation."
Of course. That was the vote viewpoint at the time. The resolution passed overwhelmingly. It was easy.
She admonishes W to use the war power wisely and not to rush into it, but honestly, can there be any doubt as to her position on the use of force in Iraq?
More recently, in 2004 when the war was becoming unpopular, Hillary still was on board:
"I don't regret giving the president the 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."
But now, in a stunning change of heart, during a New Hampshire campaign swing, she says this about the W administration:
"From almost the first day they got into office, they were trying to figure out how to get rid of Saddam Hussein. I'm not a psychiatrist; I don't know all of the reasons behind their concern, some might say their obsession. ..."
No, Hillary's not a psychiatrist, but she needs one - desperately. The "obsession" with Saddam started long before W took office and Hillary was one of the most hawkish supporters of regime change.
It was her husband's policy, after all. If anybody was obsessed with Saddam and regime change it was her and Bill.
For her to accuse W of a Saddam obsession is lunacy.
And the whole "If I had known then what I know now" thing is so lame I can't even understand why she utters it.
If we all had known then what we know now, nobody - not even W himself - would have went to war in Iraq.
The difference is W has taken ownership of his policy. They were his decisions, right or wrong. That's what leadership is. Taking a stand. Taking ownership.
Hillary's motto is, "Take credit, not responsibility."
Hillary has no credibility on Iraq and she has no chance in 2008. Voters aren't as stupid as she apparently thinks they are.[[In-content Ad]]
Latest News
E-Editions
Maybe nuts is too strong a term. How about delusional?
I am so tired of listening to her "If I knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have voted ..." nonsense.
Honestly, who is she trying to kid?
I understand politics. I get the fact that many politicians stick their finger in the political wind and adjust their positions accordingly.
But Hillary's flip-flop on Iraq makes John Kerry's infamous "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it" idiocy look downright reasonable.
Has the woman lost her mind? I guess she figures nobody will remember all her previous pontifications on the topic.
Nobody will remember that her husband's administration - with her full support - was the first administration in U.S. history to draft a policy of regime change in Iraq.
Nobody will remember a testy little document passed by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton called "The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998."
The act "declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government. ..."
Nobody will remember her quite eloquent floor speech in October 2002 on S.J. Res. 435, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.
"Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. ..."
Later in the speech, she gives us a little history. She talks about 1998 and how Saddam got the U.N. to lift sanctions and blocked U.N. weapons inspectors.
"When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets."
You remember that, right? Those were either WMD sites or baby milk factories they bombed, depending on who you asked.
Then she notes her husband's regime-change policy.
"In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change ...
And of course, she touched on Saddam's penchant for amassing weapons of mass destruction.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001."
And she outlined the likely future threat:
"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 as we know all too well affects American security."
And, of course, there's a nod to her husband's adept dealing with the problem of Saddam.
"And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them."
And finally, "So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation."
Of course. That was the vote viewpoint at the time. The resolution passed overwhelmingly. It was easy.
She admonishes W to use the war power wisely and not to rush into it, but honestly, can there be any doubt as to her position on the use of force in Iraq?
More recently, in 2004 when the war was becoming unpopular, Hillary still was on board:
"I don't regret giving the president the 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."
But now, in a stunning change of heart, during a New Hampshire campaign swing, she says this about the W administration:
"From almost the first day they got into office, they were trying to figure out how to get rid of Saddam Hussein. I'm not a psychiatrist; I don't know all of the reasons behind their concern, some might say their obsession. ..."
No, Hillary's not a psychiatrist, but she needs one - desperately. The "obsession" with Saddam started long before W took office and Hillary was one of the most hawkish supporters of regime change.
It was her husband's policy, after all. If anybody was obsessed with Saddam and regime change it was her and Bill.
For her to accuse W of a Saddam obsession is lunacy.
And the whole "If I had known then what I know now" thing is so lame I can't even understand why she utters it.
If we all had known then what we know now, nobody - not even W himself - would have went to war in Iraq.
The difference is W has taken ownership of his policy. They were his decisions, right or wrong. That's what leadership is. Taking a stand. Taking ownership.
Hillary's motto is, "Take credit, not responsibility."
Hillary has no credibility on Iraq and she has no chance in 2008. Voters aren't as stupid as she apparently thinks they are.[[In-content Ad]]
Have a news tip? Email [email protected] or Call/Text 360-922-3092