Chronicle of Hillary Clinton Iraq stance

Chapdog

Abreast of the situations
• On October 10, 2002, Clinton spoke to the Senate in favor of a use-of-force resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq, saying: "The facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt.”

On December 15, 2003, when it was clear there were no large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Clinton’s support was unwavering. "I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force,” she told the Council on Foreign Relations. "We have no option but to stay involved and committed.”

On April 20, 2004, Clinton told CNN’s Larry King that she did not "regret giving the president the authority,” noting that Saddam Hussein "had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade.”•

In October 2005, amid growing anti-war sentiment, Clinton still told the Village Voice: "I don’t believe it’s smart to set a date for withdrawal . . . I don’t think it’s the right time to withdraw.”

By November 2005, Hillary was softening her stance, saying in a letter to constituents: "If Congress had been asked [to authorize the war], based on what we know now, we never would have agreed.”

On December 18, 2006, Clinton went even further, saying on the "Today” show: "I certainly wouldn’t have voted that way.”

On January 13 of this year, Clinton spoke from Baghdad about President Bush’s call for a troop surge: "I don’t know that the American people or the Congress at this point believe this mission can work.”

On January 17, Clinton called for a cap on the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, and suggested withholding funds for the Iraqi government.

Finally, on January 27, Clinton hit the campaign trail in Iowa and demanded that the president "extricate our country from this before he leaves office.”
 
I guess the only one this is directed towards is topspin.

He's the only one on this board I'm aware of who is supporting clinton's nomination.
 
was from a chain email someone sent me. came from wall street journal i think. The sentiment was:

The Journal opines: "What’s troubling about Mrs. Clinton’s record on Iraq is that it tends to follow, rather than lead, public opinion . . .

"The question we’d ask is whether this is the kind of stalwart drift that Mrs. Clinton would bring to the Oval Office?”
 
Glad someone posted this.

Similar ones should be done for Romney, Guliani, Edwards, Obama, and Biden.

We already know Paul was pure through the whole Iraq incident. :)
 
Its not inconsistant... It displayes an evolution of opinion on the war. She never denied she voted to support it, and now she wants our troops out.

Thousands of Americans have had the same evolution of thinking on this war!
 
The Journal opines: "What’s troubling about Mrs. Clinton’s record on Iraq is that it tends to follow, rather than lead, public opinion . . .

We need a leader in the WH, not a follower.
 
We need a leader in the WH, not a follower.

Look what having a "leader" in the WH got us when the Republicans gave us GWB. If we are going to have a leader he/she better be leading us in the right direction, otherwise Id rather have a follower.

I wish Bush had "followed" American Public Opinion over the past few years, instead of leading us where he has!
 
Look what having a "leader" in the WH got us when the Republicans gave us GWB. If we are going to have a leader he/she better be leading us in the right direction, otherwise Id rather have a follower.

I wish Bush had "followed" American Public Opinion over the past few years, instead of leading us where he has!
I thought the theory was that he followed what his "handlers" told him to.

Had he followed popular theory we'd have still been in Iraq. So would Hillary.
 
Bush may only be follwing his handlers, but he is playing the part of a "leader" by thumbing his nose at popular convention. Wether its his idea or Rove's he is still doing it!

The Iraq war would have never been a popular thing to start without the chearleading lead-up of fear Bush used to promote it. Remember, "I dont want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud"!

If we had a leader who was a follower of popular theory I still dont think we would have gone in to Iraq, but even if we did, we would be OUT now!
 
Bush may only be follwing his handlers, but he is playing the part of a "leader" by thumbing his nose at popular convention. Wether its his idea or Rove's he is still doing it!

The Iraq war would have never been a popular thing to start without the chearleading lead-up of fear Bush used to promote it. Remember, "I dont want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud"!

If we had a leader who was a follower of popular theory I still dont think we would have gone in to Iraq, but even if we did, we would be OUT now!
If nobody is behind you then you are not leading, you are simply walking.

If you are following everybody else then you surely are not leading, you are following. And according to those following popularity polls, we can't be out of Iraq for at least another year, and according to most of them, they can't even gaurantee we'll be out by 2013.
 
If nobody is behind you then you are not leading, you are simply walking.

If you are following everybody else then you surely are not leading, you are following. And according to those following popularity polls, we can't be out of Iraq for at least another year, and according to most of them, they can't even gaurantee we'll be out by 2013.

Thats why I say he is playing the part of "leader". His administration is trying to lead, but you are correct noone is following!

Now... Id like to see these polls, I beilve people want us out NOW!
 
Id rather a follower than a "leader" who is "leading" in the wrong direction!
 
I'd rather vote for a leader than a follower. And I certainly don't want just a loner.

You keep saying that he is "leading" in the wrong direction. But he isn't doing much leading.
 
He is taking us in the wrong direction. Some whacko 30% are following, the rest of us are being dragged. The guy is a madman!
 
He is taking us in the wrong direction. Some whacko 30% are following, the rest of us are being dragged. The guy is a madman!

Well your Democrats controll Congress i.e. the purse strings and are not doing much about it.
 
Well your Democrats controll Congress i.e. the purse strings and are not doing much about it.
They are waiting for the supposed "followers" to tell them what to do. They are following, not leading. This has been my point. It takes all of us to muck it up this bad.
 
Back
Top