Clinton was "misled" when she supported war

You're not taking full responsibility when you complain that you were misled. You're shifting the blame to whoever you claim misled you.:BangHead:

 

Barbarian on Hillary Clinton's mention of a vast right-wing conspiracy:
Turns out she was right, when the press uncovered that a wealthy nutcase (Peter W. Smith) had offered money to Arkansas state policemen who he was trying to convince to accuse Clinton of sexual misconduct, and right-wing activist Richard M. Scaife had even persuaded the "independent" prosecuter Starr, to accept a cushy job as chancellor of a university in which he had considerable clout. (Starr reconsidered and turned the appointment down, after the media got wind of the deal)
http://www.salon.com/news/1998/04/cov_17newsa.html

Danny Ferguson, the trooper who tipped off Clinton, said that he couldn't talk to the press about it, because they'd get him if he did. He at least, was convinced about a conspiracy.

Turns out that David Hale, who was trying to get a reduced sentence for his part in Watergate, was getting money from Scaife operatives. (Starr later reluctantly reported that there was no evidence Clinton was guilty of any wrongdoing in that scandal)

There's more. Would you like to hear more?

That's not a right wing conspiracy, carpro.

See above. She had it nailed, as the facts later demonstrated. A number of wealthy kooks were financing the whole thing, even offered a substantial bribe to the investigator, who initially accepted it.

Personally, I'm more impressed with her ability to detect conspiracies against us, than about her opinions of her husband's fidelity. The former is an important ability for a president. The latter isn't.

She had the Republicans nailed on that one. As the investigations proceded, one conspiracy after another was uncovered and aired out.

Remember all the "people close to Clinton who died" stuff? Scaife's guys. It fell apart when people started collecting lists that showed similar results for Republican politicians, Billy Graham, and Captain Kangaroo.

The whole thing started on a fishing trip, and was labled "The Arkansas Project." It got into trouble early one, when investigators got wind of drug smuggling aircraft landing in Mena, Arkansas. They thought they had a story there, but it turns out that names like "Willam Casey" and "Ollie North" kept coming up in the cocaine connection which seems to hae been largely run by the Contra "freedom fighters." So that had to be left alone.

Eventually, Scaife got tired of wasting money, and shut it down. But he tried.

 

Here's some video of Hillary being absolutely sure her research was correct, and the decade she spent studying the Iraq situation. This was before the war.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rOjmDsPg_s

She's a liar.

 

Except for the congressmen from Colorado and Texas, what a pathetic collection so far for 2008.

 

Anyone so easily impressed by Hillary's normal garden variety paranoia has a habit of being misled.

Look in the mirror to find the real problem.:thumbs:

 

She took lessons from the best.

 

3-page warning: This thread will be closed no sooner than 2:15 a.m. ET by one of the moderators.

Lady Eagle

 

To be fair, Clinton always said she had issues with her vote.....


...If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us.

But in the same speech.....

But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.

If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.
If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise. If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls for Saddam's compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving some nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose any Security Council action. They will say we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only support the United Nations when it does exactly what we want....

This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction. 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....


http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html
It would probably be more honest of Mrs. Clinton to say that Bush misused her vote, but she can't claim ignorance, or say she wass mislead.

 

Originally Posted by The Galatian
Personally, I'm more impressed with her ability to detect conspiracies against us, than about her opinions of her husband's fidelity. The former is an important ability for a president. The latter isn't.

As you just learned, it wasn't paranoia. There was indeed a pack of right wing nutcases, trying to organize a plot against the president. They had a lot of money, and they even got to the special prosecutor, who accepted a cushy new job they offered, until the press got wind of it. As the plot unraveled, and investigations proceded, she turned out to be entirely correct. The fact that the various plots fell apart, doesn't mean that they didn't exist.

She believed Bush was telling the truth. So did most Americans, including me. She now realizes that he lied to her. So do most Americans, including me. That's how it is. If you think that Hillary Clinton and the American people are fools for trusting Bush, perhaps you're right. But you still believe him. Does that suggest something?

Funny how those who need to do that never realize it, um?

 

Indeed he was. You weren't misled at all. You just fail to understand the nature of intelligence estimates. That's not the fault of the President.

In Hillary's case , she was predisposed to believe the intelligence information because her husband had come to the same conclusion Bush did. Can she now make Mr Clinton appear to have been misled as well?

 

Originally Posted by The Galatian
She believed Bush was telling the truth. So did most Americans, including me.

Wrong. He lied to us. On his desk was a report telling him we didn't know. But he told us that he did. He lied. Everyone knows it, and most Americans freely acknowledge that he did.

He didn't say it was an "estimate." He said he knew. He lied to us. Everyone knows it, although some still won't admit it.

Nope. Bush ddn't show him the intelligence that didn't agree with what Bush wanted us to believe.

Pretty much everyone believed him. But now, no one does. Because we now realize he lied to us. He simply told us what he wanted us to believe, not what his intelligence reports said.