Senator Clinton in 2002

Well we have known all along that Hillary Dillary can't be believed.

 

Senator Clinton appears to espouse some conservative viewpoints. Maybe if she is given half a chance, some of you neocons might even find common ground with her. Here she calls for a larger Army and getting tough about sex and violence in video games. Who could argue with that agenda?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8573139/

Excerpt

She is also partnering with Senator Frist to try to improve medical record keeping in the US. I applaud both of them for this bipartisan effort.

 

Ditto!

 

continued:

So, Mr. President, the question is how do we do our best to both defuse the real threat that Saddam Hussein poses to his people, to the region, including Israel, to the United States, to the world, and at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations?
While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. 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.
I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein's biological and chemical weapons. Today he has maximum incentive not to use them or give them away. If he did either, the world would demand his immediate removal. Once the battle is joined, however, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and to give what he can't use to terrorists who can torment us with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed by this possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it. And according to recent reports, the CIA agrees with this analysis. A world united in sharing the risk at least would make this occurrence less likely and more bearable and would be far more likely to share with us the considerable burden of rebuilding a secure and peaceful post-Saddam Iraq.


The important thing was the decision concerning what should be done. President Bush pushed for (almost) unilateral war. Senator Clinton opposed it. Time is telling who was right.

 

Ditto!
</font>[/QUOTE]Ditto again!!!!!!!!

 

Actually, hte important thing is that Hillary and Bush agreed, and the Dems call Bush a liar but not Hillary. Isn't that fascinating?

No, not really. He pushed for a multilateral war, but three nations balked. Even at that, there were more than 40 nations involved in one way or another.

Yes indeed, and I think Hillary will rue the day she stood against this action. She won't win in 08, and by thte time 12 or 16 comes around, Iraq will be settled as a democracy and the people who opposed the freedom of Iraq will look sillier and less informed than they do now. Time shows us that Bush was right to take on Hussein and his government. At least someone had the courage to stand up for life and freedom against a tyrannical dictator. It is sad that in a nation of freedom, we didn't have the same heartbeat by all.

 

Nope she'll see that some folks will buy into anything as long as the right combination of words are used under controlled conditions. Bush and the Clintons are both under globalist control. You guys really make me laugh the way you go on and on about the Dems and the Repubs.

With Diebold and ES&S neither of them need worry about who's right and who votes for who. They own the vote machines, that's why they don't care how many of us are against illegal immigration, that's why they don't care about the people opposed to NAFTA, CAFTA, The UN, FTAA, WTO and all that. They don't need your vote they can just program the elections in. Seriously you guys need to wake up.