Hillary Clinton - Any Way The Wind Blows
Posted February 3rd, 2008 by Da King
I submit to you that Hillary Clinton is NOT a leader, is dishonest, and for those reasons should NOT be the next president of the United States. Most of you already know this. This is for the few who don't. Her continuous lying about Iraq, for the sole reason of garnering votes, proves the point. Her non-stop shucking and jiving on the war, her myriad poll-driven positions on the same, all point to a woman devoid of principle, but one consumed with the hunger for power. Look at her history regarding Iraq.
Here's Hillary defending her husband's 4-day Iraq bombing campaign, known as Operation Desert Fox:
“[T]he so-called presidential palaces … in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left.” - Hillary in December, 1998.
And here's what Hillary said when the polls looked favorably toward the Iraq war, and when she thought it might look bad to vote against it, so she voted for it, as did John Edwards, as did John Kerry. Obama was not yet in the Senate, so he had no vote.
There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm’s way, that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I’ve followed for more than a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. . . . I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information, intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount the political or other factors that I didn’t believe should be in any way part of this decision - Hillary addresses Code Pink on March 7, 2003.
Take note of the fact that in 2003, Hillary said she'd been following Saddam's movements for "more than a decade".
Here's what Hillary said to the troops back then:
“We must stay the course” in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and asked for more troops to finish the job…We have to exert all of our efforts militarily” - Hillary on November 29, 2003, when visiting the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But something happened on the way to the easy six-week american victory in Iraq. Saddam's men didn't really fight us. Instead, they disbanded and adopted guerilla-style insurgent tactics, and then Al Qaeda sympathizers flooded into the country to fight The Great Satan in the same manner, using terrorist tactics. It became a security nightmare, severely impairing the new Iraqi government and reconstruction.
So what did Hillary do ? She started dissembling. In 2005, Hillary embarked upon a new strategy, claiming she had been misled by false intelligence from - guess who - THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION ! You aren't supposed to notice that the CLINTON ADMINISTRATION had all the same intelligence conclusions for it's entire 8 years, that regime change in Iraq was the policy of the Clinton administration, or that the intelligence doesn't really come from any ADMINISTRATION, it comes from the CIA and other intelligence bodies.
"If Congress had been asked [to authorize the war], based on what we know now, we never would have agreed" - Hillary on November 29, 2005 in an e-mail sent to her supporters.
At the same time, Hillary began her absurd claim that she didn't know her vote authorizing the use of military force in Iraq actually authorized the use of military force in Iraq:
"assurances they gave that they would first seek to resolve the issue of weapons of mass destruction peacefully through United Nations sponsored inspections," Clinton lamented: "Their assurances turned out to be empty ones." - Hillary on November 29, 2005 from the same e-mail.
Of course, Hillary still "supports the troops", as she attempts to lose the war in order to get votes, as Iraq war popularity plummets. Hillary also doesn't want to be seen as soft on Al Qaeda, even as she begins shilling for an Al Qaeda victory in Iraq.
"I have continually raised doubts about the President's claims, lack of planning and execution of the war,while standing firmly in support of our troops…Criticism of this Administration's policies should not in any way be confused with softness against terrorists, inadequate support for democracy or lack of patriotism" Hillary on November 29, 2005 from the same e-mail.
By 2007, you weren't even supposed to remember that Hillary voted for the war, much less that Congress authorized it:
"Nearly four years ago our president rushed us into war in Iraq." - Hillary on February 7, 2007
When Rumsfeld was canned, and new tactics were implemented in Iraq (the surge) in 2007, Hillary was completely against it. She even called general Petraeus a liar in so many words for reporting on the success of the surge, a success that everyone must now admit to (other than the hardcore lunatic fringe who won't ever admit to anything being successful as long as Bush is at the helm).
But get a load of how Hillary actually tried to TAKE CREDIT for the successes of the surge she was dead set against. A giant hook should have come out and pulled her off the stage when she tried this lie out on Tim Russert on Meet The Press.
January 13, 2008, on Meet The Press
MR. RUSSERT: If General Petraeus says, "Senator, in September you called the surge the suspension of belief. It has worked, and you know it's worked"–let me finish–"you can see on the ground. I'm saying to you, Senator, or president-elect Clinton, don't destroy Iraq. It's working, the surge is working. Keep troops there just a few more months to get this reconciliation complete."
SEN. CLINTON: …The point of the surge was to quickly move the Iraqi government and Iraqi people. That is only now beginning to happen, and I believe in large measure because the Iraqi government, they watch us, they listen to us. I know very well that they follow everything that I say. And my commitment to begin withdrawing our troops in January of 2009 is a big factor, as it is with Senator Obama, Senator Edwards, those of us on the Democratic side. It is a big factor in pushing the Iraqi government to finally do what they should have been doing all along.
One slight correction to Mr. Russert. Hillary actually called Petraeus' testimony "the willing suspension of disbelief".
In closing, there is one Hillary quote I can wholeheartedly agree with:
"The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they're not" - Hillary Clinton.
February 3rd, 2008 at 1:08 pm
King, it is certainly humorous that the lady can manage to blow in the wind, no matter which direction, and later manage to attempt to convince people that she was misled, or that she has changed her mind, but never admit that she made a mistake when speaking and voting.
I think her performance that day in the committee meeting when she called Petraeous a liar was probably the most damaging thing she has ever done, to herself. If she should get the nomination she will never hear the Republicans drawing attention to that little speech. She did that for effect and I think it will come back to bite her on the butt along with so many other things she has said that will hurt her when Republicans begin the campaign.
Of course, her campaign will make loud noises about the Republican spin machine. My problem is how they can change the words she spoke of her own volition. She obviously had a reason for saying all the things you quoted and it was always getting votes from someone.
February 3rd, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Roy,
I think Hillary's blowing in the wind is due to that peculiar liberal trait we've witnessed for so long, the ability of liberals to destroy history in their wake and pretend like it never happened. It reminds me of the Orwell novel 1984, where they'd switch who they were fighting a war against, and then say "we've always been at war with Oceania", like the previous war never happened at all. All records would be altered. That's the liberals on a number of issues, and it's Hillary to a tee on the war.
I'm enjoying the fact that the MSM is now bringing some of this stuff about Hillary out, now that they are increasingly deciding that Obama is the golden boy.
February 3rd, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Once elected Hillary's view of the Irag war will change. The question will then become what policy to follow is what she believes is in her best interest.
February 3rd, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Very true, Fred. She will decide which way to go in her best interests.
I can't wait for her to blow up at the MSM for pushing Obama along with Kennedy and others. That will get a big play from the MSM and they won't likely let us forget she did that.
February 3rd, 2008 at 4:46 pm
King, she is certainly trying to rewrite a large chunk of the history that includes her. If she could just be truthful I think she might take in some votes that she will lose by all the lying and prevaricating. I am not sure she can accept the world as it really is but thinks she can change it to what she wants it to be.
February 3rd, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Roysoldboy says, of HR Clinton, "but thinks she can change it [the world] to what she wants it to be."
Absolutely true, which is the same view that motivated other leftists like Stalin, Mao, Hitler, etc to muder literally tens of millions of their own people all the while their useful liberal idiots here either applauded, rationalized, or stuck their heads in the sand.
So watch out gang. When the march to Utopia begins, we all won't survive the trip.
++++
Yes, Comrade Hillary is a liar, but a clumsy one. She's not nearly as slick at it as is her husband.
Bill was cute when he bit his lip; Hillary is scary when she cackles.
+++
Fred is exactly correct when he says that, if HRC is elected, her view of the war on Iraq will change. With the comrade in charge, the present war strategy will continue — with some minor modifications just to say that it isn't Bush's plan– and in the process, she'll sellout the anti-war loons, some of whom haunt this web site.
Why will HRC do this? Because, it is completely reckless to quickly pull out from Iraq. Furthermore, a reckless pull out of the type called for by the anti-war loons would be opposed by almost all segments of the foreign policy establishment, including those people on the Dim side.
With a Dim in power, the liberal MSM will all of a sudden find out that the war is winnable — and maybe even worth while.
++++
Watch it, King. You wrote, "I'm enjoying the fact that the MSM is now bringing some of this stuff about Hillary out, now that they are increasingly deciding that Obama is the golden boy."
Don't you know that referring to the B. Hussein Obama, the magnificent, as a "boy" is highly politically incorrect.
If HRC ever gets elected, such an innocent slip-up will land you in her Village's Re-Reducation Camp for this "hate crime" — hate, of course, being defined as whatever the Dims object to.
I might be in the cell next to you, charged with using Obama's middle name and noting that the LA Times referred to him as the "Magic Negro." Hope you like to play chess.
February 3rd, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Hey RR long time no talk. Nice one on HRT (Her Royal Thighness). Of course Bush just lied to her about all that so its really not her fault right?? LOL.
Have a good one.
Go Giants!!
February 3rd, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Vince,
If Hillary wins, I know I'm headed for the Village re-education camp, so I might as well speak now while I have the chance
February 3rd, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Jayhawk,
Old buddy, how have you been ? Good to here from you.
I think not only did Bush lie to Hillary about the war, but Bubba must have too.
Looks like you got your wish with the Giants. I'm thinking, that proves an underdog can win, so maybe the Repubs have a chance come novembr.
February 3rd, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Roy,
In the last Democratic debate between Hillary and Obama, I really thought Hillary was winning the debate, until the subject of Iraq came up. Then nearly every word she said was a flat out lie (as opposed to other issues, where only every third sentence was a lie). So, if anyone is paying attention, her nonsense about Iraq should cost her votes.
February 4th, 2008 at 12:35 am
Talking about that last "debate" reminds me that I took exception to the fact that nearly every question went to Obama first leaving her time to think about an answer. Now I am not an Obama fan and am not really sure which of them would be the worst one to have in the job. However, I really thought that some of the time she should have had the question first. As it was, he had to set the standard for her to answer to and very few times was it any different. Maybe Anderson just didn't want to really put her on the spot.
When I heard some CNN type talk about her winning all I could think about was how great it would be to always be second and just answer the other guy.
Maybe I am wrong.
February 4th, 2008 at 1:26 am
I see so little difference between Obama and Hillary. Hillary might actually be slightly less liberal than Obama, but the difference isn't worth a tinker's damn. They'd both lead the country in the same direction, the wrong one.
February 4th, 2008 at 11:12 am
"I see so little difference between Obama and Hillary."
This is true, King, but there's a deeper question to ponder. Who would be more effective in pushing their socialistic agenda on America if elected — Obama or HRC?
I think that without a doubt, it would be Comrade Hillary. When she says she's ready to go on day one in office, believe her.
The Clintons have a political machine, and it's triggered to action. No doubt the Clintons have already figured out staffing assignments down to even low level appointments. After all, the Comrade and her husband have been planning, not only to win this election for years, but also how to rule.
February 4th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
I can't argue with that, Vince. It would probably take Obama quite a while just to figure out what was going on if he gained the White House, whereas Hillary and Bubba already know. In that respect, Hillary is right about being ready on day one. She would hit the ground running (running the country into a brick wall).
February 27th, 2008 at 5:38 am
IT'S THE WAR STUPID — Excellent piece.
When Mrs. Clinton was asked about her vote for W's preemptive war in Iraq in a recent debate she claimed that she voted yes for the bill since she didn't know how "obsessed" W was about going to war. Either she's alarmingly inept at understanding American politics in general and the right wing in particular or she's lying. The Neocons in W's Administration had made their intentions very clear in a Jan. '98 letter to Bill Clinton urging regime change in Iraq. See: http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm . Signers included Richard Armitage, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, John Bolton, and Elliott Abrams - the core of W's hawkish Administration in '00.
Additionally, there were numerous articles, essays and op-ed pieces written by Norman Podhoretz, along with writers in the National Interest, the Weekly Standard, mainstream media outlets, along with pressure by think-tanks such as AEI, the Heritage Foundation during that same time period arguing for regime change in Iraq. Those actions, along with other developments, prompted Bill to attack Iraq via Operation Desert Fox in Dec. '98. See: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/iraq/ , http://www.psywarrior.com/DesertFoxHerb.html , http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/dn98/dn98for.html .
How in the world is it possible Mrs. Clinton was not aware of W's obsession about going to war in Iraq? Was she too busy flying to those 82 countries she mentions so frequently as First Lady? Or was it like the NEI on WMDs she didn't read before voting for war; she just didn't have time to see just what the Neocons were up to? Or does she want to have her cake and eat it too? After all, if the war goes well, she can point to her hawkish side; and if Iraq continues to be plagued by difficulties, which appears inevitable for the foreseeable future (see http://juancole.com), then she can point to her Peacenik side. Why is she allowed to fudge the facts so blatantly?
Are the masses such idiots that they don't see the truth? Or do they not care? The Iraqi war has been, according to many credible authorities, the worst foreign policy blunder in American history. Why wouldn't a vote for it demonstrate that, indeed, Mrs. Clinton isn't as qualified to handle foriegn policy issues as she claims to be? Did those years in the White House prepare her to be ready on Day One? The evidence says otherwise. Last Sunday the mystery of Saddam and his resistance to WMD inspections was made clearer on 60 Minutes via George Piro - the FBI agent responsible for overseeing Saddam during his last few months. See: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/main3749494.shtml?source=RSS&attr=_3749494 . Using the American-centric model of analyzing Iraq, Saddam was hiding WMDs in order to attack the U.S. or to sell them to terrorists.
According to Piro, however, Saddam didn't want to reveal he had no WMDs because Iraq would've appeared vulnerable to Iran, his arch enemy, setting the stage, at least in Saddam's mind, for an Iranian reprisal. Makes sense if you're Saddam, which few U.S. policy makers or ideologues thought about in their zeal for regime change. In this regard, Bill Clinton fired the first volley of the Iraqi war, which could've, theoretically, erupted into a war in '98, allegedly to bomb WMDs, which, in hindsight, weren't there. Saddam, who had no reason to lie to Piro, explained that they had been destroyed according to the stringent U.N. oversight, as Scott Ritter and others insisted.
To recap for those following at home: 1. The Neocons were aching for regime change in Iraq as well as a major shakeup throughout the Middle East beginning with Iraq in '98, 2. Bill Clinton had Iraq bombed in '98, in part to disrupt and at most to unseat Saddam, 3. The PNAC group dominated W's foreign policy by '00, 4. 9/11 is the "Pearl-Harbor like event" mentioned in the PNAC position paper that legitimzed American neoimperialism in the Middle East, 5. W sends a war act bill, which rattles sabres and prepares the big guns, to the Senate, 6. Mrs. Clinton supposedly believes W only wants to negotiate with Saddam, 7. The U.S. goes to war in '03, 8. The first major, meaningful protest by Mrs. Clinton against the Iraqi war is to vote no to funding it in '07.