"Has your mother shown any remorse for the fact that her vote cost
Iraqis a million of their lives?" a student asked Chelsea Clinton on
Monday at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Ms. Clinton replied: "She cast a vote based on the best available
evidence. Perhaps you had clairvoyance then, and that's
What an arrogant piece of shit.
What little detail?
Senator Clinton has admitted that she did NOT read the classified
portions of the October 2002 NIE when they were made available
to the Congress. So she didn't base her vote on the US intel.
An AUMF differs from a declaration of war in that it does
not compel the nation to go to war.
The AUMF was necessary to force Saddam Hussein to
open Iraq up for inspections. He did, the inspectors found
that Iraq was not a threat, and then we invaded anyways.
Her tone was sooo Clintonesque, it made me want to barf. That snot-
nosed Clinton crotchfruit hides behind the 'First-Kid-No-Touch' then
snakes out and starts where Bill left off. I found it repulsive.
The question is cheap rhetorical trick
Rob, If we asked you: "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" would the
answer be yes or no?
IMO, it was an appropriate response to something that happens way too much
in US politics: media types (or plants by the oposition) that ask questions
designed not to elicit an answer but to simply embarass recipient.
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
A stupid and a rather inaccurate question......Her vote on its own didn't do
much of anything (it would have easily passed if she had been out
campaigning that day<G>) and there has not been a million deaths nor
anywhere close to it. With 25 million people in the country 1 in 25 have not
died. Such numbers in graveyards would even put to shame Saddam's ample mass
graves .....Ignoring WMD existing or not Saddam was a very bad ruler whom
had killed many, who was responsible for even more and had clearly ignored
and violated the very cease fire he had agreed upon. Nonetheless the
appropriate answer would have defended the original vote with a possible
caveat that indeed Saddam should have been removed in 1998 when he kicked
the inspectors out of his country. There is no hope for UN effectiveness if
there is no muscle behind its resolutions....the corrupt Iraq food for Oil
UN program obviously precluded much UN muscle flexing.
Incidentally numbers are odd little critters often used or grossly inflated
for sake of argument by either side.....In Kosovo when attempting to paint
Milosivic as a "bad guy" they often claimed 100,000-200,000 deaths when
indeed when all was said and done they couldn't find 10,000 including the
ones we bombed....they also called him a dictator in spite of him being
legitimately elected three times and all seem to conveniently forget that he
voluntarily left office when he lost the fourth election.....and when trying
him for war crimes they could not make a case and simply left him in
prison(4 yrs?) until his bad ticker took him......Rod
The Lancet studies did not suggest a million deaths so that point is clearly
moot...... Numbers, cause or whom is responsible would seem to be the larger
problem with the Lancet survey.
I do think the Lancet conclusions are erroneous since most importantly
physical proof is lacking (bodies)....The small cluster sampling could
easily be prone to magnified error, oddly in defense of the small sampling
traditional political survey methodology is cited, of which is frequently
wrong......Soro's funding would make any conclusion suspect.....Most other
studies clearly do not support the Lancet conclusions, in fact not even
remotely close except for the OSB studies which claims the Lancet study
understates by almost half....the studies author has clearly defined
anti-war prejudice.....original Iraq baseline death rates were probably
minimized.... Strangely enough survey participant produced death
certificates are used to validate the study(a claimed 90%) when in fact
official death certificates issued only account for a very small percentage
of the surveys conclusions, strongly implying a robust counterfeiting ring
of death certificates<G>.......Rod
Why Fred, I'm surprised that someone as widely read as yourself has not
found the numerous refutations that have show the Lancet study results to
be erroneous, used flawed methodology, was performed by an agenda-driven
researcher who got his funding from an even more agenda-driven benefactor.
[No, I'm not going to provide references, there are plenty out there that
are easy to find]
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Clairvoyance??? That was never necessary. We had weapons inspectors on
the ground, in Iraq. Teams guided by Scott Ritter and Hans Blix
followed US intelligence information from site to site and found - get
this - NOTHING. That's right, NOTHING. It was only after these
failures that the concept of "mobile weapons labs" was devised. At
that point, Ms Clinton should have known they were making shit up. The
Administration's reaction to each investigative failure read like
satire. "We visited that site and found nothing." "Well, that's
because they put biological weapons on trucks and move them around..."
It would be funny if not for the final outcome.
The AUMF was approved BEFORE UNMOVIC had boots on the
ground. It was the AUMF that forced Saddam Hussein to open
Iraq up for inspections. Areas denied to USCOM, like the palaces,
were open to UNMOVIC. UNMOVIC used helicopter to arrive at
sites within hours of receiving the latest US intel.
Your timeline is correct and a better question would have been "Has
your mother shown any remorse for how she handled herself during the
ramp up to war?" I assume - perhaps incorrectly given the
administration's belligerence - that Congressional intervention could
have prevented the invasion. By the spring of 2003 - yes after the
AUMF - it was clear the threat was non-existent yet opposition to the
mounting invasion was nearly moot. Mrs. Clinton was on board well into
the Iraq War. If she wants to run on experience that was amassed
during her White House years, then we must assume she had access -
either directly or through her husband - to an assessment of Desert
Fox. Did she seriously think that Iraq was capable of reconstituting
those programs while it was constrained by American force?
Even Saddam had more sense than to cultivate biological weapons in those
canvas-sided trucks Cheney showed us. They were, as specified by the
British company that made them and sold them to Iraq, hydrogen generators
for weather balloons.
But it's easy to demagogue stupid people into a war. Over half believed
the propaganda that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Of course that's out
of the same population where 50% reject evolution, 20% think the sun
orbits the earth, and 40% haven't read a book since they got out of school.
Whatever happened to an "informed electorate"?
I'm about as far from being a Clinton fan as you're likely to find, but
the student here was just being an obnoxious prick, and not really
trying to make a point.
As for Hillary not reading the report, most senators did not read the
report. They attended a briefing given by intelligence experts who gave
them the meat of the report.
I don't blame her for voting the way she did, most americans were
convinced that there was a real danger from Iraq.
The difference between my viewpoint and hers is, like many americans,
when they didn't find MWDs, she assumed that there had never been any
danger at all. It was a politically expedient viewpoint for her to take.
Iraq killed hundreds of thousands Iranians and its own citizens (those
who didn't believe in the right branch of islam) with chemical weapons
before we ever stepped foot over there.
To deny that there were MWDs, or that Iraq was working to create bigger
and better ones, is to deny the fact that they were already using these
weapons for years. A foolish stance founded on political desire, not
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.