Hillary Code Pink Meeting

[Stinger]

This is absolutely amazing. Listen to this from the time when Hillary was voting to authorize the Iraq war.

YouTube - Hillary Clinton's views on going to war, Saddam, and WMD

Her statement actually begins at about 6:30 minutes in, but the lead up is hilarious. This is the Code Pink group, you know Cindy Sheehan and others who actualy get taken serious and given air time in the media. What a bunch of..............................I just won't go there.

But then listen to her statement about voting to remove Saddam, especially when she prefaces her beliefs on "a decade" of research into the issue which predates Bush. And now she tries to say she voted wrong and she blames it on Bush for lying to her. Listen how she justifies going to war even without the approval of the UN, how it just hast to be done sometimes. Just listen and then wait to see if any reporters ask her to reconcile what she says then and what she says now.

And then at the end she snips back at them and they begin to shout her down, just hiliarious.

She is the ultimate hypocrite.

 

[Navy Pride]

This is absolutely amazing. Listen to this from the time when Hillary was voting to authorize the Iraq war.

YouTube - Hillary Clinton's views on going to war, Saddam, and WMD

Her statement actually begins at about 6:30 minutes in, but the lead up is hilarious. This is the Code Pink group, you know Cindy Sheehan and others who actualy get taken serious and given air time in the media. What a bunch of..............................I just won't go there.

But then listen to her statement about voting to remove Saddam, especially when she prefaces her beliefs on "a decade" of research into the issue which predates Bush. And now she tries to say she voted wrong and she blames it on Bush for lying to her. Listen how she justifies going to war even without the approval of the UN, how it just hast to be done sometimes. Just listen and then wait to see if any reporters ask her to reconcile what she says then and what she says now.

And then at the end she snips back at them and they begin to shout her down, just hiliarious.

She is the ultimate hypocrite.

I love it, It couldn't happen to a nicer person...........

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Stinger:
She is the ultimate hypocrite.

No, the ultimate hypocrit is one who takes the same arguments leveled at Bush (that he had argued against) and uses them against Hillary.

 

[PoliticalActivist]

No, the ultimate hypocrit is one who takes the same arguments leveled at Bush (that he had argued against) and uses them against Hillary.

Well stated Billo, and you should know how our Hillary haters are.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by PoliticalActivist
Well stated Billo, and you should know how our Hillary haters are.

I'm not sure I understand your point. I know Stingers habits. That's probably why I'm on his ignore list. But Hillary has her problems too. She voted for the war and still is a hawk on this issue. Which I oppose. But she's the best candidate out there from what I've seen.

 

[Stinger]

Well stated Billo, and you should know how our Hillary haters are.

How are they?

How about reconciling what she said then and what she says now. She blames Bush for lying to her but in the video she clearly takes FULL responsibility for her vote, stands 100% behind it based on what she knew about Saddam most from when her husband was President and saying the same things.

How can she now say the war was a Bush mistake, that he shouldn't have done exactly what she defended and suppported then?

Oh and if you think you can deflect discussion of Hillary by tagging anyone who disagrees with her or you as haters, you are going to have a very long campaign season. Stick with the facts instead of name calling, and painting people as haters when you can't defend her.

 

[Stinger]

WELL

How about it Hillary supporters. How about commenting of what Hillary said then and what she says now? She claims her vote was because Bush lied, how does she reconcile that with what she says here?

Why the silence?

Oh here is a transcript.

"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, tried to discount the political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision. I would love to agree with you, but I can't based on my own understanding and assessment of the situation.

With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I just do not believe that, given the attitudes of many people in the world community today, that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems, were it not for the United States leadership, and I'm talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo where my husband could not get a Security Council resolution to save the Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. And we did it alone as the United States, and we had to do it alone. And so I see it somewhat differently. So forgive me for my experience and perspective."

 

[Iriemon]

WELL

How about it Hillary supporters. How about commenting of what Hillary said then and what she says now? She claims her vote was because Bush lied, how does she reconcile that with what she says here?

Why the silence?

Oh here is a transcript.

"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, tried to discount the political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision. I would love to agree with you, but I can't based on my own understanding and assessment of the situation.

With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I just do not believe that, given the attitudes of many people in the world community today, that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems, were it not for the United States leadership, and I'm talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo where my husband could not get a Security Council resolution to save the Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. And we did it alone as the United States, and we had to do it alone. And so I see it somewhat differently. So forgive me for my experience and perspective."

I agree it was wrong of her to presume and state affirmatively that Hussein had WMD when the the evidence did not establish that affirmatively. I fault her and anyone else who did so, whether they were relying on data they thought was from a reliable source or not.

But I don't quite see the inconstency. She says she made conclusions about information she had, and then is saying Bush misrepresented information. If part of the reason she made her conclusions was based on information from the Bush Admin that is now known to have been misrepresentation, what is the inconsistency?

As far as Bosnia, that was a consensus action supported unaminously by the regional international community (Europe), I believe. There was no regional or international consensus on Iraq.

 

[Stinger]

I agree it was wrong of her to presume and state affirmatively that Hussein had WMD when the the evidence did not establish that affirmatively.

She clearly states the evidence showed otherwise and it you read the authorization to use force it clearly states otherwise.

But I don't quite see the inconstency. She says she made conclusions about information she had, and then is saying Bush misrepresented information.

Her information predated Bush.

If part of the reason she made her conclusions was based on information from the Bush Admin that is now known to have been misrepresentation, what is the inconsistency?

That's not what she says is it. She clearly says otherwise that she has been studying this for decades.

As far as Bosnia, that was a consensus action supported unaminously by the regional international community (Europe), I believe.

I believe there is no such organization and you are now making things up. She clearly states that it is sometimes necessary to proceed without such authorizations, but then Bush did get the authorizations.

You are trying to spin her words and that dog ain't gonna hunt.

""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."

That statement has nothing to do with Bush, and she was quite accurate in her statement as the Iraq Liberation Act declared, the Authorization to use Force declared and the UN resolution delcared that he had not complied and disarmed.

 

[Iriemon]

She clearly states the evidence showed otherwise and it you read the authorization to use force it clearly states otherwise.

Her information predated Bush.

That's not what she says is it. She clearly says otherwise that she has been studying this for decades.

I believe there is no such organization and you are now making things up. She clearly states that it is sometimes necessary to proceed without such authorizations, but then Bush did get the authorizations.

You are trying to spin her words and that dog ain't gonna hunt.

""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."

That statement has nothing to do with Bush, and she was quite accurate in her statement as the Iraq Liberation Act declared, the Authorization to use Force declared and the UN resolution delcared that he had not complied and disarmed.

Nothing stated contradicts my points.

 

[Renald]

I agree it was wrong of her to presume and state affirmatively that Hussein had WMD when the the evidence did not establish that affirmatively. I fault her and anyone else who did so, whether they were relying on data they thought was from a reliable source or not.

But I don't quite see the inconstency. She says she made conclusions about information she had, and then is saying Bush misrepresented information. If part of the reason she made her conclusions was based on information from the Bush Admin that is now known to have been misrepresentation, what is the inconsistency?

As far as Bosnia, that was a consensus action supported unaminously by the regional international community (Europe), I believe. There was no regional or international consensus on Iraq.

She had the same information, no?

American politics is ridiculous, you can be for something one day, then not the next, and all of you fall for it, very odd!

 

[Iriemon]

She had the same information, no?

I don't know that she had the same information as Bushi n '03.

American politics is ridiculous, you can be for something one day, then not the next, and all of you fall for it, very odd!

Bit of a generalization there mate.

 

[Stinger]

I don't know that she had the same information as Bushi n '03.

She is unequivocal in her statement, she clearly states she has given this the closest possible look and that it is her judgment based on a decade of inquiry Saddam, and his history that he was a threat and had to be removed. And listening to the actual audio leaves no doubt that she supports going to war. She had the same information we all had, and Bush had and more. For her to now say Bush lied, she was tricked or whatever her latest excuse is shows her contempt for the intelligence of the American people.

 

[Iriemon]

She is unequivocal in her statement, she clearly states she has given this the closest possible look and that it is her judgment based on a decade of inquiry Saddam, and his history that he was a threat and had to be removed. And listening to the actual audio leaves no doubt that she supports going to war. She had the same information we all had, and Bush had and more. For her to now say Bush lied, she was tricked or whatever her latest excuse is shows her contempt for the intelligence of the American people.

None of that indicates she had the same information as Bush in Mar 03, who had been pres for two years before invading Iraq.

Upon what basis do you assert: "She had the same information we all had, and Bush had and more." Are you really asserting that we in the public had the same information and intellegence (no double entender intended) that the president had about Iraq?

 

[CurrentAffairs]

I don't know that she had the same information as Bushi n '03.

Correct. You don't. I guess that means you won't be continuing the liberal lie that Bush knew the accurate intel and told the public something different.

 

[Stinger]

None of that indicates she had the same information as Bush in Mar 03, who had been pres for two years before invading Iraq.

Well then just based on what she knew from when she was the Presidents wife and confidant and as she unequivocally states

"I have to say that this is something I've followed for more than a decade." This is NOT just from the Bush administration, her information goes beyond just what they have told her the last two years.

"If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming."

His last chance to be forthcoming and he wasn't

"I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information, intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, tried to discount the political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision."

So with JUST what she had, and based on th opinion of people she trusted, using her best judgement, she decided Saddam had to be removed from power and military force was necessary. The very same conclusion Bush came to and for which she now criticizes him.

"I would love to agree with you,"

They wanted more inspections, more negoatiations, said Bush was rushing to war. Hillary unwaveringly disagreed.

"but I can't based on my own understanding and assessment of the situation."

Her own informed opinion. She agreed with Bush.

Upon what basis do you assert: "She had the same information we all had, and Bush had and more."

She could read the papers just as I did and the information was laid out by the Bush administration in clear concise language. She also had the benefit of being married to Bill and being one of his closest advisors. She was there when Bill was getting the Iraq Liberation Act passed. And now based on all her knowledge and experience she is voting without reservation to use military force to remove Saddam.

Are you really asserting that we in the public had the same information and intellegence (no double entender intended) that the president had about Iraq?

I'm saying she had the same information I had which fully justified removing Saddam, in fact she had more.

 

[Iriemon]

Well then just based on what she knew from when she was the Presidents wife and confidant and as she unequivocally states

"I have to say that this is something I've followed for more than a decade." This is NOT just from the Bush administration, her information goes beyond just what they have told her the last two years.

"If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming."

His last chance to be forthcoming and he wasn't

"I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information, intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, tried to discount the political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision."

So with JUST what she had, and based on th opinion of people she trusted, using her best judgement, she decided Saddam had to be removed from power and military force was necessary. The very same conclusion Bush came to and for which she now criticizes him.

"I would love to agree with you,"

They wanted more inspections, more negoatiations, said Bush was rushing to war. Hillary unwaveringly disagreed.

"but I can't based on my own understanding and assessment of the situation."

Her own informed opinion. She agreed with Bush.


She could read the papers just as I did and the information was laid out by the Bush administration in clear concise language. She also had the benefit of being married to Bill and being one of his closest advisors. She was there when Bill was getting the Iraq Liberation Act passed. And now based on all her knowledge and experience she is voting without reservation to use military force to remove Saddam.


I'm saying she had the same information I had which fully justified removing Saddam, in fact she had more.

None of this indicates she had the same information Bush had in 2003.

 

[Iriemon]

Correct. You don't. I guess that means you won't be continuing the liberal lie that Bush knew the accurate intel and told the public something different.

I don't see the logical inference you make.

 

[Stinger]

None of this indicates she had the same information Bush had in 2003.

What information did Bush have that we didn't have? Did Bush have other information he was hiding? No evidence but apparently if was even more convincing.

But it's a trival point. She made her decision based on her self declared decades of involvement with the issue, more than Bush had been involved. She made it based on the facts. Her statements are unequivocal.

Saddam HAD to be removed. And now she tries to spin it otherwise.

 

[Iriemon]

What information did Bush have that we didn't have? Did Bush have other information he was hiding? No evidence but apparently if was even more convincing.

We don't know because the Republicans refused to make an in-depth inquiry into this issue. Now the Democrats are in control and have subpoena power, hopefully one will be done.

But it's a trival point. She made her decision based on her self declared decades of involvement with the issue, more than Bush had been involved. She made it based on the facts. Her statements are unequivocal.

I stated in my very first post I agreed she was wrong to have made unequivocal statements, if she did. However, it's not a trivial point to your contention that her earlier position on the war and contention that Bush lied are irreconciliable.

Saddam HAD to be removed. And now she tries to spin it otherwise.

Disagree Saddam had to be removed, in fact we'd be a hell of a lot better off if we had left Iraq alone.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by CurrentAffairs
Correct. You don't. I guess that means you won't be continuing the liberal lie that Bush knew the accurate intel and told the public something different.

The Downing Street Memo's showed he's as guilty as sin!

 

[Stinger]

We don't know because the Republicans refused to make an in-depth inquiry into this issue. Now the Democrats are in control and have subpoena power, hopefully one will be done.

Yes we do and I have no interest in your attempt to hijack the subject.

Her statement is unequivocal. Now she has to reconcile it with her statements about Bush and the war. Her position was no different from Bush's when the vote was taken. There was NO question Saddam had to be removed accord to her. Now to criticize Bush for doing it is dishonest on her part.

I stated in my very first post I agreed she was wrong to have made unequivocal statements, if she did.

No if about it, the evidence was clear to her, the reasons clear, and the decision she made was no different than Bush's.

However, it's not a trivial point to your contention that her earlier position on the war and contention that Bush lied are irreconciliable.

No it's a key point to her statements now.

Disagree Saddam had to be removed, in fact we'd be a hell of a lot better off if we had left Iraq alone.

Well the Dems disagreed and especially Hillary. Her conclusions were based on her years of inquiry and Saddam's history. You can't spin it differently and now she has to answer to it.

 

[Iriemon]

Yes we do and I have no interest in your attempt to hijack the subject.

Her statement is unequivocal. Now she has to reconcile it with her statements about Bush and the war. Her position was no different from Bush's when the vote was taken. There was NO question Saddam had to be removed accord to her. Now to criticize Bush for doing it is dishonest on her part.


No if about it, the evidence was clear to her, the reasons clear, and the decision she made was no different than Bush's.

No it's a key point to her statements now.

Well the Democrats disagreed and especially Hillary. Her conclusions were based on her years of inquiry and Saddam's history. You can't spin it differently and now she has to answer to it.

None of which shows that she knew what Bush knew in Mar 03

 

[FreeThinker]

You know watching that video almost made me like Hillary. I loved what she said about "what needed to be done" in Kosovo where they couldn't get a UN resolution to stop the genocide so we acted unilaterally. She appears pretty hawkish in this video.

What was it that lady tried to hand her at the end where Hillary responded with "I won't jeopardize the safety of my people"?

 

[FreeThinker]

YouTube - Arrest - International Women's Day 2003 - Code Pink

thats a vid of those pinkies getting arrested in front of the white house. their cameraperson gets arrested trying to film the arrest at the end LOL!