Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Hillary lied about criticizing the war before Obama, even if you start counting in 2005
In a speech in Oregon, Hillary tried to get away with a fast one by
saying that she criticized the war in Iraq before Obama did if you only
include the time they were both in the Senate in 2005.
This is a bit of a ridiculous measure since it ignores all the time
since 2002 when Obama was opposing the war in the first place and
Clinton was voting for the IWR.
But just to humor her, Jake Tapper decided to look into it and found
out that her claim was false. Obama had criticized the war before
her.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/in-oregon-clint.html
And whereas he was offering substantive critiques on the very idea of
the war and pushing for clarity on an end to the war, she was simply
critizing the way the war had been conducted and simultaneously
offering supportive statements about the war by saying the insurgency
was failing.
This was a bigger lie than the Bosnia one in my opinion. It is so
obviously false and ridiculous that it almost makes me question if
she's really still in it to win it.
Comments (10)
Paging idiotic....
At what point does a consistent pattern of lies and deceit from an elected official constitute perjury?
April 6, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
When that person is under oath, I reckon. Of course, IANAL. ;)
April 6, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Technically, though, Hillary is correct because Obama didn't use the word "is" in his statement in the way that Hillary used the word "is" in her statement.
April 6, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Glad to see Tapper was all over that...
By the way - has anyone been all over the 'lots of war zones' statements she made while trying to dismiss her folly on Leno the other night?
Just wondering where all these war zones she flies into are...
April 6, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michael Moore speaks for me on the Hillary on Iraq issue:
"It was simply amazing that we knew the war was wrong when none of us had been briefed by the CIA, none of us were national security experts, and none of us had gone on a weapons inspection tour of Iraq. And yet... we knew we were being lied to!
And yet, I am sad to say, nothing has disappointed me more than the disastrous, premeditated vote by Senator Hillary Clinton to send us to war in Iraq. I'm not only talking about her first vote that gave Mr. Bush his "authorization" to invade -- I'm talking about every single OTHER vote she then cast for the next four years, backing and funding Bush's illegal war, and doing so with verve. She never met a request from the White House for war authorization that she didn't like. Unlike the Kerrys and the Bidens who initially voted for authorization but later came to realize the folly of their decision, Mrs. Clinton continued to cast numerous votes for the war until last March -- four long years of pro-war votes, even after 70% of the American public had turned against the war. She has steadfastly refused to say that she was wrong about any of this, and she will not apologize for her culpability in America's worst-ever foreign policy disaster. All she can bring herself to say is that she was "misled" by "faulty intelligence.""
I can't morally vote for her either:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkaRhPxJIh4
April 6, 2008 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish I could just leave that be about Biden, but the fact is that he has been one of the most supportive of the Democratic field in keeping the funding going for the war, one thing that gives me tremendous respect for him. He stated outright during one of the debates that his reason is that he doesn't want to risk Bush leaving the troops there without funds to try to score some political points against Democrats. Just thought I'd comment on that. ^_^
April 7, 2008 7:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks God he lives in Michigan. His vote doesn't count anyway :)
April 7, 2008 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I DIDN'T know all that WMD stuff was a lie. When Colin Powell stood up at the UN and claimed the U.S. had PROOF, I believed him. I didn't like the Bush administration even then, but I didn't realize how cynical and how dangerous they really were.
However, I STILL opposed the Iraq war, and for many of the same reasons Barack Obama did. First, we were already fighting a war in Afghanistan - and against al Qaeda - so did it really make sense to start a second war before we finished the first, if we could at all avoid it? Second, the UN was still investigating the WMD situation. Why not let them continue, while we got on with the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban? What in the world was so urgent that we had to take over and invade ANOTHER country?
Third, what did we plan to do with Iraq once we invaded and overthrew Saddam? Bush's neo-conservatives thought we'd be greeted as liberators and create a shining beacon of Christian-friendly democracy in the Middle East. Even I knew that they were just smoking some strange weed. We didn't overthrow Saddam during the first Gulf War because we knew what a terrible mess it would create. This was just insane.
Like Barack Obama, I'm not against ALL wars, but I was always against this particular stupid war. Even so, I didn't realize how badly the Bushies would bungle the occupation. I didn't understand that their 'planning' didn't deserve the name. I didn't expect that they'd completely ignore Afghanistan in their giddy joy at getting their dirty paws on Iraq. But I knew enough to oppose the war, despite believing the administration's lies. I was apparently a LOT smarter than Hillary Clinton, huh?
April 7, 2008 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
There were many experts saying WMD was a fraud-- Scott Ritter, among others. There were numerous reports from past inspectors, experts on the regions, etc. who knew Colin Powell was full of b.s.
A full 1/3 of America thought so, half of the Democrats in the Senate thought so. Hillary made a craven, political choice to vote for the war. She is surrounded by advisors who, to this day, think the war was a good idea and not handled well, as many of Hillary's statements have supported.
So she's full of it. Pure and simple. She voted to look tough enough to be president, instead of making an informed choice about the best path for America to follow. It was politics and only politics.
Find Obama's 2002 speech: it is so right on the money about what would happen. No way Hillary comes anywhere near that level of principled judgment.
April 7, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary criticized the war before you were born!
April 7, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment