Clinton attacks Bush's "irresponsibility" on Iraq

[Walter]

Democratic presidential contender Hillary Rodham Clinton said in Iowa on Sunday President George W. Bush should find a way out of Iraq before he leaves office and called it "the height of irresponsibility" to leave the problem to the next administration

Read more here!

 

[testingtesting]

testing testing

 

[bbbb]

It seems to have worked for her and why shouldn't it?

 

[PLC1]

It sounds to me like a case of the pot caling the kettle black. Didn't Hillary vote for the invasion? Didn't she do a total flip flop after seeing that the war was a disaster?

If a majority of the voters were to rally behind Bush and his ill advised war, Hillary would be talking out of the other side of her mouth. She will do or say anything to get elected.

And Bush isn't going to get us out if Iraq before he leaves office. He will do just what Hillary said he would do: Leave the problem for the next administration to solve, along with the budget mess and the illegal immigration fiasco.

Why do we keep electing idiots to high office?

 

[Castle]

Why do we keep electing idiots to high office?

Excellent question!
Maybe because we assume people that have made the acquisition of wealth their first and only endeavor are all blessed with superior intellect. As the last few Presidents have shown, this might not be true....lol

-Castle

 

[not2needy]

Most of Congress voted for the invasion, because like the public, they had been misled. Now Bush is using it against them, just like he is using it against America and the troops.

 

[zerorelations]

Let's just hope that our next president doesn't turn out to be like Bush.

 

[not2needy]

Hope and pray our next president has some morals and ethics.

 

[Dave]

Most of Congress voted for the invasion, because like the public, they had been misled. Now Bush is using it against them, just like he is using it against America and the troops.

How was Congress misled? They had access to the same intelligence reports that the President did. Congress has committees to review intelligence reports and they all came to the same conclussions.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

How was Congress misled? They had access to the same intelligence reports that the President did. Congress has committees to review intelligence reports and they all came to the same conclussions.

Dave, don't say that. Your ruining the DNC's talking points.

 

[Fonz]

How was Congress misled? They had access to the same intelligence reports that the President did.

No they didn't.

 

[Dave]

No they didn't.

What specifically did the President see that Congress did not?

 

[not2needy]

I don't think it's what he saw, rather what he portrayed to Congress and the American to rally support for his war. The end justifys the means.

 

[endtyranny]

Congress wasn't misled, they drew their own conclusions from the intelligence available and decided to vote with the president's high approval ratings in mind.

 

[Castle]

I don't think it's what he saw, rather what he portrayed to Congress and the American to rally support for his war. The end justifys the means.

I could not disagree more. Congress was always able to base their decisions with respect to Iraq on the same information that President Bush had along with historical data. It is simply now convenient to claim ignorance as their justification for supporting the Iraq campaign. I can respect those that claim to have had a change of heart and now believe that our presence there is counter-productive. This topic is ripe for debate but to claim to have been misled is an underhanded tactic that I had hoped was beneath even the hard left in this country.

I am offended that many in Congress assume we have such a short memory. At least those of us that don't blindly follow party lines. Of course, the liberal agenda is to force the "weapons of mass destruction" and "Al-Qaeda link" down the publics throat as the only justification for war. Are all of you that naive? Have we all decided to forget the first Gulf War? Well, I remember the conditions set forth for the cessation of hostilities in Iraq. I also remember that Saddam Hussein agreed to and never adhered to those conditions. Were the UN resolutions meaningless? Should we have continued to ignore Saddam's snubbing of those resolutions for another decade? I suppose the "oil for food" program was just another misunderstanding with respect to where those funds were appropriated. As President, I wouldn't have trusted the UN or Saddam's incomplete and inaccurate accounting for weapons at that time. You only have to look at the current situation between the UN and Iran. How many resolutions do you think it will take before Iran ceases it's enrichment program? The UN will do what it is famous for.......NOTHING. When Iran finally has the bomb and can back up it's threats, what tactics will be available to us then? All Iran needs is time and that is exactly what the UN is and will continue to give them. Oh, but I'm sure when enough time has passed we'll be able to claim ignorance due to being misled by Bush on this subject as well.

It's time Congress started taking responsibility for it's own choices (past and present) and display some leadership qualities in the pursuit of securing our future....not just their own political futures.

-Castle