Hillary Spin on Iraq Vote
The only problem with Hillary’s answer is she was given the intelligence report that warned her about the issues of going into Iraq and she claims she did not read it before voting to send troops into war.
Bill Maher To Senator Clinton: “Why Should Americans Vote For Someone Who Can Be Fooled By George Bush?”
September 13th, 2007 at 7:50 am
Well, okay should we strip the voting rights from people who voted in 2004 for Bush? After all they enabled him more than Hillary did.
September 13th, 2007 at 8:46 am
caroline,
Why would you vote for a President that sent troops to war without reading the intelligence report and keeps blaming Bush when she had the information?
Do you think Hillary is telling the truth that she did not read the intelligence report?
September 13th, 2007 at 8:56 am
John,
Why would people vote for Bush in 2004 knowing that he made up the information about WMD’s? Do you honestly think that Bush told congress the truth? He hasn’t ever told the truth about Iraq.
Using your logic, we shouldn’t vote for any of the GOP candidates either. They all voted for it, other than Paul, or avidly supported it like Romney and Giuliani. Right?
September 13th, 2007 at 9:34 am
Oooh, checkmate. So JohnKonop, are you choosing between Obama and Paul?
September 13th, 2007 at 9:55 am
caroline
Are you saying that Bush lied as well as Hillary and that is why you are voting for Hillary?
September 13th, 2007 at 9:56 am
Left
Obama still wants our troops in the Middle East long term do you support that idea?
September 13th, 2007 at 10:01 am
caroline,
Did the rest of the world “makeup” information about WMDs? Or was Bush the lone liar?
Hillary lies as a matter of normal discourse (in other words, you must be ‘willing to suspend disbelief’ to listen to her). She did not answer the question posed by Maher, but we did get to hear the annoying laugh again. For all those like Hillary who wish to impugn Bush’s character by implying that he is stupid, this question really points out just how ridiculous the strategy is considering the fact that most voted with Bush to attack Iraq (if Hillary really believes her vote was to re-insert inspectors, then someone should really check her IQ level).
September 13th, 2007 at 10:06 am
Bart
You are right very good point!
“(if Hillary really believes her vote was to re-insert inspectors, then someone should really check her IQ level)”.
September 13th, 2007 at 10:08 am
The real question should be was Bush or Hillary spinning the truth more?
September 13th, 2007 at 10:21 am
JohnKonop: I’m sorry, I missed your answer to my question.
Are you restricting your presidential vote to candidates that voted against (or publicly criticized) the Iraq War? Is it Paul or Obama?
September 13th, 2007 at 10:21 am
bb & John,
I know you will never hold Bush responsible for anything. Was Hillary commander in chief? No, and sorry equal responsiblity is not in order here. If it where, bb, you would be just as responsible as Bush for all his screwups because you voted for him!
September 13th, 2007 at 10:25 am
caroline
Unlike you I hold Hillary and Bush responsible. They had the same information and the results are clear.
September 13th, 2007 at 10:25 am
bb,
Using your logic, should we revoke your voting rights then?
September 13th, 2007 at 10:26 am
I do not agree with Obama on trade and immigration so I could not vote for him bottom line. And I am not clear on his Middle East stratgey?
September 13th, 2007 at 10:26 am
Well, John then you are going to have to hold almost the entire GOP responsible along with GOP grassroots activists. After all, Bush would have never gotten into office if people like you hadn’t voted for him right?
September 13th, 2007 at 10:33 am
I did no vote for Bush the second time. And I did stand up and spent my own money going against his policies.
Bart will tell you I was very outspoken in the GOP Party about why I did not agree with NEOCONS like Bush.
And I still have GOP insiders like Bart who think I was not loyal for speaking out.
Country is bigger than Party to me.
September 13th, 2007 at 10:35 am
JohnKonop: Are you going to restrict your vote to candidates that did not support the Iraq War?
If not, then your attacks on Clinton (about Iraq) are partisan and hypocritical. Why aren’t you attacking Guiliani and Thompson with the same vigor?
September 13th, 2007 at 10:41 am
Left
I have made it clear on the war I disagree with them. The difference is Hillary is saying she is for pulling the troops out miss-leading her base.
I think the NYT is right most Democrats do not understand that Hillary is more of the same.
September 13th, 2007 at 10:57 am
JohnKonop: Your desire to help create a better informed Democratic rank-and-file is touching.
Please contrast her NYT-stated position on Iraq with the positions of ALL the Republican candidates (less Paul).
They all want what she wants PLUS they argue forcefully for keeping American troops on the streets of Baghdad indefinitely. They want to keep the body bags coming.
So, on the basis of Iraq, is there a Republican candidate you prefer over Clinton (save Paul)?
September 13th, 2007 at 11:03 am
John,
Let me ask you this:
Even if that article (which is old) is right, what difference is it going to make when all the GOP front runners are “stay the course”?
September 13th, 2007 at 11:15 am
Left,
I can tell you the GOP stances because I just researched them for another thread:
Giuliani: Bush 201. His website even uses Bush talking points verbatim.
Thompson: Has no stances on anything other than “lobbying is the solution to our problems.” LOL He has in previous interviews stated his support for the neoconservative agenda.
Romney: Iraq doesn’t exist in Romney’s world. It’s all about his future plans to attack Iran.
McCain: He has a very detailed plan on his website. He plans to do what Bush has done but on a larger scale. He wants a long occupation with hundreds of thousands of soldiers stationed there, probably for decades.
September 13th, 2007 at 11:17 am
Oh, and left, these websites might be good comedy if these people weren’t running for Pres (well, except maybe for McCain) He seems to at least be letting you know where he stands on the issues and giving you great detail.
September 13th, 2007 at 11:22 am
caroline
So you support Hillary because she is a Democrat that supports having troops in the Middle East?
September 13th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
John,
You are missing my point. You are really trying to make an argument that doesn’t exist. Like lefty said, if it’s between less involvement amd more involvement I’ll take less involvement. You are making a fallacious argument. The above is the choice we have. I’ve said that Hillary is not my first choice, Edwards probably is. Unless by some miracle Paul wins the GOP primary, what you are advocating isn’t even a choice.
September 13th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Watch the video I posted called Blowback and tell me who is missing the point!
September 13th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
John,
I did watch the video. You still haven’t answered my or left’s questions. I guess you’ll be sitting home in ‘08, right?
September 13th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
We might have a good third Party or they may change positions on the war as this plays out.
September 13th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
JohnKonop: Just say it already! “The Democrats are better than the Republicans on Iraq, though not perfect.”
Try saying it backwards a few times, then quickly say it forwards, before your Inner Partisan objects.
September 13th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
JohnKonop: “…[the Republican presidential candidates] may change positions on the war as this plays out.” Huh!?!?
Is that what passes for leadership in Republican circles these days?
September 13th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
And Hillary passes as leadership of your party?
September 13th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Left & Caroline
Is your strategy to vote for Hillary and click your heals three times and say “Hillary will change”?
September 13th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
JohnKonop: I wouldn’t have to click my heels if I were voting for Clinton(which I’m not). She’s already better than any of your Republicans on Iraq.
Don’t you agree? Better but not perfect.
Or is your conservative brain struggling with gray areas today?
September 13th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
How is Hillary better? Her slogan 4 more years of Bush.
Trade NO
Immigration NO
Education No
War No
Spending No
September 13th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
JohnKonop: Which Republican presidential candidate do you think has a better position on Iraq than Clinton (excluding Paul)?
September 13th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Left
Hillary is about the same.
September 13th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
caroline and left
I guess your gal Hillary did not talk to military sources before sending troops to war?
Former Top Commander Condemns Pentagon Officials Over Iraq War
In the book, Zinni writes: “In the lead up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility, at worse, lying, incompetence and corruption.”
“I think there was dereliction in insufficient forces being put on the ground and fully understanding the military dimensions of the plan. I think there was dereliction in lack of planning,” says Zinni. “The president is owed the finest strategic thinking. He is owed the finest operational planning. He is owed the finest tactical execution on the ground. … He got the latter. He didn’t get the first two.”
Zinni says Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time - with the wrong strategy. And he was saying it before the U.S. invasion. In the months leading up to the war, while still Middle East envoy, Zinni carried the message to Congress: “This is, in my view, the worst time to take this on. And I don’t feel it needs to be done now.”
But he wasn’t the only former military leader with doubts about the invasion of Iraq. Former General and National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, former Centcom Commander Norman Schwarzkopf, former NATO Commander Wesley Clark, and former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki all voiced their reservations.
September 13th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
JohnKonop: They’re not “about the same” if you’re stationed in Iraq.
Hillary wants to pull our troops out of the civil war, off the streets, and out of harms way. The Republican candidates don’t.
September 13th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Left
Why do you trust anything Hillary says? I have a game count the lies in this short video Hillary told.
September 13th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Left & Caroline
I have a hint over 6 in less than 120 seconds. Wow that is talent!
September 13th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Is your strategy to vote for Hillary and click your heals three times and say “Hillary will change”?
No, that sounds like your strategy. You are hoping that the GOP front runners will change their positions from what you said above.
September 13th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
John,
Why do you believe anything the GOP believes? After all, Bush will be handing the torch to the GOP nominee not Hillary. Trying to foist the Turkey Bush onto the Dems won’t work. You guys own him and are going to have to deal with that. You all are just going to have to have a civil war and kick all the neocons and fundamentalists out of the party if you ever want to win.
September 13th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
I am not defending the lawmakers that voted for the war in any Party. You are the one defending Hillary and still do not get it.
September 13th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
John,
Everything isn’t black and white like you would like it to be. The choice may be “less involvement” or “more involvement”. Which would you pick?
September 13th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Three quick questions:
1. Did Dubious have the same (or better) intelligence on Iraq as did Senator Clinton?
2. If no, would not having intelligence available to a mere senator constitute the greatest failure in US Presidential history, or treason?
3. If yes, why would anyone continually harp on a mere senator’s access to intelligence while ignoring that of the actual administration?
Answers, please, starting with Mr Konop and then moving on to bb.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
January 20, 2009.
The end of an error.
September 13th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
The end of a error…
Well done!
September 14th, 2007 at 3:48 am
David, MD, Left, Caroline
I have been outspoken about anyone who voted for the Iraq war. Hillary is running for President not Bush. So why do you trust a Senator Hillary to be President when she lies about her Iraq vote?
September 14th, 2007 at 4:48 am
Did Senator Clinton lie about her Iraq vote? As I recall, she is on the record and has never, not once, said “The record is wrong.”
So, no lie.
Did Dubious launch a war of aggression against another sovereign nation, for no good reason?
Yes.
Are the two in any way equal?
No.
September 14th, 2007 at 6:11 am
David
Nice Spin, can you watch this video and say Hillary is not lying?
September 14th, 2007 at 9:05 am
John,
Where’s the lie?
That Bill Mahrer is not a real reporter?
MD
September 14th, 2007 at 9:11 am
John,
Now let’s ask the Fox News type questions.
How can you attack our leadership and not slam the general population at the same time?
My GAWD! You’re actually saying Americans habitually lie! They were for the war before they were against it! And, they were for George Bush before they were against him!
AND, they were fooled by George Bush and he’s still fooling them.
But, of course, that’s all because Hilliary isn’t as honest, knowledgable, and well informed in your humble opinion as a FEMALE GAWD should have been …
[Your underlying premise is that only a GAWD like Woman should be President. Which dovetails with your opinion that only GAWD like Men should run for office. Which of course is why you ran for office]
Dog OUT!
(sorry gene)
September 14th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
I am sure she told more lies but this all I had time for Hillary!
Lie she did not get the intelligence.
Lie she was for going into Iraq in fact she had some on the most pro attack Iraq quotes before the war.
Lie “had I known then what I know now”, she did know via the intelligence report
Lie she thought she only voted for more inspections.
Lie again BTW the military experts wrote public articles not to go into Iraq before the war.
Lie she wanted Kerry to loose so she could run in o8
September 14th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
John,
That’s “if I had known what I know now”. It’s kind of an understatement. Hindsight is 20/20.
Do you really think that congress had the same information that the President had? I don’t think that they were given the whole story. I don’t know why the GOP isn’t kicking W’s sorry butt about that one.
September 14th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
caroline
The NIE report was clear, the letters from the Generals in the newspapers clear, basic knowledge of the Middle East clear……
What else did she need?
September 14th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
John,
What else did Bush and his inner circle have that Hilliary Jilliary didn’t have … ?
What else did they need?
And, why isn’t every Republican siding with you?
OPS!
That’s the major fault with your partisan attacks on Hilliary.
The GOP is still fooled by Bush.
Get back to me when you’ve run all of them out of your party. Out of politics. Out of the country. Off the planet.
That’s IF, John, IF as you say, “NIE report was clear, the letters from the Generals in the newspapers clear, basic knowledge of the Middle East clear……”
If all of those were so crystal clear, how come your GOP hasn’t tried Bush for Treason, renounced their political party for aiding the enemy, and joined the DNC?
When you get finished cleaning up the GOP … well, when you pull your head out of Hilliary’s butt and get started with the real problem in Government for the past seven years …
Hell, never mind. I’m expecting way too much from you.
September 14th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
I doubt that anyone in Washington listened to the editorials. Don’t you remember Bush/Cheney telling everyone that they had information about Iraq that they couldn’t reveal?
Yeah, surely she should have known better than listen to Bush/Cheney but so should have most of the public. They didn’t listen to any of those things either.
September 14th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
caroline and MD
Why is it the Democrat in control of both Houses have not gone after Bush?
Answer they had the same information when both Parties sold us out.
The truth will set you free!
September 14th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Are you saying when Hillary said she talk to the generals she was lying?
FYI
1. Former Top Commander Condemns Pentagon Officials Over Iraq War
In the book, Zinni writes: “In the lead up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility, at worse, lying, incompetence and corruption.”
“I think there was dereliction in insufficient forces being put on the ground and fully understanding the military dimensions of the plan. I think there was dereliction in lack of planning,” says Zinni. “The president is owed the finest strategic thinking. He is owed the finest operational planning. He is owed the finest tactical execution on the ground. … He got the latter. He didn’t get the first two.”
Zinni says Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time - with the wrong strategy. And he was saying it before the U.S. invasion. In the months leading up to the war, while still Middle East envoy, Zinni carried the message to Congress: “This is, in my view, the worst time to take this on. And I don’t feel it needs to be done now.”
But he wasn’t the only former military leader with doubts about the invasion of Iraq. Former General and National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, former Centcom Commander Norman Schwarzkopf, former NATO Commander Wesley Clark, and former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki all voiced their reservations.
September 14th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
John,
Some Democrats have gone after Bush. It’s the conservatives in the caucus that are largely holding that kind of thing up. However, Bush may be going on trial for war crimes once his time in office is up. We’ll have to wait and see what is released by the next President. And you better believe that they are going to release ALL the information that the GOP has been hiding.
September 14th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
John,
That Zinni quote is from 2004.
September 14th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
LOL!
John, why didn’t Hilliary Jilliary listen to your list of ex-generals?
MD
September 14th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
caroline
Hillary said she talk to them before her vote is she lying?
September 14th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Caroline
You have it wrong read again!And Zinni claims he told Lawmakers!
Zinni says Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time - with the wrong strategy.
And he was saying it before the U.S. invasion. In the months leading up to the war, while still Middle East envoy, Zinni carried the message to Congress: “This is, in my view, the worst time to take this on. And I don’t feel it needs to be done now.”
But he wasn’t the only former military leader with doubts about the invasion of Iraq. Former General and National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, former Centcom Commander Norman Schwarzkopf, former NATO Commander Wesley Clark, and former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki all voiced their reservations.
September 14th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
John,
Which generals did she talk to? As we’ve seen, it depends on the general doesn’t it? Some tow the Bush line and others don’t right?
September 14th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Clark was her husbands main General for one.
Zinni and Shinseki were the Generals in charge before the war.
And I am sure you know who Schwazkopf and Scowcroft are?
The above are the best and brightest about the Middle East. Give me a break.
September 14th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
John,
Those are good guys, but not the best or the brightest on the Middle East from the United States’ point of view.
Why do you think generals know more about every country in the world than any other group?
In my humble opinion, generals don’t have enough time to learn much more than ‘generalities.’ (Double meanings intended)
September 14th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
MD
Hillary said she was getting advice from the Generals. The above would have been anybodies short list of the best and brightest Generals on the topic of the Middle East. How could Hillary have talked to them and voted for the Iraq war?
September 14th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
John,
You still didn’t say which ones she spoke to. I’ve heard a rumor that Clark told everyone to vote for the war. Unconfirmed of course but by someone who knows a lot more than me.
September 14th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
Caroline,
I have to agree with you.
Hilliary Jilliary speaks in general about generals. She sought advice from several groups of people. She and many others expected something entirely different to happen after each specific vote.
John isn’t even connecting votes with events with later comments by Hilliary Jilliary.
Fishermen tell better stories than John.
MD
September 14th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
John,
Let’s break down the meaning of the word is …
The phrase, ‘the generals?’
Is that all the active duty generals? Active and reserve duty? Active, retired, and reserve generals?
General Motors?
General Mills?
General Chemical?
General Credit?
General Electric?
General Accident?
The question isn’t what does the phrase mean, but why use it?
Senators don’t send thousands of U.S. soldiers into combat except in your mind.
And, Bush isn’t ever held accountable in mine.
MD
September 14th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
and when the generals admit they made mistakes, why hold just Hilliary accountable?
General says, I made mistakes
September 15th, 2007 at 7:41 am
Md and Caroline
Deal with the facts not what you feel. NICE SPIN I GUESS HILLARY DOES NOT WATCH CNN?
From Wikipedia
Clark supported the administration’s War in Afghanistan in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks but did not support the expansion of the War on Terrorism to the Iraq War. Clark continued to warn people as a commentator on CNN that he believed the United States was undermanned in Iraq, and has said the war was “never [about]… WMD or regime change,” and believes “the connection to the War on Terrorism was not shown.”[88][89]
September 15th, 2007 at 8:02 am
John,
You should learn to read.
From the very same article in Wikipedia,”The day after he launched his campaign, for example, he was asked if he would have voted for the Iraq War Resolution, which granted President Bush the power to wage the Iraq War, a large issue in the 2004 campaign. Clark said, “At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that’s too simple a question,” then “I don’t know if I would have or not. I’ve said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position — on balance, I probably would have voted for it.”
Clark, on the record saying he would have voted EXACTLY THE SAME WAY HILLIARY JILLIARY VOTED!
You’re a freaken ______ !
September 15th, 2007 at 8:18 am
John,
This was something Clark did privately not publicly.
September 15th, 2007 at 8:19 am
John,
Something to think about:
In the end the GOP will nominate someone who either voted for the war or is an avid supporter. If she’s the nominee, this kind of stuff isn’t really going to matter. Like I’ve said several times:
Do you want more involvement or less involvement?
September 15th, 2007 at 8:41 am
John
So you are saying General Clark was lying to the public on a daily basis on CNN before Iraq war two and secretly supported the war?
And you base this on a rumor started by Hillary who was caught in a lie about her vote on the Iraq war?
September 15th, 2007 at 8:49 am
At the end I think McCain, Rudy… will do the same as Hillary. Both sides are just throwing our red meat to the base.
No mater who wins from the front runners from both parties they will try to fade the troops out on day to day fighting. Yet still keep a large military foot print in the Middle East.
It seems clear Bush is moving toward self rule in each region. But as I said this is a containment solution. And if we do not figure out how to get our military foot print out of the Middle East we will only fuel more attacks on the west.
September 15th, 2007 at 9:11 am
Well John that’s not what the GOP is saying. They are saying keep the same level of troops or more in Iraq or, in the case of Romney, start a War with Iran.
Did you read the wiki link? Clark said that he would have voted for the war if given the choice? You can go on and on about this stuff but it really isn’t going to matter.
You still haven’t proved that she lied about talking to the generals. All your links are to what they said after the war started.
And why do you hold her equally accountable? That’s nonsense. I’ve been over and over this with you. Even if every Democrat had voted against the war would it have stopped it? The answer is no because the GOP had control of Washington.
The responsiblity goes:
1. Bush
2. The GOP
3. The Dems that voted for it.
So while she does have SOME responsiblity to make her solely responsible is not logical.
September 15th, 2007 at 10:48 am
I never said Hillary was soley responsible! On the hand you never told me why you trust Hillary?
September 15th, 2007 at 11:39 am
John,
You have been trying to make her equally responsible. I never said I trusted her. I said that you didn’t prove that she lied. You are putting words in my mouth. I could make the argument that all politicians can’t be trusted. The odd thing is the ones who actually do everything they say they are going to do like Bush end up being the worst Presidents.
Trust is overrated. 90% of Americans trusted Bush after 9/11 and look where that got us. I think skepticism is in order for EVERYONE. My only beef is that criticisms should be based on facts.
September 15th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
John,
You don’t have a clue in all of this. In this endless stream of blaming Hilliary Clinton for the actions of Bush, you conveniently ignore that Clark was forced into retirement. That Clark had been discredited at WACO, That at the time of the Bush led charge into Iraq, Clark was working with an investment group.
You’re pretty much doing the same thing as saying Truman’s Senate should have listened to EX-General MacArther. Which meant using at least 20 atomic bombs in China to save Big Daddy Mac from the Red Hordes.
You’re upside down, backwards, and head over heels in love with Hilliary. And, Hilliary just can’t stand you. Poor jilted lover that you are …
MOVE ON!
September 16th, 2007 at 7:05 am
Carlonie and MD please do not let the facts get in the way you feel about Hillary!
CP-Mrs Clinton’s problem is that she very willingly suspended disbelief in 2002. When it came time to deliver her Senate speech in support of the war, she reiterated some of the most outlandish claims made by Dick Cheney. In this speech she said Saddam Hussein had rebuilt his chemical and biological weapons program; that he had improved his long-range missile capability; that he was reconstituting his nuclear weapons program; and that he was giving aid and comfort to Al Qaeda. The only other Democratic senator to make all four of these claims in his floor speech was Joe Lieberman. But even he didn’t go as far as Senator Clinton. In Lieberman’s speech, there was conditionality about some of the claims. In Senator Clinton’s, there was none, though even the grotesque war hawk, Ken Pollack, advising Senator Clinton prior to her vote, had told her that the allegation about the Al Qaeda connection was “bullshit.”
Later, as the winds of opinion changed, Senator Clinton claimed – and continues to do so to this day – that hers was a vote not for war but for negotiation. In fact, the record shows that only hours after the war authorization vote Senator voted against the Democratic resolution that would have required Bush to seek a diplomatic solution before launching the war.
READ MORE
September 16th, 2007 at 9:25 am
John,
I’ve doubled checked a lot of your facts on this blog. So have other folks. Your reputation for finding and presenting verifiable facts is very poor.
If you were testifying under oath in a murder trial, as a juror I would discard all your testimony.
Having said that, let’s assume you have traveled through time and space, entered the mind and heart of Hilliary Clinton.
Now you are the only person in the whole to know everything that is to be known about the internal workings of Hilliary Clinton.
What did you find?
She’s the most arrogant, cold hearted, calculating, self-promoting, pompous, pretentious, bossy, dominant, lying politician in the history of the United States.
Yes, given all that, Hilliary is not qualified to be President.
She should take up quail hunting and become the greatest Vice President of all time.
September 16th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
MD
I give the links on the post. WOW great research on your part!
September 16th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
John,
Do you remember the Pelosi posts?
How Pelosi was making millions and millions of dollars from the Iraq war?
But, when the financials of the companies were examined, it wasn’t true?
If you links lead to false information, it’s still false information.
And, you’re not linking to best source or first source information.
You’re linking, always linking, to partisan, biased, and worthless sources.
Instead of cutting and pasting from .com and .org, why not link to .gov where the voting records are at least accurate?
Allegations that Hilliary voted this way or that way from a biased or hearsay source is worthless for fact finding.
Hell, John, I can get a .org url.
Does that make me an expert on anything?
MD
September 16th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
MD
Your facts are wrong it was Feinstein and she did make a lot of money off the Iraq war.
SENATOR FEINSTEIN MUST GO!!!
It is not enough that she just resign her chair on the military committee for abusing her power to enrich her family. The Democratic lawmakers ran on a “culture of corruption” in 06. If they mean what they say FEINSTEIN SHOULD RESIGN FROM THE SENATE! Can anyone give a good reason why Feinstein should still be in the Senate? Thanks Mike for the hat tip!
CC-A veteran California senator has resigned as chair of a powerful military construction committee after reports that for years she abused her position to award her husband’s companies billions of dollars in government contracts.
During her six years as chair and ranking member of the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee, Senator Dianne Feinstein annually supervised the appropriation of billions of dollars for specific military construction projects. The San Francisco lawmaker supervised her own staff of military construction experts and she lobbied Pentagon officials to support her favorite projects.
She wielded quite a bit of power and succeeded in steering hundreds of billions of dollars in military contracts to companies partially owned by her wealthy husband, Richard Blum. One company alone earned $792 million from military construction and environmental cleanup projects approved by Feinstein’s committee and another $759 million
September 16th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Thanks John.
Feinstein.
“One company alone earned $792 million from military construction and environmental cleanup projects approved by Feinstein’s committee and another $759 million.”
The keyword is EARNED.
No company in which Feinstein owned a controlling interest EARNED billions.
We’ve been there and done that.
Her husband, Richard Blum does not have a controlling interest or even such a large interest in these ‘companies’ as to require public disclosure under SEC rules.
I looked up the information. Gave the links. Provided the hard, harsh facts.
Glad your memory of names is better than mine.
My wife has more ownership in those companies than Feinstein’s husband through her 401(k).
MD
September 16th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
The only reason to focus on 1% of the Senate, Mrs Clinton, is to obscure the responsibility of those who launched this immoral and unnecessary war of aggression against another sovereign nation.
Where’s the outrage?
Why constantly change the subject, away from true responsibility?