Hillary on the War circa 2003 - what an experience

[TomClash]

Remember in the Los Angeles debate she said she gave Bush the authority to go to war but not to start a pre-emptive war:

"You know, I've said many times, if I had known then what I know now, I never would have given President Bush the authority. It was a sincere vote, based on my assessment at the time and what I believed he would do with the authority he was given. He abused that authority. He misused that authority. I warned, at the time, it was not authority for a pre-emptive war. Nevertheless he went ahead and waged one, which has led to the position we find ourselves in today."

Here is a curious part of her speech before the Council on Foreign Relations on December 15, 2003:

"I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote. I have had many disputes and disagreements with the administration over how that authority has been used, but I stand by the vote to provide the authority because I think it was a necessary step in order to maximize the outcome that did occur in the Security Council with the unanimous vote to send in inspectors. And I also knew that our military forces would be successful. But what we did not appreciate fully and what the administration was unprepared for was what would happen the day after."

So she voted for the resolution in part because she "knew that our military would be successful." How could she know it would be successful if she never thought Bush would use that authority to start a pre-emptive war?

More importantly, she admits that she "did not appreciate fully . . . what would happen the day after" meaning the insurgency and its effect.

That failure to "appreciate fully" will wind up costing the country $3 trillion, 4,000 American lives, tens of thousands of disabled and sick soldiers and countless Iraqi dead and wounded.

Who needs that kind of experience?

[DJ13]

1. She's a LIAR

We dont need another liar in the WH.

[galadrium]

2. Not me

Who wants a candidate that votes for war without reading the entire NIE? What the hell kind of experience is that?

[msongs]

3. Obama has made up for it by voting to support and fund the war/occupation nt

[TomClash]

4. And you would leave the soldiers unarmed and unfunded?

That seems politically and morally wrong.

[Unsane]

5. Agreed. What a non-starter argument.

Like he's going to actively vote against funding that protects American troops. How stupid.

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. And what was he supposed to do? Withhold money without any

guarantee that * would withdraw the troops? Leave them exposed on the battlefield, underequipped and underarmored?

There was NO vote to "fund the war". There were only votes to fund the military - and the military uses that funding as it determines its own needs. Not funding would mean not supplying the troops, shutting down military hospitals, forcing them to rely on stocks of obsolete weapons.

And how is it bad that he was "voting to support and fund the war" but not bad when Hillary cast the same exact votes?