In her own words: Hillary believed we needed to go it alone to disarm Saddam Hussein.

[dkf]

Many of you say it is history, but her stance has implications on Iran so it is still very relevant:

From a meeting with Code Pink:

I admire your willingness to speak out on behalf of of the women and children of Iraq. There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm’s way, and 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 have followed for more than a decade.

If he was serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming coming. There may be progress, we may be destroying the Samoud missiles, but there is no accounting for the chemical and biological stocks. And I just respectfully disagree about what the proximate cause of any action that may be taken is.

Now I also believe that for now nearly 20 years the principal reason why women and children in Iraq have suffered is because of his leadership. His not only tyrannical and dictatorial leadership, but his reign of terror against women and children. And it is a — it is a very unfortunate situation for the Iraqi people that they have been so horribly misgoverned for so long.

Now, I do think that there are continuing discussions ongoing that I hope can make some further progress building on the success of the missile destruction program. But that has been the first real compliance, and it was only brought about when the inspectors discovered the missiles — they were not revealed — that their length was longer than what had been prescribed under the resolutions ending the Gulf War.

And the very difficult question for all of us is how does one bring about the disarmament of someone with such a proven track record of a commitment if not an obsession with weapons of mass destruction. And I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn’t believe should be in any way a part this decision.

And it is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution. That is not my preference, it would be far preferable if we not only had legitimate cooperation from Saddam Hussein and a willingness on his part to disarm and account for his chemical and biological storehouses, but that if we had a much broader alliance and coalition.

But we are in a very difficult position right now. And so I would love to agree with you, but I can’t based on my own understanding and assessment of the situation.

In response to a question from an audience member:

… 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 the Kosavar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. And we did it alone as the United States. And we had to do it alone.

It would have been far preferable if the Russians and others had agreed to do it through the United Nations. They would not.

I’m happy that in the face of such horrible suffering we did act. And so I see it somewhat differently, if you’ll forgive me, from my experience and perspective.

I’m agreeing with you a hundred percent that even though I am willing to take a very difficult step for me to say we have to disarm this man. That position in no way supports the disastrous economic policies that this administration is pursuing. In fact I think that this is the height of irresponsibility.

And it would be far preferable to be more patient and more thoughtful and more willing to try to engender support with respect to Iraq. That is a decision that has to be made in the world community.

Here at home this administration is bankrupting our economy, forcing us to make the worst kinds of false choices between national and homeland security, which they don’t fund. And between security and everything else, which they don’t want to fund.

So you have me a hundred percent on that. And it is absolutely wrong — it is wrong that for the first time in American history we have a President who is talking about leading this country to war and wanting to cut taxes at the same time.

That is the height of cruel, arrogant irresponsibility.

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/hillary-clintons-lies-about-iraq-caught-on-video-tape

---Keep in mind she is a Senator, so if, God Forbid, John McCain wins the Presidency, there is a very great possibility that she might go this route with Iran.

[DJ13]

1. So much for the Goddess Of Peace moniker, but she'll always be

G...O...P

[backscatter712]

2. You summed it up right there.

Before long, we'll be seeing HillaryIs45.net. She won't even bother to stop campaigning - she'll be on full campaign mode for a full four years so she can try again in 2012.

She was the corporatist Manchurian candidate in the Democratic Party from the start. She would have continued the war with Iraq, attacked Iran, pushed more "free" trade resulting in more offshoring of jobs and destruction of the middle class, made a half-hearted "effort" at implementing the health care plan she promised, one guaranteed from the start to be shot down by her political "enemies" in the GOP, and in the end, she'll be just like Bush.

[maximusveritas]

3. "so I see it somewhat differently...from my experience and perspective."

Finally, we see evidence of where her experience and perspective came into play.

[formercia]

4. Parroting Bush Gang propaganda.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Hillary Clinton is a Trojan Horse.

[Peace Patriot]

5. So, we go slaughter 1.2 MILLION innocent people, and maim, sicken, displace,

torture, jail, and smash up civil order for millions more, and see 4,000 of our own killed--to "disarm Saddam Hussein."

That makes a lot of sense. I can think of some historical parallels, but they are taboo.

[indepat]

6. Those with the mind-set that a world power has the moral authority to slaughter others with impunity

are among us in sickening numbers: they are sick/twisted beyond belief, reason or help and a danger to mankind in general. But there I go waxing poetic. :cry:

[JTFrog]

7. And she laid out the blueprint for using force against Saddam in her infamous speech...

Hillary was one of the most vocal democrats pushing for the IWR. In her infamous speech she proves that she knew she was voting for war AND she even laid out the blueprints to being able to use force the same way her husband did.

NO AMOUNT OF DENIAL OR COGNITIVE DISSONANCE AMONGST HER SUPPORTERS WILL EVER CHANGE THESE FACTS.

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0303-23.htm

See Hillary Run (from Her Husband's Past on Iraq)
by Scott Ritter

Senator Hillary Clinton wants to become President Hillary Clinton. "I'm in, and I'm in to win," she said, announcing her plans to run for the Democratic nomination for the 2008 Presidential election. Let there be no doubt that Hillary Clinton is about as slippery a species of politician that exists, one who has demonstrated an ability to morph facts into a nebulous blob which blurs the record and distorts the truth. While she has demonstrated this less than flattering ability on a number of issues, nowhere is it so blatant as when dealing with the issue of the ongoing war in Iraq and Hillary Clinton's vote in favor of this war.

This issue won't be resolved even if Hillary Clinton apologizes for her Iraq vote, as other politicians have done, blaming their decision on faulty intelligence on Iraq's WMD capabilities. This is because, like many other Washington politicians at the time, including those now running for president, she had been witness to lies about Iraq's weapons programs to justify attacks on that country by her husband President Bill Clinton and his administration.

"While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq," Senator Clinton said at the time of her vote, in a carefully crafted speech designed to demonstrate her range of knowledge and ability to consider all options. "I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998."

Hillary would have done well to leave out that last part, the one where her husband, the former President of the United States, used military force as part of a 72-hour bombing campaign ostensibly deemed as a punitive strike in defense of disarmament, but in actuality proved to be a blatant attempt at regime change which used the hyped-up threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction as an excuse for action. Sound familiar? While many Americans today condemn the Bush administration for misleading them with false claims of unsubstantiated threats which resulted in the ongoing debacle we face today in Iraq (count Hillary among this crowd), few have reflected back on the day when the man from Hope, Arkansas sat in the Oval Office and initiated the policies of economic sanctions-based containment and regime change which President Bush later brought to fruition when he ordered the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

...much more at link


Scott Ritter served as a former Marine Corps officer from 1984 until 1991, and as a UN weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 until 1998. He is the author of several books, including "Iraq Confidential" and "Target Iran". He also co-authored "War on Iraq" with William Pitt.

AND NEVER FORGET THAT SHE DOES NOT CARE IF YOU DON'T LIKE THAT SHE VOTED FOR WAR:

"If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from," Mrs. Clinton told an audience in Dover, N.H., in a veiled reference to two rivals for the nomination, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina."

The Goddess of Peace interrupted Senator Byrd and took away his floor time allotted to his ANTI-WAR speech so that she could shove the IWR down our throats. The Goddess of Peace voted against banning cluster bombs. And the Goddess of Peace played right into the Republican hands again by voting in favor of Kyl-Lieberman.

Obviously the term "Goddess of Peace" means something completely different in HillaryWorld.