Quote:
Originally Posted by aimeecc
As far as Clinton's stance (1st time) on Iraq, she has stood by her decision based on the information at the time. Had the information been clearer, she would have voted differently. I also think she voted for it because she didn't want to be portrayed as unsupportive. That would of had its own backlash as well, and shown a divided nation to the world.
|
I think she voted for it because Democrats have been afraid for a long time to be painted with the "soft on defense" brush. She wanted to appear tough. Also, the public was still out for blood after 9/11. She was afraid to go against public opinion polls.
I didn't trust anything Bush was saying during the lead-up to war. How could she have? WMDs? No way. The inspectors had access to every facility in Iraq, and found nothing. Since then, all we found were some old corroded non functioning shells left over from the Iran-Iraq war. Bush was lying about WMDs, and I suspected it at the time. Clinton should have too. The burden of proof to go to war should be extraordinarily high. It wasn't with Iraq, and there was no reason for her to vote for war.
She has created this nice excuse that Bush deceived her, but what does that say about her? That she can be deceived?
I am a Democrat, and I was ashamed of all the members of my party who voted for the war. They were a bunch of spineless wimps rolling over so Bush could have his way with them. All because they were afraid to stand up to him and the public. True leaders wouldn't have acted that way.
If Clinton was a true leader, she would have stood up to Bush and public opinion. She would have changed public opinion instead of following it.