Clinton attacks Bush's "irresponsibility" on Iraq »
Posted by: STONERS 1 year, 7 months ago525 Comments Report this Story
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 Full Story at news.aol.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 525
-
0%
STONERS1 year, 7 months ago
"I think it's the height of irresponsibility and I really resent it," she said. "This was his decision to go to war, he went with an ill-conceived plan, an incompetently executed strategy and we should expect him to extricate our country from this before he leaves office."
Reply-
-
0%
contrast1 year, 7 months ago
so she voted for the war and now criticizes it. She knows that vote will haunt her run. If you give a monkey a gun and the monkey shoots someone you cant blame the monkey Hillary...duh.
Reply-
0%
EdInABQ1 year, 7 months ago
I'm not a tremendous Hillary fan. But I did want to say that nobody in Congress voted "for the war". That is just a clever Rovian way of framing that issue. They voted to give the President the authority to use force in Iraq. Those are two different things. The threat of force is first to be used as a diplomatic tool. Then that force used only as a last resort. Bush chose to skip the diplomatic part. That is what Hillary may mean by his irresponsibility. And I have to agree with her.
The military should be used as a tool of diplomacy. Bush uses diplomacy as a tool of militarism.
Reply-
0%
contrast1 year, 7 months ago
-
0%
blog20061 year, 7 months ago
Intelligence reports to fit the policy,outright lies,duh.
And if this was not enough,obvious mismanagement of the war,mismanagement of the diplomatic situation,mismanagement of the economic aspect of rebuilding Iraq.
duh
Get those clowns out.
Reply-
-
0%
capecoralM1 year, 7 months ago
She voted "YES" and is playing politics with the lives of men & women in the line of fire. The majority of Dem's and some Rep's, are making it worse, giving the enemy hope.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-- (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. (b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that-- cont...
Reply-
0%
capecoralM1 year, 7 months ago
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. (c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.-- (1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, cont...
Reply-
0%
capecoralM1 year, 7 months ago
the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. (2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
capecoralM1 year, 7 months ago
Defense Sec.' Robert Gates (Another Dupe I guess) said Friday that such a resolution would amount to undercutting Petraeus and emboldening the insurgents and other hostile forces.
General Petraeus (Another Dupe according to you) answered a question that said you know, if you pass any of these resolutions, you are encouraging the enemy.
I understand that to mean giving the enemy hope and will to fight on. More hope, courage, more will, means more dead Americans. Instead of the American public and elected officials in the government discouraging the enemy by saying "we will fight you until you are finished until you can fight no more" some are giving encouragment to the enemies of the US "Crying Uncle"
It is public remarks of elected officails like H.Clinton that are demeaning to our troops and encourages those that believe the US is a paper tiger AKA (Bin-Laden). Playing politics (for future votes) with the war does not sit well with me.
Reply-
0%
capecoralM1 year, 7 months ago
Feb 2005 - Code Pink Hillary makes the somewhat dubious statements that much of Iraq is functioning well, that elections there have succeeded and that the insurgency is failing. Hillary says the US should not set a deadline for troop withdrawal because it will "play into the hands of the insurgents."
Reply -
0%
jeffery11 year, 7 months ago
Quit posting run-ons and learn to be succinct.
"Encouraging the enemy" is nothing but rhetoric intended to stifle debate. The administration has done nothing right with regards to the invasion, starting from lying about the threat Saddam posed and NOT completing the work in Afghanstan. Why shouldn't there be rules placed on a man who obviously should have been impeached months ago?
If you right-wingers and our troops can't handle living in a democracy then that is a problem. The truth is they are stuck in Iraq for Bush's agenda and thing's have gone bad because he's an incompetent sourrounded by incompetents. We can only hope that Petraeus knows something no one else in power did.
The "enemy" will fight on regardless, even waiting for us to leave and then starting up again. This is the most likely outcome because Bush doesn't understand the region or the people and the complexities involved.
Don't be duped by the administration's nonsensical rhetoric.
Reply-
0%
capecoralM1 year, 7 months ago
Jeffery 1 wrote "Quit Posting" menaing if what I have to post is not in agreement with his views then I should shut up according to him. Now I would say that that pretty much is "intended to stifle debate"
What makes you think you know I am a "RIGHT WINGER" Just because someone disagrees with your view you simply call the "RIGHT WINGER"? Hmmm. I guess that means you have an "opmakes you an open minded left wink looney tune right?
Reply-
0%
jeffery11 year, 7 months ago
I did NOT say quit posting, I said quit posting run-ons. They take up too much room on the page and push things lower or to the next. It also makes it more difficult to repsond to when your posts span more than one "block". Just be succinct.
I think you're a right-winger because you always appear to post the administration's talking points. I don't think everyone who disagrees with me is a right-winger though. But someone who thinks that democratic citizens should stop speaking their mind simply because some troops may not appreciate it seems like they think debate should be stifled.
The strength of a democracy is that all voices have the potential to provide a better solution than one who doesn't know what he's talking about. Maybe the troops who are affected should re-evaluate what they're fighting for. Our debate is as much about their lives as it is about our safety and our nation.
Reply
-
-
0%
capecoralM1 year, 7 months ago
By the way I think YOU should have a little respect for the troops that fight for your right to disrespect them and the mission at hand. You have the right to Bash the President, the "Jar heads", the commanders, and give your OPINION.
"Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier. And, our soldiers don't just give freedom abroad, they preserve it for us here at home.
For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest.
It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag."
Reply-
0%
jeffery11 year, 7 months ago
The mission is a total fabrication of the adminstration. I chose to not join the military because I did not want to be a pawn of any President. That was my choice as an American and they made their choice as Americans. We serve our duties as we see fit.
Reply -
0%
not2needy1 year, 7 months ago
Not all men and women in Iraq support this war, some do for sure, but not all. Why do you all try to say if we are against the war we are against our troops? Nothing could be further from the truth, we want our people home safely, seems to me like you all are the ones who don't want to see them home safely!
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Blackace1 year, 7 months ago
"Emboldening the insurgents" Isn't this an oxymoron? It's not like we are stopping the insurgents, everyday I read the worse bombing since yesterday...it seems to me they are already very bold. People please stop repeating things said by Billy O and the likes, and please start using your brains.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Searchbeam1 year, 7 months ago
As far as I can tell, the only foreign policy "experience" he had was deciding whether to order a taco or a burrito!
And the walk in the occupied Palestinian territory with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon!
When a reporter asked him to name the prime minister of a country, he looked like a deer caught in the headlight!
If the convicted Enron CEO Ken Lay had not given him $2 Million overnight in 2000 Republican primary, he would still be loafing around in Texas, chopping firewood on his ranch!
Peace and Blessings!
Reply
-
-
0%
blogfan1 year, 7 months ago
"but he is young inexperienced"
Bush was old and inexperienced. In fact - have you ever heard of a new President of the United States who had previous on-job experience as President of another super power?
This is party line spin being puked out by a non-thinking ditto head.
Think for yourself.
I'd rather young, inexperienced, and intelligent than someone who is so clearly on a Jerry Springer-level of intelligence running the country.
"he is a solid candidate for 2012 but not now...its a little soon."
Actually, its probably a little late. What we are into now may not be gotten out of no matter who is in office.
We could leave Bush in office now- it can't get any worse.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
jeffery11 year, 7 months ago
Forst, we didn't invade Iraq due to failed UN sanctions because they worked. In all fairness, those that voted to grant Bush the power to take action did not see the intelligence that indicated Saddam had no WMDs or operational weapons programs, all they saw was the cooked books.
Second, your allusion to the fact that diplomacy did not work is specious, if not disingenuous. It did work. Saddam was contained and had no WMDs and no operaitional weapons programs.
Reply-
-
0%
jeffery11 year, 7 months ago
You should really research a little before you make these statements.
The UN weapons inspectors were not blocked and kicked out. The UN weapons inspectors arrived in Baghdad on November 27, 2002 and were removed by Kofi Annan on March 18, 2003 because of Bush's threats to launch the invasion within 48 hours of an ultimatum for Saddam to step down.
It is interesting that Bush threatened to invade because he failed to secure UN authorization to use force to disarm Iraq. Had he allowed the UN weapons inspectors to complete the job we would have found that Saddam could not be disarmed because he already was disarmed. But that would have ruined his predetermined plans to invade.
This administration is proof that the Republicans must never rule, no attention to details or truth.
Reply
-
-
0%
Richdys1 year, 7 months ago
To quote Daniel Moynihan "You are entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts." The UN Inspectors were back in Iraq starting in 02 and left on orders from the U.N. because Bush flat out said we would not insure their safety once the shooting began. Turns out their inspectors who felt pretty strongly that their were no operative WMD's left in Iraq as most had been destroyed in the aftermath of Iraq 91. Turns out they were right. Bush and Cheney and Powell were wrong. Happened on their watch. I dont get hung up in the "did they lie" question. When one of my employees stakes the assets of my company on their mistaken analysis of the problem at hand. They lose their jobs not the people who work for them or are subsidiary to them. That simple. Funny how that kind of personal responsibility once an attractive hallmark of the Conservative Revolution has been tossed out the window in the last 6 years.
Reply -
0%
time4change1 year, 7 months ago
There were no WMDs idiot....the sanctions were working...Saddam was a stabalizing force in the area....
Reply
-
-
-
100%
lfergie8121 year, 7 months ago
You're right about the monkey and he's in the White House but the only problem was, we didn't know he was a monkey until he got the loaded gun. He was suppose to act responsibly and wisely.
Reply-
100%
contrast1 year, 7 months ago
yea yeah another liberal we didnt know we swear we had nothing to do with it! I dont buy it both parties are to blame stop being cowards and take the responsibility that is due.
Reply-
-
-
50%
rimbaud1 year, 7 months ago
In the jingoistic "United We Stand" fervor following 911, a very few of our leaders stood up against this trajic mistake. Despite common sense, and massive protests both here and abroad, we went to war in Iraq, and supported it! Bush was elected to a second term! Hard to believe how stupid we are!
Reply -
0%
EdInABQ1 year, 7 months ago
You are kidding? The Democrats were in no position to allow or disallow anything. They were completely marginalized by the Republican leadership. The Republicans need to take any blame, or credit for that matter, for the results of the Iraq policy. Nobody is acting like a victim here. There is just the reality that the Republicans blew it. They controlled the White House and they controlled the Congress. There were no investigations as requested by the Democratic minority. There were no checks and balances. The Republicans simply blew it!
Reply-
-
0%
jeffery11 year, 7 months ago
Technically, they didn't grant him the power to invade Iraq:
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
This was dependent on the following:
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and..
Of course, Bush lied about the threat Saddam posed, created the ultimatum crisis which lead to the inspectors being withdrawn, so he never met any of the criteria.
Impeach Bush, then Cheney.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
EdInABQ1 year, 7 months ago
What is this victim stuff you keep spouting? Nobody is acting like a victim. It is just reality. The Republicans were calling the shots on both sides of Pennsylvania avenue. The Democrats couldn't get hearings or even all the information they requested. There is no way you can apply equal blame to Democrats and Repubicans. There may be blame on both sides, but it is certainly not equal. Won't you at least agree with that?
Reply
-
-
-
0%
jeffery11 year, 7 months ago
Actually, I heard McAullife talk about that campaign. He says that the Democratic committee made a bunch of extremely stupid calls that allowed the Republicans to formulate the agenda. This included not informing Kerry about current events.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Searchbeam1 year, 7 months ago
Here is something interesting:
If you google search Bush Monkey, you will see a lot of interesting things, including this gem:
http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/spoofs/the_bush_monk
Surf and have fun!
Reply
-
-
0%
donald511 year, 7 months ago
...wouldn't you have logical regrets for giving a monkey a gun that in turn kills with the gun? Allowing Dubya's poor judgement and deception to creat and prolong a war is cause for all of us to have regrets!
Reply -
0%
super-sunshine1 year, 7 months ago
So in essence what you are saying if you voted for bush you should be ok with the monkey, whatever he does.
Reply-
0%
contrast1 year, 7 months ago
no voting for the war or to instate a president is giving them power we ALL share that responsibility and burden.
Reply-
-
-
0%
ETproductions1 year, 7 months ago
It's pretty simple. The president went to Congress and asked for the right to use force :IF ALL DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS FAILED". He swore to Congress that he would go to war only as a LAST RESORT. He lied. He already knew he was going to war as soon as he could put the forces and logistics in place.
So Congress does share some responsibility. But Harry Truman's old saw, "The buck stops here." should still be in play. Unfortunately, under Rovian politics, that's no longer the case. Even though just about everything this president has tried to do has failed miserably, it's NEVER his fault. It's the damn liberals, the drive by media, the ingrateful Iraqis, the Congress...
Reply-
0%
contrast1 year, 7 months ago
so let me understand something. You say after a decade of UN inspectors being blocked and kicked out we were supposed to take saddams word for it? Are you joking? It can be a last resort however! however, when you are looking for physical evidence and the enemy KNOWS YOU WILL BE COMING SOON the clock is ticking. W jumped through the window early? bah! he was too late! he missed those WMDs that we ADMIT WE SOLD TO HIM! Yes this is his fault. However the dems voted to go in too you are not free or responsibility. Although you guys claim to be victims your representatives voted for this and dont forget that! You are not victims you helped perpetrate the war. Sorry it is what it is and dems helped it along. you cannot debate a clear as christmas voting record.
Reply-
0%
ETproductions1 year, 7 months ago
May I remind you that Saddam had let the weapons inspectors back in as of 2002 and was giving them unfettered access to all sites they wanted to inspect, even his many "palaces". Our CIA was providing the UN team "intelligence" on where we "knew" the weapons were. They followed every one of those leads and every one proved to be false. So when Cheney said, "We know where they [WMDs] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." he flat out lied.
I was one of the 30% of Americans that wasn't fooled. It was obvious to me in 2003 that this was was a fools quest. If there had have been WMDs, the UN teams would have found them.
I agree that the Democratic members who authorized force are as guilty as the Republicans. But in defense of both groups, Bush said he would use force as a last resort. He promised Congress to exhaust every possible diplomatic avenue before resorting to military action. He lied.
Reply -
0%
lfergie8121 year, 7 months ago
"he missed those WMDs that we ADMIT WE SOLD TO HIM"
No he used those during the Iraq/Iran war and on his own people except for the ones that were degraded beyond use. You just won't admit that Saddam never had WMD's like Bush claimed he did even though Bush admitted that there were no WMD's.
Reply-
-
100%
lfergie8121 year, 7 months ago
I have answered that before. With the information that Bush allowed them to see, they did the right thing to vote for the AUF resolution (not war) but the information was false and only the Bush administration knows if they knew it was false.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
EdInABQ1 year, 7 months ago
Again nobody voted to go to war. The vote was to allow the President to use force as he saw fit. And he mismanaged that authorization by using force as a first resort rather than a last. He had been planning to go after Iraq since his first staff meeting 8 months before 911. That is unless you are willing to call Paul O'Niell a liar.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Blackace1 year, 7 months ago
Contrast - It's nice to see you calling bush by his name "monkey." As i am sure you know he lied, lots of people voted or wanted this war before they knew he lied and has since changed their minds. With the exception of the president and a few others. The thing is, you know better, you seem like a smart man so why are you playing the fool
Reply-
-
0%
lfergie8121 year, 7 months ago
Would you say that the dems vote for the use of force (not war) based on the information given to them. Many of the republicans have now said that they would not have voted for the AUF if they were given all the information that was available. The fact remains that some of the information was false and only the Bush administration knows whether they knew it before using it.
"Have the guts to say you were wrong too is all I ask"
I was for going into Afghanistan but I was never for going into Iraq because diplomacy was never used by Bush with Iraq. Bush was given the AUF but he was suppose exhaust all diplomacy before using it.
Reply-
0%
contrast1 year, 7 months ago
so what? now you guys got duped by the one you call "the chimp" you must be kidding. He was given permission to go and some dems said yeah go. turns out to be wrong cant you guys just say yeah we were part of that lets put our heads together and think of somehting? oh no! no much easier to finger point and bicker.
Reply-
0%
lfergie8121 year, 7 months ago
" the one you call "the chimp" "
This is your quote:"If you give a monkey a gun and the monkey shoots someone you cant blame the monkey Hillary" so you're the one calling the man a "chimp" not me. Better read your own statements before pointing the finger because the other four are pointing back at you.
You're having trouble placing the blame where it lies and that's with this administration. Would you call Ted Kennedy a genius because he voted against the AUF. I bet not so you can't blame all the dems but you can blame nearly all the republicans.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Blackace1 year, 7 months ago
Contrast - I do, the DEMS were wrong for voting to give bush permission, to go to war at his discretion...now that we know he has no discretion. The problem now is that we realize we were wrong, and we are trying to fix it. However, Mr. Bush has decided like most GOPers, he will keep saying the DEMS voted for the war instead of listening to what they are saying now. Heck, most Americans thought it was a good idea, they don't now but Bush and the rest of then are not listening to the people, it is our country not his. I marched on Washington with NOW against going to war, but once it started and Bush said mission accomplish I was like cool, it's not as bad as I thought, with Sadam gone we will fix the country up get some sort of structure in place and head on home. But we were there for more than Sadam, and those of you who say nay, I say to you, you are in denial.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
betruthful1 year, 7 months ago
Contrast - calling Bush a monkey is an insult to all good American monkeys. The monkey needs to put the gun down and run away.
Reply -
0%
nakedtruth1 year, 7 months ago
True. Hillary voting for the war was irresponsible. Hillary waiting for as long as she did before saying that the war was a mistake was also irresponsible. Hillary not being willing to take a stand on ENDING the war is also irresponsible. That said she and Bush are just playing off each other to prop up their on respective bases. Foxnews mogul Ruppert Murdoch is backing Hillary. The Bushes and the Clintons belong to the same crime family.
Reply -
0%
studentambassador1 year, 7 months ago
that vote probably will haunt her run, however unfairly; she and all the others who voted for it based on the false information given by Bush (democrats AND republicans) should not be blamed for being misled
Reply
-
-
0%
thefinalsay1 year, 7 months ago
How can you support hillary?! They have factual books on her that would make you hate her if you only took the time to pick up one.
Reply
-
-
0%
beachboy60001 year, 7 months ago
COME ON HILLARY! You have all the answers for Iraq right? How is it "irresponsible" to leave the situation in your hands when you have all the answers?
Oh wait....I think I see her point. She is right....it would be irresponsible of Bush to leave Hillary in charge of the Iraq.
Reply -
0%
neuroticus1 year, 7 months ago
"height of irresponsibility"
Omg, such strong words! *Gasps* /sarc
Good lord Congresspeople, especially those looking to run for next POTUS, say what you really mean and stop censoring yourself. Call for his impeachment, or it will just show you are timid and fickle.
Reply
-
