Bill or Hillary: Who is Running this Race?

Slick Willie is defending his wife's pro-war vote by saying that she voted for "coercive inspections", not that she wanted war.

What could that phrase possibly mean except, we're going to hold you at gunpoint while we look for (nonexistant) weapons? Hogwash!

No matter what she thought she was voting for, she and other congressional Dems who voted "yes" to the Iraqi invasion are as culpable as the madmen who invaded because they enabled the war mongering maniacs.

And don't be fooled. The Dems are beholden to the same corporate entities that have been advocating this war from the jump.

Who is running for president anyway? I don't have a problem with a husband defending his wife, but if she is strong enough to be president, Hillary shouldn't need her prospective First Husband to explain her position.

Should she?


Paul Hue said...

I disagree with you, Nadir. Hillary and her crowd make what I accept as a logical claim. They claim that Bush lied to them, and that based on his lies they gave him permission to invade at his discretion. If they are correct -- that Bush lied to them -- then I believe that gave them coverage.

Your comments suggest a belief by you that Hillary should have known that these WMDs did not exist. Do you believe that?

Hillary, Bill, Gore, Kerry, the anti-war peaceniks (100,000 of our troops will get gassed!) everybody believed that Iraq possessed WMDs. I view Bush's err on this point as limited to his presenting this multi-partisan conclusion as 100% rock-solid. But he did a sufficient job, in my view, of presenting this as but one plank on his list of war justifications. Another plank: Hussein's govt for 10 years had violated its agreement to obtain a UN WMD inspections certification in exchange for a cease fire. Bush's invasion effectively provided that certification within a mere 12 months or so.

Nadir said...

Okay, Bush lied. I'm not sure how I knew he was lying but so many others (including Hillary Clinton) didn't. The evidence was always shaky and the CIA even told us it was shaky. The UN inspectors weren't allowed to work and the US
was still gripped by the fear of 911.

Fear is a dangerous thing. It will be our worst enemy in years to come as well.

The Dems were afraid of being unpopular by voting not to go to war. Now they are afraid of looking "soft" by ending the war or of losing their corporate funding. Have some nuts and end the war. A measured withdrawl will help, but at this point, we have so screwed up the situation in Iraq that the country will never be the same.

Democrats and Bush supporters enabled that and those of us who were opposed to the war all along didn't do enough to stop it. Blood is on all our hands.

Nadir said...

Bush's stated reason for invading Iraq was WMDs. Overthrowing a tyrant was only part of it. Everyone knew Hussein was a tyrant. This is why the screams weren't louder. But most of the world was against the invasion because there was no proof of WMDs. The evidence wasn't shown.

Bush NEVER made the statements about Hussein being a bad man and bringing freedom to the Iraqis until it was more obvious that the WMDs were nonexistent.

This was an imperial invasion. The equivalent of a home invasion where a gang of thugs breaks in, takes your family hostage and robs you for your goods.

The neocons have liberated the Iraqis of their national treasures, their oil and looted the US treasury to boot. All the while nearly a million people have been murdered or injured and hundreds of thousands have been forced to leave their homes.

The Democrats enabled this and are still enabling it. Stop this madness NOW!!!!

Paul Hue said...

Bush's stated reason for invading Iraq was *only* his assertion that Iraq had WMD? Here's Bush's speech to the UN prior to the invasion, explaining why he would invade:


Paul Hue said...

"Imperial" invasion? Since when does the Empire send money to the colonies?