No "Do-Over" For Hillary On Iraq (CBS/AP)

[Omaha Steve]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/27/politics/main2404645.shtml

No "Do-Over" For Hillary On Iraq
Senator Clinton Campaigns For The White House In Iowa

DES MOINES, Iowa, Jan 27, 2007

(AP) Pressed to defend her Iraq war vote, Hillary Rodham Clinton said Saturday there are no "do-overs in life" and Democrats need a presidential nominee who inspires confidence on national security.

In her first campaign swing through this early nominating state, the New York senator told party activists that Democrats in 2008 will face "someone on the other side who will be very tough and strong, even bellicose perhaps."

That likely was a reference to Arizona Sen. John McCain, who has taken a hard line in supporting more U.S. troops to Iraq, as President Bush has announced.


Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., greets supporters before speaking at a town hall meeting, Saturday, Jan. 27, 2007, at East High School in Des Moines, Iowa. (AP)

The former first lady also said she has learned the lessons of the last two presidential campaigns, both lost by Democrats who responded slowly to criticism.

FULL story at link.

[PSPS]

1. "Democrats need a presidential nominee who inspires confidence on national security"

Democrats need a presidential nominee who inspires confidence on national security

Well, that disqualifies Hillary, doesn't it? Her inane endorsement of bush's murder spree in the face of overwhelming evidence of bush's pathological nature as a liar only demonstrates how inept or even absent her critical thinking skills are. I don't want someone of her inadequate caliber to be responsible for my country.

(Hey! I'm now in the "700 Club!")

[countmyvote4real]

3. Amen to that. n/t

[Larry in KC]

5. Yes, they do. May I make a suggestion? Think FOUR STARS!

[bdrube]

2. Real Leaders Don't NEED "Do-Overs"

Which is why Hillary certainly is not one.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bdrube]

8. At Least They Waited Until They Were Already President to Make Huge Mistakes

Why elect someone who was wrong about THE most important vote
of her Senate career?

No one who voted for the war gets my vote unless they give a
GENUINE apology for it (ala Edwards, though he's not my guy).

[John Q. Citizen]

11. Wait a minute.

Are you saying Kennedy was wrong to not provide air support at the Bay of Pigs, or that he was wrong in not stopping the CIA mission outright?

Eisenhower started Vietnam. The first troops began with him.

Many would argue that the first bomb on Hiroshima was not a mistake.

I didn't know lynching remained legal due to Roosevelt. I thought it was already illegal for a long long time.

The Shaw was installed by the CIA under Eisenhower, not under Carter. He didn't mess up, he inherited a mess up.

LBJ decided not to seek another term because he realized his disastrous build-up in Vietnam was just that. Perhaps some of our candidates might learn from this instead of claiming to be against the war they continue to fund.

Should we not care when our leaders screw up and it kills 3000+ Americans, maims 50,000+ Americans, and for nothing?

[Zhade]

16. "Many would argue that the first bomb on Hiroshima was not a mistake."

And they'd be wrong compared to the views of those actually involved.

But, that's another argument.

[journalist3072]

6. Well, let's be fair. And let's be real. No leader is perfect. And..

no leader, even a great one, makes the right decision 100% of the time.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kimsterdemster]

9. Do Over's....

Like bush, clinton, bush, clinton...


Now that's DO OVER'S!


A.B.C., the only Do Over this country needs is President Al Gore!!! :bounce:

[NCarolinawoman]

10. She's making the case for Wes Clark.

Only General Clark DOES NOT have to "act tough" to prove anything.

Excerpt from General Clark's Seton Hall address May 13, 2002:

"You will determine whether rage or reason guides the United States in the struggle to come....whether we are known for revenge or compassion....
whether we, too, will kill in the name of God, or whether in HIS name, we can find a better means of settling our differences."



Unfortunately, Bush invaded Iraq less than a year later.

[John Q. Citizen]

12. You are right, she is making the case for Clark. n/t

[IndianaGreen]

14. Wes Clark is a leader, while Hillary is a polarizer

that will fracture the Democratic Party just as surely as Goldwater fractured the GOP in 1964.

[Jacobin]

13. which is why we need a president who will do it right to begin with

[Zhade]

15. Either she's a fucking LIAR, or she's totally incompetent.

"As a senator from New York, I lived through 9/11 and I am still dealing with the aftereffects," Clinton said. "I may have a slightly different take on this from some of the other people who will be coming through here."

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, Clinton.

You must know this by now. Even b*s* admitted that.

Yet you say something like this, helping sell the neocon lie.

YOU ARE NOT TRUSTWORTHY.

And you're out of touch:

The Democratic-controlled Congress, she said, must start to "build the political will" to stop the president.

Um, a significant majority favor ending this war NOW. Hell, a majority support impeachment for lying us into the war!

[regnaD kciN]

17. "No 'do-overs'"...

...but, apparently, an infinite supply of "get-over-it"s. :grr:

[GeorgeGist]

18. Someone who doesn't believe in 'do overs'...

has a lot of nerve asking for another chance.

[Robbien]

19. Just another non-answer

Won't say she was wrong about invading and bombing Iraq and is saying she is the strong one on defense.

Wants it both ways. Tries to hide behind GOP type slogans "no do-overs".