Seabiscuit Response to Reply #18 WTF does a Graham quote or a CIA letter have to do with Hillary's words??? Isn't it only fair, according to the standard you laid down, for a Hillary critic to say that anything and everything she's said may be used against her? It is absolutely fair to use her words against her. And quite obviously, her words are being used against her here, no? My point is, however, that in this thread her words are being twisted out of context and then framed as lies within a mural of political ambiguity, which then turns yet again and blames her for the twisting and framing in an obvious endless loop, without regard to the contextual framework which should have been used as the foundation for the debate to begin with. :-o
The Graham quote and the CIA letter both rest on that contextual framework.
first Graham said he had classified information that others (including Hillary) were not privileged to. He was slamming Bush for claiming that those that voted for the war (including Hillary) were now hypocrites to oppose it.
In the past week President Bush has twice attacked Democrats for being hypocrites on the Iraq war. More than 100 Democrats in the House and Senate, who had access to the same intelligence, voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power," he said.
The president's attacks are outrageous. Yes, more than 100 Democrats voted to authorize him to take the nation to war. Most of them, though, like their Republican colleagues, did so in the legitimate belief that the president and his administration were truthful in their statements that Saddam Hussein was a gathering menace -- that if Hussein was not disarmed, the smoking gun would become a mushroom cloud.
The president has undermined trust.
next The CIA letter was a
pathetic response to Graham’s bold attempts to get the executive branch to properly share intelligence information with the Senate, information which Graham deemed critical for their upcoming vote to give Bush authorization to use force against Iraq. Thist is not rocket science to see that Tenet continued to hide the pertinent information Graham was seeking for the Senate.
In order for one to accuse Hillary of lying, a lot of extremes need to be assumed about Hillary’s prowess, before her floor speech and before she cast her vote.
(1) Hillary had access to all of the hidden information Graham was attempting to have revealed.
(2) Hillary knew Blair had sexed up British intelligence and the 45 minutes.
(3) Hillary knew Bush’s yellowcake pomp was based on forged documents planted by seditious forces housed in Italy. .
(4) Hillary knew Chilabi was lying, and she also knew there were “shadow government” mercenary attempts in northern Iraq to create incidents that would incite US intervention.
(5) Hillary knew Bush and Powell would attempt to deceive the U.N., but didn’t care
(6) Hillary knew Bush would ignore all the subordinate parts of the authorization, and had every intention of proceeding directly to an invasion of Iraq.
(7) Hillary knew Bush would continue to lie in his SOTU speech in January 2003.
But she didn’t know any of this prior to her vote, prior to her floor speech on the vote. So, this is exactly “WTF” “a Graham quote” has “to do with Hillary's words” . Please feel free to let me know if you need additional information to make the connection.
The filth that Tasini writes, and that some folks here are validating, then goes on to falsely accuse Hillary even more:
For most of the period that the violence in Iraq has taken place, Sen. Clinton remained silent. The real truth is that Clinton was a consistent and vocal critic against Bush’s handling of the war. She criticized reconstructions efforts, the awarding of no bid contracts, spending, the negligence of Bush in the deteriorating condition of Iraqi women, and on and on.
On October 17, 2003 Hillary says:
“This vote, 87-12, was a vote for our troops, it was a vote for our mission, but it was not a vote for our national leadership.” Clinton described it as
"a bill for failed leadership." She expressed hope that the administration would learn from its mistakes.
Bush's failed leadership; learn from its mistakes - - Perhaps Tasini does no know the meaning of these, do you think?
But the most egregious inference, that had Sen. Clinton used her position to speak out against the war and admit that her vote was a mistake, many lives would have been saved, should be so patently ingenuous to any “Democrat” it should defy rational thought. But here in this thread, its seems to me, posters are more interested in being hoisted by their own petard. No?
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
