Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Actually you said she insisted we needed to invade. Clinton was very clear that she didn't feel the situation warranted unilateral action. As to her statements about WMD or links to al Qaeda, I'd note the obvious, that she was being briefed by the same people who misled the President because they had already decided to go to war.
|
She said "any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast mine WITH CONVICTION"
Conviction means, she is "convinced" that it's the necessary thing to do, it means she has no doubts about what needs to be done.
How can you type these things? Do even you believe what you post?
"Clinton was very clear that she didn't feel the situation warranted unilateral action"
Then good for her, because it wasn't unilateral. How many countries had troops there?
"she was being briefed by the same people who misled the President because they had already decided to go to war"
The that necessarily means that you think Bush was no more at-fault than she was. That, or you are a hypocrite (and we know which it is). It's also worth noting that the group who misled Bush and Clinton, was partially led by the liberal's new hero, Colin Powell. Your side doesn't hold it against him, that he sold the war to the UN, and to the world. I wonder why that is?
Good lord. Spence, believe me, your head won't explode if you criticize her when she deserves it. I cannot believe what a pathetic job Bush did responding to Hurricane Katrina. There. See? I didn't explode or get struck by lightning. You're a very smart guy, you can figure out how to think for yourself and show a speck of objectivity once in a while.
Now, can you tell me why your side has these super-delegates? What purpose do they serve?
Threaded Mode