“I said that we should not go to war unless we have allies. So he took the authority that I and others gave him and he misused it, and I regret that deeply. And if we had known then what we know now, there never would have been a vote and I never would have voted to give this president that authority.”
And here’s Hillary Clinton in 2003, explaining her vote to some Code Pinkos.
With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I just do not believe that, given the attitudes of many people in the world community today, that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems, were it not for the United States leadership, and I’m talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo where my husband could not get a Security Council resolution to save the Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. And we did it alone as the United States, and we had to do it alone. And so I see it somewhat differently. So forgive me for my experience and perspective.”
Is she lying now or was she lying then? What a difference a campaign cycle makes…
And back then she was justifying her vote, not based on what Bush may have presented, but what had been “known” for a long time.
“There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm’s way, that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I’ve followed for more than a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information, intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, tried to discount the political or other factors that I didn’t believe should be in any way a part of this decision. I would love to agree with you, but I can’t based on my own understanding and assessment of the situation.”
So here’s my question. If this was something she “followed for more than a decade” and “carefully review[ed] the information” and “talk[ed] with people whose opinions [she] trusted” and she “tried to discount the political or other factors that [she] didn’t believe should be in any way a part of this decision”… and she still voted for it, then does it really give American voters a comforting feeling to now hear that she feels like her decision was a very bad one? Ignoring that this is an obvious flip-flop for political expediency, do we really want Hillary as President if she is so capable of making such bad decisions after such a prolonged review of the situation… or the fact that she surrounds herself with trusted advisors that are so completely wrong on matters of foreign policy?
I don’t think so.