Hillary Clinton's new explanation for voting to authorize the use of military force in Iraq was recently unveiled at a Town Hall Meeting in Hampton, NH. She thought she was voting to send in UN inspectors.
A woman who had traveled from New York asked Sen. Clinton if she had read the report given to her in 2002 on intelligence and the Iraq war.
Clinton said she had been briefed on the report, and the woman screamed back, "Did you read it?!" Notably uncomfortable, the Senator repeated that she had been briefed. This exchange went back and forth about three times.
The woman sat down and Clinton explained, "If I had known then what I know now, I never would have voted to give this President the authority." Clinton also said she believed she was giving the President the authority to send U.N. inspectors to Iraq.
No doubt she was mislead. I wonder if there will be a congressional investigation.
This is one person whom I enjoy watching squirm. What I can't understand is why she hasn't come clean, fessed up and admitted that she supported the war, voted to authorize and has now changed her mind. It's straight-forward and, ahem, honest. She's not as politically astute as many give her credit for...this could have been past her months ago, but instead she continues to "weasel" around the topic, playing both sides of the fence. It's so transparent, I'm surprised she's still running so strong in the polls.
Posted by: nhmind | April 16, 2007 at 09:23 AM
Let's not underestimate the power of the press. The Democrats with lots of help from the press have done a spectacular job of branding the Republicans as the party of corruption. There are vast numbers of people who believe it and are willing to vote for and to contribute money to the "not Repulicans". Hillary is perceived to be capable of winning, and that's all that counts.
Posted by: Tom Bowler | April 16, 2007 at 12:58 PM
Good point. I agree that the money and the votes will go to "not Republicans". If I were to place a wager, my money (not my vote!) would be for HC to win...she may lose some votes from the rabid anti-war crowd, but will more than gain from the "anyone but Republican crowd".
Posted by: nhmind | April 17, 2007 at 09:18 AM
There are lots of "not Republicans" at the moment, but it will be interesting to see how things look a year from now. I see that the Pakistanis are protesting Taliban style Islam and calling it terrorism. So far the mainstream press is ignoring that story. A year from now Iraq will not be the same as it is today. Whatever it is by then, it will not be the same. Iraqis are getting very tired of being victims of terrorism. More and more they are coming to realize that Americans are not the ones terrorizing them, and every month their army gets a little bigger. What happens if General Petraeus should be successful? I think the Democrats believe he will be very successful. I think that's what drives them to demand withdrawal from Iraq right now.
Posted by: Tom Bowler | April 17, 2007 at 07:22 PM