Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Left Masthead
August 24, 2016
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Truthdig Bazaar
Room: A Novel

Room: A Novel

By Emma Donoghue

more items

Ear to the Ground
Print this item

Hillary Refuses to Apologize for Iraq War Vote

Posted on Feb 18, 2007
Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton is apparently so concerned with the specter of flip-flopping she will never apologize for her vote to authorize military action against Iraq. Speaking at a recent campaign event, the candidate herself said, “If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from.” Indeed, there are.

New York Times:

In the end, she settled on language that was similar to Senator John Kerry’s when he was the Democratic nominee in 2004: that if she had known in 2002 what she knows now about Iraqi weaponry, she would never have voted for the Senate resolution authorizing force.

Yet antiwar anger has festered, and yesterday morning Mrs. Clinton rolled out a new response to those demanding contrition: She said she was willing to lose support from voters rather than make an apology she did not believe in.

“If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from,” Mrs. Clinton told an audience in Dover, N.H., in a veiled reference to two rivals for the nomination, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina.

Her decision not to apologize is regarded so seriously within her campaign that some advisers believe it will be remembered as a turning point in the race: either ultimately galvanizing voters against her (if she loses the nomination), or highlighting her resolve and her willingness to buck Democratic conventional wisdom (if she wins).

At the same time, the level of Democratic anger has surprised some of her allies and advisers, and her campaign is worried about how long it will last and how much damage it might cause her.

Read more

More Below the Ad


Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments

By Gerod, March 2, 2007 at 9:51 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It’s been real entertainin readin all these here in-depth opinions and heart felt letters.
I would reckon that most of the nice folks that contributed to this ‘diablog’ meybe didn’t call ther’n senators and congres people befour the 2002 vote - enkouragin them to vote aginst the Iraq authorizashun.  I reckon that that no writer here has run for politikal office at the nationl or even state level.  i say vote evry time for the best person that be on the ballot.  Hold no gruges.  Call n write your elekted reps - evry chance you get.  The good book sez let him who is without sin cast the first stone.  We the people are to blame also for this horible war.

Report this

By PatrickHenry, February 23, 2007 at 3:55 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If she is an AIPAC stooge, i.e. further American involvement in the mideast, then I will vote for someone else.

Report this

By Frik, February 20, 2007 at 11:19 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Kellina,  there’s one other source debunking your 911 conspiracy.  By far the most succinct.  At the very least, it’s worth a laugh.  Be sure to read the whole thing, the comic at the end is my favorite.

Report this

By Doug Tarnopol, February 20, 2007 at 10:04 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Re: #54396

I meant “Iran,” not “Iraq” in the last sentence. They are getting confused, aren’t they?

Apologies are easy. Changing your policy and threatening funding of your campaign is hard.

Report this

By socks, February 20, 2007 at 3:43 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The invasion and occupation of Iraq has been on behalf of Western petrolieum/big energy corporate titans, and a major boon to the military industrial complex at the tax payers (for generations) expence.

Politicians that have spent the same 5 years we have thinking about this blunder, and are not willing to make a stand on these points are not worth the time of day. They are adding to keeping the public focused on all these trivialities that our corporate media dish out.

So far the only politicians willing to talk about these facts are Kucinich and Nadar, and therefore are the only leaders worth listening to so far.

We are fools if we don’t make our own band wagon and get on it and drive out corporate lackees. We are now so mired in the sludge of corporate welfare (governance by, for, and of corporations = fascism), that it is vital to get a real conversation going into a truthful direction.

A vote for anyone not willing to out the kabal is just another vote for more of the same. And bye bye America, home of the free.

Don’t forget to add the price of this invasion and occupation (without end) to your gas price, the next time you fill up.

Report this

By Kwagmyre, February 19, 2007 at 9:18 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

With her bellicose, unaccomodating stance on Iran given at that recent AIPAC meeting, she qualifies as a true political prostitute.  They’re easily manipulated by the Zionist agenda.

Report this

By Kellina, February 19, 2007 at 8:13 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hi Frik,
Get a load of this:


Top Bin Laden Expert: Confession Fake

9/11 Blogger | February 19, 2007

Kevin Barrett sent the following email:

Top U.S. Bin Laden Expert: Confession Video “Bogus”
by Kevin Barrett,

Was Osama Bin Laden responsible for 9/11? TOOLS:

The Bush Administration says yes, citing a grainy, badly-edited videotape that surfaced in December, 2001. In that tape, a fat guy who vaguely resembles Bin Laden chortles about the success of the 9/11 attacks. (In earlier interviews, Bin Laden had denied responsibility for 9/11, once even deploring the loss of civilian life in the attacks and calling them un-Islamic.)

Is the famous “confession video” genuine? Despite Bush’s insistence that the tape is authentic, America’s top academic Bin Laden expert has finally gone on the record, joining numerous other experts.

“It’s bogus,” says Professor Bruce Lawrence, head of Duke University’s Religious Studies program.

Lawrence, author of Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama Bin Laden, offered his historic debunking of the administration’s lie in an interview with Kevin Barrett (“Dynamic Duo,”, 2/16/2007, first hour). The interview marked Lawrence’s first major public statement since he made headlines last year by suggesting that recent Osama tapes are hoaxes and that the real Osama Bin Laden may be dead.

Why has the Bush Administration been lying for more than five years by telling us that this preposterously bad hoax is a genuine “confession video”? Lawrence, citing informants in the US intelligence apparatus’s Bin Laden units, said that everyone knows the tape is fake, adding that the hoax has been kept alive because it is politically useful to those who wish to deflect attention from
“conspiracy theories” about 9/11.

If Professor Lawrence is right—and anyone with eyes can see that he is, simply by comparing the overweight impostor in the Fatty Bin Laden bogus confession video to other pictures of Osama Bin Laden—the Bush Administration, by repeatedly citing the tape as authentic, is clearly guilty of obstruction of justice at best, high treason and conspiracy to mass murder at worst. Since the FBI now tells us that Osama Bin Laden is “not wanted for 9/11” because there is “no hard evidence” connecting him to the 9/11 attacks, and since US intelligence personnel all know the “confession tape” is a Bush Administration hoax, it should not be difficult to nail the perpetrators of this outrageous cover-up of the crime of the century.

It is time for Congress or an appropriate judicial authority to mount an investigation of the Fatty Bin Laden bogus confession video.

Where did this tape come from? Who was responsible for the
administration’s claim that it is authentic, despite widespread knowledge in relevant intelligence agencies that it is bogus? If Bruce Lawrence is correct in asserting that US intelligence personnel know the tape is fake, we need to put them, along with Bush and Cheney, under oath and find out why our government has been lying so outrageously for more than five years in order to obstruct justice by shielding the real perpetrators of 9/11.

Please email your congressional representatives with the subject header “investigate bogus Bin Laden ‘confession video’ NOW!” and include a copy of this article in the body of the message.

Report this

By Kellina, February 19, 2007 at 7:53 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Comment #54357 by FRIK on 2/19 at 9:04 am

With regards to comment #54238 by Kellina.  Are there any stories posted on Truthdig that won’t end up with some fool posting about a 911 conspiracy - asking questions that have already been answered and positing theories that have been thoroughly debunked?


Probably not, for two reasons: 1) virtually everything happening now (war with Afghanistan, Iraq, potentially a new war with Iran, loss of civil liberties, military commissions act, etc.) started with 9/11. 2) I’ve not seen any convincing document supporting the official gov’t conspiracy about 9/11, and so nothing I’ve seen convincingly debunks the 9/11 truth seekers’ claims or answers our questions.

Are you talking about the 9/11 Commission report? the NIST report? The Popular Mechanics article? Don’t mention the NOVA documentary; what a joke that was. Is there something else to watch or read, something logical and reasonable, that you can direct me to that can support the gov’t's story? If so, then I’d really like to see it.

Report this

By HeadlessHessian, February 19, 2007 at 5:23 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Apologize?  For what?  For casting a vote based on falsehoods and fabrications, unbeknownst to her.  I agree with 54352.  She has been mislabled by the right, and the parade of fools that continue that ‘Karl Rove-ism’ stroke of genious only show how foolish most Americans are.  For once think for yoursleves instead of following ‘the crowd’.  Hillary will make a good president.  Better than any republican.!!!  Any republican. 


Report this

By CGEffect, February 19, 2007 at 4:42 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I’m not going to vote for any member of Congress who when having a vote for Iraq, voted for it.  HRC apologizing for her vote like Dodd, Biden, and especially John Edwards is going to do nothing for me anyway.  I think the Democratic Party needs to hope and pray Obama or Richardson make strides in the primaries to not get stuck with a John Kerry again who not only will have to defend their vote to the far left but also make sure they don’t look like a flip-flopper to the center-moderate right.  We need an anti-war ticket.

Report this

By lance, February 19, 2007 at 4:33 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The importance of her vote on the Iraq authorization is actually minor, at least in terms of understanding why Hillary will not ever be elected president.  There is an unmovable mountain of resentment and dislike for this person out there in the electorate.  The contempt that people expressed for her in the first year of her husband’s administration was enormous, and it hasn’t diminished since.

If Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton, the Republicans can run Dick Cheney and he’ll win…by a landslide.

Is that fair?  I don’t know.  Probably not. 

Is it true?  Yup.

Report this

By Doug Tarnopol, February 19, 2007 at 3:48 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Does it bother me that Clinton voted for the IWR? Yes. Do I believe that she “knew no better at the time?” No. Would I like her to apologize? Yeah, I guess.

What I’d really like to see is her stand up and repudiate the drivel she spewed out at AIPAC a few days (or couple of weeks) ago. I’d like her to cosponsor cutting off funds for the Iraq war. I’d like her to come out fully against any action in Iraq, by Israel or the US, and insist upon a Congressional declaration of war. A reminder that the War Powers Act is in effect would be nice, too.

That would be much more useful than down-home, shaky-camera web announcements of candidacy or silly “town meetings.”

Will it happen? No. Should you support someone else in the primaries? Yes. Who would that be? Dennis Kucinich.

Report this

By Donna, February 19, 2007 at 3:37 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

By definition, a leader is one whose abilities go beyond precariously balancing atop a fence.  Hillary may be able to see both sides from her fence top, but she cannot lead anyone unless she choses a side and gets down and grounded.

Report this

By Christopher Robin, February 19, 2007 at 1:40 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This war is not some marginal issue.

Report this

By FRIK, February 19, 2007 at 10:04 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

With regards to comment #54238 by Kellina.  Are there any stories posted on Truthdig that won’t end up with some fool posting about a 911 conspiracy -  asking questions that have already been answered and positing theories that have been thoroughly debunked?

Report this

By Mark, February 19, 2007 at 9:36 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Senator Clinton wants to become president more than she wants to be president.

Report this

By Jon B, February 19, 2007 at 9:16 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Be ready for another war if Hilary is elected.

Gender is what differentiate Hilary and W.

Report this

By Sue, February 19, 2007 at 9:10 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hillary need not apologize. Let’s move forward people! This country needs more TLC right here at home. The Iraq war is only part of the picture and should not be the only issue that marks a candidate good or bad. I personally admire Hillary for her tough stand on the subject and not letting what people think of her deter that determination!


Report this

By rbrooks, February 19, 2007 at 8:26 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If Hillary is the Democratic appointee, she will lose. That’s the whole point of her well-funded, overhyped candidacy. It has been obvious from the day she sold out her health care “reform” plan to the insurance industry that she is one of the multinational corporate-backed “centrists” who, as the DLC, have sabotaged and corrupted the Democratic party. As a “Democratic” politician she is a joke; and her incomprehensible refusal to acknowledge the damage done by her years of support for Bush’s war resembles the defiant stance of Bush and Cheney. Now she plays a delaying card, offering her own too-little-too-late “plan,” which will succeed only in deflecting attention and support from more credible lawmakers who have shown courage and judgment from the beginning, who she has helped, and still helps, to marginalize. At best she continues to look like an indecisive, overcautious opportunist - or, at worst, she continues to look like the unprincipled “centrist” she is, stubbornly staying in step with her multinational corporate supporters. I wouldn’t vote for her any more than I would vote for Joe Lieberman. They answer to the same people.

Report this

By David, February 19, 2007 at 8:10 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I believe I will take her comments to heart and translate that into a vote for someone else.  I was never a big fan to begin with.  I liked Bill for the most part, but Hillary just rubs me the wrong way. Not only was her one attempt at policy making (Healthcare) a complete failure, but she strikes me as phonier than most politicians and personally, I don’t respect the centrist policy at this juncture.  After eight years of extreme far-right policy, we need a candidate that will bring the balance back to the center.  I’m not far left, but I know that its going to take a someone further left than Mrs. Clinton to dig the middle class out of the hole this administration has placed us in.  I might just have to go with a third party this time around.

Report this

By robert puglia, February 19, 2007 at 7:45 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

to rae #54229; it is quintessentially american to employ smear tactics. folks are forever confusing the touted american ethos with the real one; all men created equal, etc. perhaps what you call hindsight is mere memory.
as a private citizen with no more conduit than the bbc to provide me news of the world i knew it was certain disaster to invade and occupy iraq. luckily my library contains the writings of thucydides. when it was announced there would be an invasion i cried aloud, my knees nearly buckled. i knew better, sen. clinton is smart enough that she knew better,  people thousands of years ago knew better than to pull such a stunt. i’m guessing sen. clinton’s vote concerning the invasion was influenced more by politics than conscience. it’s her tough luck that people remember.

Report this

By Roemary Molloy, February 19, 2007 at 6:06 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

When will these self-aggrandizing idiot politicians get it?  The issue the American people consider the major one is the war.  The war in Iraq isn’t a mistake, it’s MASS MURDER.  Clinton’s vote didn’t reflect just a little confusion on her part, or being misled, or trying to do the right thing, but missing—she acquiesced in MASS MURDER.  I won’t vote for any politician who voted for the war, I don’t care how apologetic they are.  NOW the craven cowards jump on the bandwagon when they see how the wind is blowing.  In some small, grudging way, I guess I admire Clinton for not doing the same, but that doesn’t balance her vote for mass murder.

Report this

By Big Al, February 19, 2007 at 5:46 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Comment #54292 by Joseph Marsh on 2/18 at 6:35 pm

“I’ve voted for Democrats and against Republicans all my life, but Clinton’s unwillingness to call her vote a mistake plus the by-now incontrovertible fact of her being in AIPAC’s back pocket guarantees her loss of my vote.”

I heartily agree with Mr. Marsh.

Report this

By Christopher, February 19, 2007 at 5:39 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Queen Hillary: getting very bad political advice, not from her astute husband, former president William Jefferson Clinton, but from Terry McAullife, who functions as Hillary’s brain.

This single quote made my mind up about Mrs. Clinton and I am taking her at her word. I will not be supporting her run for the White House.

The American people have suffered with a stubborn, knucklehead in the Oval Office for the past 6 years. We don’t need another one beginning in Jan. 2009.

Report this

By Wayne Smyer, February 19, 2007 at 4:39 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

HRC “The Hillary is just another gut-less wonder whose “handlers” determine how she acts and says!
i.e, “Mistakes were made” but! but! not by me!
says GWB and HRC
  Lwayno, disabled vet

Report this

By jds, February 19, 2007 at 12:51 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

the senator from new york just doesn’t get it.  she looks pathetically silly. this was the wrong issue to try and prove to the american people she isn’t a politician who ‘blows with the wind’.  who is she trying to kid?  she has always blown with the wind…so thinking persons will view this soap opera with amusement.

Report this

By DMcD, February 18, 2007 at 11:22 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

We stood by her when she was assailed by the right wing on her insurance initiatives.

We stood by her on the stained dress issue.

We stood by her against Fox and all other attempts at villifiction, all thru the years.

But as sad as it makes me (& my wife), this is where we part company. I think she figures her stance will win republican votes (that would never happen anyway) and that an apology will be used against her as if it were the Kerry-type back-tracking, exploited by the neo-cons in ‘04. 
                                                            Things have changed since then and had she made the apology, we would have been with her if that tactic had been repeated.

We only wanted this apology as proof you intend to distance yourself from Bush and go the right path in the future.

Without this, as your staff have indicated, this is the day you went down in flames (or words to that effect).

Too bad, you might have made a great 1st lady President.

Goodbye Hillary, its been an experience. As a very important consolation, we still vitally need your Senate seat to stay on the left and with the seat counts, can little afford for any of the Democratic Senators to give up their seats as it is.

Now on to: Richardson/Clark——or——Richardson/ Clinton ( I think Bill Clinton is allowed to run as V.P.)——or——go all out with Nader (don’t laugh, his radical and extreme positions are exactly what is needed and what were looking for, in this very dangerous time in history).

Again; goodbye Hillary , your time in the sun is past—but thanx for all the good you tried to do in the public interest, in the past.

Report this

By Dublin Joe, February 18, 2007 at 10:20 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This war has saddled the US with a generation of debt - and thousands of ghosts.

It is one thing to support it on ideological grounds. But it’s unforgiveable for those who supported it for political reasons (in Hillary’s case, to gain favor with a specific special interest group.

I hope primary voters make the disconnected wonks (*cough Mark Penn *cough) inside Hillaryland pay for their horrible decisions, not just for on the apology issue, but for supporting this war in the first place.

Report this

By vet240, February 18, 2007 at 9:33 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from.”

Wow! So Hillary is as pig headed as Bush.

She also seems to lack the ability to understand that the American people want a leader who is honest, someone who is able (underline able please) to change directions when the discover they’ve made a mistake. If she can’t stand this little heat, how would she be in the kitchen so to speak.

Certainly, we all know that bush/cheney controlled the intelligence that was made available to the Congress and Senate leading up to the authorization for bush to go to war.

Even so, is it not amazing Congress gave the president a blank check with little discussion. Could one assume that their (Congresses) cavalier attitude might make them feel complicite in his abuses?

I think Hillary doesn’t really want to be president. I think she just backed out. Too bad, but maybe not. If she’s this incapable of making decisions we need somebody else. Better to know now than later.

Report this

By TooPoorDave, February 18, 2007 at 8:21 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hillary is so wrong on so many things.  Why limit the focus to her unwillingness to admit an obvious mistake?!  She introduced a bill to ban flag burning see She refused to take a stand for the average American and did not vote on the Bankruptcy “Reform” Bill, one of the most pro-business/anti-consumer piece of legislative crap to ever pass into law.  She is a neo-con with a D after her name.  If she is leading in any poll of Democratic Presidential contenders, try to remember that even S!@T floats.  She has been given $ by Rupert Murdock.  I despise Hillary more every time I hear her speak.  If it comes down to Hillary versus (enter random right wing idealogue’s name here) I will not vote for her.

Report this

By Jon B, February 18, 2007 at 8:18 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Her vote to support Bush’s war on Iraq contributed to thousands of dead GIs and several hundred thousands of Iraqis, not to mention the irreparable damage to this nation’s reputation. Do all of the above deserve an admission of wrongdong and incompetency?

There are other candidates with courage, candid,
competency and enough foresight to vote against Bush’s war before it started. Hilary isn’t one of them.

Report this

By Polly Ester, February 18, 2007 at 7:51 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from”

Some might view Hilary’s unalterable position, as not being a sign of decisiveness but only as stubbornness—-we already know what it is like to have someone who is unrelentingly stubborn in the White House.

Why is “flip-flopping” considered a
weakness—-inflexibility is a sign of ignorance, if you find that you reached an incorrect conclusion, why is it so impossible to change your mind?

No situation is static and nothing endures but change; so why is it perceived as a NEGATIVE characteristic to change one’s mind, in fact, it would be odd NOT to change your opinion if new and better evidence emerges—if you NEVER change your mind, why have one?

Report this

By Joseph Marsh, February 18, 2007 at 7:35 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I’ve voted for Democrats and against Republicans all my life, but Clinton’s unwillingness to call her vote a mistake plus the by-now incontrovertible fact of her being in AIPAC’s back pocket guarantees her loss of my vote. Indeed, if she wins the nomination I will vote against her; my hope is that Nader will run.

Report this

By Jimmy Montague, February 18, 2007 at 7:34 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hillary isn’t fit to be president. For that matter, neither was Bill. I voted for him twice because he was less evil than the Republican candidate, but I quit voting that way in 1998. I voted third party in Y2K and in every election since, and I’m going to keep doing that until Democrats offer something better than Republican Lite. Hillary isn’t even Republican Lite. She’s just a Republican in a Democrat suit, a feminist version of Joe Lieberman.

Report this

By Ron Ranft, February 18, 2007 at 5:38 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Anyone who excuses their vote by saying they were duped when a lowly handyman like me knew going it it was all lies does not deserve to be President.

Anyone who believes it is ever permissible to attack or invade another country that did not attack us does not deserve to be President.

Anyone who thinks that military force rather than Diplomacy is the way to solve problems does not deserve to be President!

Anyone who refuses to apologize when they were clearly wrong does not deserve to be President.

Anyone who thinks that one should defer to any President let alone one who has done such damage to our freedom and rights here and our reputation abroad does not deserve to be President.

Anyone who would endorse Lieberman does not deserve to be President.

Anyone who did not denounce the Shrub for his signing statements, wiretapping, opening of mail, black renditions, torture, stripping of the right of habeas corpus, unlawful detainment of US citizens and enemy combatants, the shredding of the Constitution, and the emptying of the US Treasury does not deserve to be President.

Anyone who advocates using military force against a country who is no threat to the Us as she did at an AIPAC dinner recently does not deserve to be President.

Anyone who unconditionally supports the racist and illegal policy’s of Irael does not deserve to be President.

Last, but not least, anyone who would stay married to a lieing, philandering husband like Slick Willie just so she can become President does not deserve to be President.

Report this

By NCBlueneck, February 18, 2007 at 2:52 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This is the same sort of pig-headedness that “The Decider” engages in.  I would really like to see a woman head the United States, someday.  At this point, it’s not looking like Hillary.

Report this

By Skruff, February 18, 2007 at 2:09 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

There are numerous reasons to oppose Hill-the-shill Clinton.  Her Iraq war vote is just one of these. 

As the son of a former Mobil Oil employee, I have to oppose her on the advocate-for-FALN-pardon.  I am sure I don’t know why this didn’t get more press.

Here’s the story. In January 1975 A group of terrorists bombed the Mobil Oil Building in New York city. The blast sent shards of glass into Charles Steinberg, a 26-year-old newlywed lawyer, killing him instantly. FALN, the Puerto Rican nationalist group, claimed responsibility. They also bombed New York’s historic Fraunces Tavern, where they killed four people. there were 11 other bombings around and in New York tied to this group.

A star-studded PR (pardon the pun) campaign advocated the release of the 11 FALN members imprisioned for these acts.  The argument went that although the group in prison were members of the FALN they were not the actual killers. 

Hummm, that doesn’t seem to apply to anything… In most states the guy who watches look-out during a Felony is equally guilty to those who actually “commit” THE CRIME.

Anyhow, the Puerto Rican community in New York has long been advocating for the release of FALN members… Hillary thought this would be a good way to get votes for her 2000 senate run…. So Bill helped her out.

The police officers who attempted to defuse another FALN bomb planted in NYC Police headquaters are disfigured for life, one lost a leg, one an eye and fingers of his right hand, and one deaf and blind.

Small price for a couple of thousand votes…

She’ll never get mine….EVER under any circumstances!!!

Report this

By Quy Tran, February 18, 2007 at 1:18 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

She and Bush are same category of stubborn and stupidity !

Report this

By Louise, February 18, 2007 at 1:00 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Is this a fear of flip-flopping? Or is Clinton unable to acknowledge a mistake in judgment?

Does she really think we are so shallow that we cant accept a mistake? Or does she believe we are so shallow we demand she take a stand even if it’s insincere?

What she seems to not be able to understand is we are trying to determine the depths of her character. If she has to be forced or pressured into recanting a decision, she’s not the right candidate.

If on the other hand, she can’t simply express her position at the time and her remorse if she has any, for having taken that position ... then she’s pretty much refusing to give her supporters support.

Sorry Hillary, your stubbornness says no matter what you say, you either don’t get it, or don’t mean it.

You just lost a lot of supporters.

Report this

By C.P.T.L., February 18, 2007 at 12:56 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

No one who dislikes pandering needs Hilary Clinton to tell them there’s others to chose from. They’ll pick the politician who has the guts to say ‘I refuse to consider an amendment against flag burning because our country is plenty strong enough, as it has been for over two hundred years, to stand a few burnt flags; as are our veterans.’

Report this

By Jackie T. Gabel, February 18, 2007 at 12:13 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Why should she? Obviously her real constituency is the New World Oligarchy. Anyone genuinely determined to save this republic from the gaping maw of the NWO, had better realize that they need to be taken down. A thorough investigation will point to the NWO as authors of 911 and the Global War of Terror. Make no mistake, they’ll send us all over the cliff to prop up their collapsing petro-drugs-arms dollar and give it not a second thought.

Report this

By Kellina, February 18, 2007 at 11:19 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

So she voted for the Iraqi war. Hey, I believed Colin Powell, too. (Although I was not on the senate armed services committee.) As a woman, you have to vote all out for war or dick-heads think you’re weak.

This whole issue is a red-herring anyway. Please ask her why she won’t support a full, fair, and open investigation of the events of 9/11.

We have thousands of questions. How about “why is Obama bin Laden not wanted for 9/11?” What about all the testimony of firefighters and other rescue workers who reported bombs going off prior to and just after the planes hit the towers? And why did building 7 fall? Why did any of the WT buildings “collapse” (they in truth disintegrated)? Who had foreknowledge of the attacks (as evidenced by a huge number of stock-market put options placed two days before 9/11 betting that United and American Airline stock would go down in value)?

9/11 was an inside job conducted to justify a never-ending war. War without end. Does it much matter how she voted on one of those wars? Please get to the heart of the issue.

Report this

By kush K, February 18, 2007 at 10:48 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Following, perhaps the advice of her husband, Sen. Clinton falsely believes that money is what in the end makes you win.  This is the “philosophy” of Bill Clinton and his corporate sponsors. 

This is what led to the Iraq vote.  Mrs. Clinton shold have voted her conscience not how the vote will play among the big sponsors.

Which is why she cannot apologize.  If this was just a mistake Mrs. Clinton could reverse.  She cannot now.

Be that as it may, Mrs. Clinton has and continues to underestimate the Iraq war as a decisive issue when it comes to elections (primary or otherwise). 

Mrs. Clinton is following the wrong advice of her “experts” who wrongly think the Iraq war is just one of the issues among others.  No.  Iraq war is the issue.  If Sen. Clinton cannot deal with Iraq and wavers under the wrong assumption that it will make her look “girlie” then she is mistaken.  An advocacy for peace requires courage. 

Mrs. Clinton is too conscious of not appearing “soft.”  She is already sending out image builders who have already started building her image of how competent a commander-in-chief she will be.  What the country at this time needs is commander in peace.

Report this

By RAE, February 18, 2007 at 10:29 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

You’ve gotta feel for candidates… while they might, on occasion, have greater access to some “insider info” it’s not likely they actually know much more about anything than what’s reported in the press.

That being the case, they “know” very little that can be relied on as “truth.”

Don’t you think, under the circumstances, it’s rather hypocritical to pillary them now for opinions they held in the past? As more facts come to light, INTELLIGENT PEOPLE RE-EVALUATE THEIR POSITIONS AND CHANGE THEM WHEN REQUIRED. STUPID PEOPLE DO NOT. (No reference to the Presidential incumbent is particularly intended - but if the shoe fits…).

It is unfair and cowardly “un-American” to smear reputations using 20-20 hindsight.

Report this

By Steve Hammons, February 18, 2007 at 10:02 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

There are many reasons that different people supported the invasion of Iraq and support continued, open-ended occupation now.

In many cases, it was and is a political consideration in order to please certain elements of politicians’ political base ... as seems to be the case with Hillary Clinton regarding many of her supporters in her New York senatorial district, as well as supporters outside of the US.

The impact of and funding from powerful lobby groups, including those representing foreign governments, seem to be having an influence on Ms. Clinton as well.

The article referenced below may provide more insight on this:

Iraq War Psychology: Exploring hearts and minds of U.S. officials, press, profiteers

By Steve Hammons
Populist Party of America
February 15, 2007

Report this

By robert puglia, February 18, 2007 at 9:55 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

sen. clinton, like tim hardaway, is entitled to her opinion. unlike sen. clinton we know what tim hardaway’s opinion really is. while hardaway has apologized for saying what he yet believes his gaffe is not the least mitigated by this apology. if i punched you in the eye and apologized would you be any less punched in the eye? this is not an intellectual argument. no one will be any less dead or terrorized, iraq will be no less a disaster if the agents of this destruction apologize in unison and set themselves on fire. you can’t unring a bell.
you can’t unring a bell.
you can vote for someone who had nothing to do with the catastrophe in iraq and i contend we should all do just that. ps; i apologize to tim hardaway for comparing him to sen. clinton.

Report this

By Dennis D, February 18, 2007 at 9:49 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It’s just Hillary being Hillary. By the time her advisor’s get done spinning this she’ll be the Joan of Arc of the Senate. If anyone expects her to come down to the level of the common folk and admit a mistake you need to read up on your Clinton history.

Report this

By thomsen, February 18, 2007 at 9:30 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

GWB had high approval ratings back when Hillary cast that vote.  When we really needed Democrats to stand up against a popular bellicose President is exactly when Hillary failed to do so.

Report this

By David Chase, February 18, 2007 at 8:24 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Well, of course.

Report this

By Frank, February 18, 2007 at 7:19 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Her vote was not a mistake. She and everyone that voted for it made the right decision based on the information they were given.  Obviously, he information they (Congress and the UN) were given was wrong. The execution of the invasion and occupation was wrong. 

Hillary has no reason to apologize for either as she was not responsible for the intelligence being wrong or for the mismanagement of the war.

I’ll be honest. I can’t stand the woman.  But I at least have to respect her for having the backbone to not apologize for a vote she made in good conscience, even though failure to capitulate to those seeking her apology may cost her politically.

Report this
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Like Truthdig on Facebook