It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hillary Blasts Bush Over Iran

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 02:17 PM
link   
ok, just to clarify: are we talking about the same senator clinton that supported the war against iraq just as vehemently as she is supporting war against iran now, but then turned around and became anti-war and starting attacking bush's policies (IOW jumped ship) when the going got tough? the same senator clinton who, during the presidents address to the nation after 9-11, chatted loudly with those around her while the president was trying to speak? the woman is evil encarnate. ever ask a new yorker whether or not they actually voted for her? i cant find anyone who did, how about you guys?

edit for typos

[edit on 20-1-2006 by snafu7700]




posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 02:34 PM
link   
she switches sides faster than an afghan warlord



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
she switches sides faster than an afghan warlord

But not faster than Kerry!
She has a long way to go before she can match his skill at softshoe



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Kerry's in a class unto himself. well, a few classes. he likes to switch as often as possible to keep everyone on their toes.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
she switches sides faster than an afghan warlord



HAHAHAHA, that one made my day, which was a crappy one up until now. Thanks



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aelita
Why are you so sure? I mean the White House wasn't so eager to let "other nations" deal with "it" when it was the issue of Iraq. How can I assume that W and the gang have more acumen now, when the situation is 100 times more serious?


I’m sure I'm not the only one thinking it, but isn't it even slightly odd to some that when Bush decided not to wait anymore on the U.N., he was poo-pooed for his actions, but now—after hearing YEARS of complaints about that from all the libs/dems—when he decides to work the diplomatic approach, he is condemned for that too?

I don't find it odd. I find it par for the intellectually dishonest course. Come on folks, I sure don't mind if you got a prob. w/the Prez. But, can we try to be consistent here?

Either he should or shouldn't go to the U.N. Make up your minds, and stick to them. Otherwise, it's all too obvious to the rest of us who try to stick to our convictions that some folks are just out to hate the guy.

I'd bet he could put on a donkey suit, give all his money to the ACLU, fire all his "cronies," bring the troops home, kiss Kofi Annan on the mouth, renounce Christianity, and personally nominate a Hillary Clinton/Kerry tag team, and you'd still start reeling off the problems.

I can hear it now: "His costume was made in a sweatshop, he should've given the money to the homeless, his "cronies" will just get new oil jobs, he abandoned the poor Iraqis, kissing Kofi is a slap in the face to homosexuals, God hates him now, and Hillary don't need no help!!"

Love him or hate him. Just don't be a hypocrite about it.

Word

[edit on 20-1-2006 by Hamburglar]



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Oh, please! EVERY situation isn't about Dems vs Repubs and Liberals vs Conservatives. Hillary is doing this because of who SHE is (she hopes the next president), not because of some innate democrat disease...


WORD!

But, I maintain my previous question about the validity of some of the "incompotent administration" remarks.



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 11:02 PM
link   
If Lady Clinton is much more excited than Bush to invade Iran, I hope she's not the Democratic candidate in 2008...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join