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.

 

"Bush Is Irresponsible, Misused Authority" Says Hillary Clinton

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 03:53 AM
link   
In a speech, Clinton attacked Bush on the way he deals with the Iraq war. Clinton also commented heavily about Bush's statement that "this is going to be left to his successor" when asked about the fate of U. S. troops in Iraq when his term expires in two years.
 



newsinfo.inquirer.net
DAVENPORT, Iowa -- Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton on Sunday said it would be irresponsible if President George W. Bush left US troops in Iraq when his term expires in two years.

"The president has said that this is going to be left to his successor," she told a crowd in an Iowa auditorium. "I think it's the height of irresponsibility and I resent it."

"I said this was not a vote for preemptive war. The president took my vote, and others' votes, and basically misused the authority we gave him," Clinton said in Des Moines, Iowa.




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


This is just like the old times. Long time ago, during the Vietnam war, the presidential candidates,one of the biggest question when they run is, what are we going to do with the war?

The war itself became a heavy burden by default. When President Bush finished his term, and the war still continues, The next president who will take over will face harrowing decisions on what to do with the war in Iraq.

Hillary Clinton (who also voted for the Iraq war in 2003 in the congress), accused Bush of misusing the authority they have given Bush. Clinton said she was planning on introducing legislation calling for a cap on troop levels in Iraq.



[edit on 29-1-2007 by searching_for_truth]

[edit on 29-1-2007 by searching_for_truth]




posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Is Hillary Clinton just realizing this or perhaps her miniature testicles grew a bit since she just decided to run for President. She should shut her mouth and sit down like she has been doing since Bush has been in office instead of being a phoney. Bush has been abusing his office, abusing his power and abusing the people of the USA for a long time now. This should not be a revelation out of the blue.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 08:15 PM
link   
She is a public official who is completely entitled to her opinion. She should shut her mouth because she has an opinion that differs from yours?

Whether you agree with Bush or not, she does have a point. Bush is making decisions on Iraq that is going to carry into the term of the next President. Whomever takes the oval office in 2008 is going to have to bare the burden of decisions made on behalf of the previous administration. I have a problem with a lame duck president who is making decisions that carry on well into times that are going to be governed by another.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Smoke and mirrors, AGAIN. Hillary, if you would have been in office, you would have done the SAME thing because it's the plan. Yeah, try to say that you're different, but we'll see how you're not if you end up in the White House. Hillary, you're a phony democrat. You're against the US sovergnity, against guns, against protecting the border, for raping the constitution, for illegal wars, for the amero, for everything that will bring the US down, push it towards a police state. You probably know of 9/11 before it happenned, you're in the inner circles.

Let's remember, you voted for the Patriot Act, voted for the Iraq war, voted for torture , you're in Bilderberg, Rupert Murdoch is supporting you as he supported the Bushes because he knows you're on their side and not for the people. You're favorite books are 1984 and Brave New World, and we know why. We know you're hanging with the fascist Newt Gingrich, Bill Frist, McCain and Rick Sanotrum. If you have friends like that, you're certainly like them. We know your families are smuggling drugs across the border.

If you're elected, we'll know for a FACT that the US is an oligarchy, since 1981, George HW Bush was almost running the Reagan presidency, BTW, this is well know, then he got ``elected``, then Bill Clinton, then W Bush, then you. So since 1981, until 2016, if all go according to your plans, for 35 years. In 36 years, only 2 families owned the white house. How is that a democracy?

We know you won't be a good president, you will betray the people, just like Bush did. When all this is brought to light, we'll bring you and your croonies to justice.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by chissler
She is a public official who is completely entitled to her opinion. She should shut her mouth because she has an opinion that differs from yours?

Whether you agree with Bush or not, she does have a point.


No, she doesnt have a point. She is afraid that the war will make the next president unpopular, which it will, and it will result in the next president being a 1 term president over this issue.

Hillary is afraid that if she is elected, she will be only a 1 term president because of Iraq. BTW, hillary stands no chance of being elected IMO.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
No, she doesnt have a point. She is afraid that the war will make the next president unpopular, which it will, and it will result in the next president being a 1 term president over this issue.

Hillary is afraid that if she is elected, she will be only a 1 term president because of Iraq. BTW, hillary stands no chance of being elected IMO.


Hmm, that's not what I got at all from that article, and the "point". Wasn't the point this?:


Clinton, 59, said at Democratic Party offices on Saturday that Congress would not have voted for war if it had known then what it knows now and blamed Bush for misusing his authority.


Considering the gravity and implications of that point, which sears straight through the heart of honesty, credibility, and worse, human LIVES, the point you are suggesting, xphiles, seems to pale in comparison. imo.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Hmm, that's not what I got at all from that article, and the "point". Wasn't the point this?:


Clinton, 59, said at Democratic Party offices on Saturday that Congress would not have voted for war if it had known then what it knows now and blamed Bush for misusing his authority.


Considering the gravity and implications of that point, which sears straight through the heart of honesty, credibility, and worse, human LIVES, the point you are suggesting, xphiles, seems to pale in comparison. imo.


You honestly believes she gives a damn about the people in Iraq? American or otherwise? She doesnt. Im not saying bush does either, thats obvious. Poiliticians are not in politics to make a difference for others, they are in politics to make a difference for themselves.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 09:20 PM
link   



Considering the gravity and implications of that point, which sears straight through the heart of honesty, credibility, and worse, human LIVES, the point you are suggesting, xphiles, seems to pale in comparison. imo.

Utter BS. Clinton knew what was the plan, creating a civil war in Iraq. Read Zbigniew Brzezinski : The Grand Chessboard and The Great Middle-east strategy. She knew everything. She knew what was the plan. She's a liar.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 09:32 PM
link   
i agree with what she has stated and, yet, i wonder:

why did it take her so long to say all this


o0o yes, she is running for president


it all makes sense...

i fear she is just feeding off of emotions to get future votes...

of course, though, she is correct in what she says






posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by chissler
She is a public official who is completely entitled to her opinion. She should shut her mouth because she has an opinion that differs from yours?



I think she should shut her mouth because as a Senator of the United States of America she has privy to information way before the majority of civilians knew anything. It was not just a revelation that popped into her head now that there were no WMD's in Iraq and she should have been saying these things all along. As soon as it was known Bush was signing Bills that were never passed in government and as soon as it was known about Government tapping of civilian phones, as soon as it was known that we were illegally torturing and renditioning people. This is not something new that just came about, but her bid for the Presidency is. The only reason why she is all righteous about the way things are now is because she want's the appearance of someone who cares.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Well, I see where you guys are going with this, but answer me something, please:

Was not Hillary, as well as the rest of Congress, only informed with the same manufactured evidence as the American people? Is she not in her right to feel resentment over a President that would do such a thing?

Even Colin Powell delivered that speech to the UN, based upon doctored evidence. In fact, he had the whole world believing that Saddam was out to kill the world and should be taken out. Based on "evidence" that turned out to be largely wrong.

I dunno, maybe you guys are right and she's a caniving worm hole. But if she was only privy to the same evidence as was presented to Congress, then going to the extent that some of you are going here is a bit much.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 11:39 PM
link   
I believe that any presidential candidates will try to use any campaign strategy that will work & convince the voters best. Personal attacks are not uncommon. Even in the last election where Bush faced Kerry, they picked background issues like Kerry's Military service in Vietnam against Bush's military service etc.

The war in Iraq has been a burden. The war was formally declared over sometime ago, U.S. is now actually involved in shaping up and helping the new Iraq administration. Congress approved the war, what was never fully realized is after occupation, there will be an insurgency at this scale. I think that this was never seriously considered up to the point that it was underestimated. This is where we got caught in a quagmire.

As for the current situation in Iraq, Presidential candidates will be affected by default and may carry the burden to continue to win or to pull out.

I can't recall of a single president during the Vietnam War that was blamed by another president solely for the decisions of going to War in Vietnam.

Now back to present, I wonder what would be the tune of the presidential candidates about Iraq had we have been winning and we are in the stage of closing the war successfully.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 02:10 AM
link   
I am ashamed of the fact that she chose to launch her "Discussion" in my hometown of Des Moines. Being in Davenport is STILL in my state and I wish she would just get the heck out! I can't stand this woman and I don't get how any thinking person would possibly support her. She is insane and comparing herself to Margaret Thatcher is a joke. She came in on the coat-tails of her husband, unlike the Brit who made herself on her own. She has already been in the White House and got nothing done, she did NOTHING for New York as a Senator and has more faces than a Hydra.
Her new "Oprah" style is just phony as hell. The simple fact that she is a woman is scary, in the sense that she thinks she can get Muslims to "have a dialogue" with her. Anyone thinking George W. is bad right now will be looking back under Hillary with envy.
Did I mention she has tree stumps for ankles?

Searching_For_Truth:
"Now back to present, I wonder what would be the tune of the presidential candidates about Iraq had we have been winning and we are in the stage of closing the war successfully."

THIS is precisely why the Democrats can't let this war be presented in a positive light (any measure of success whatsoever). They refuse to take responsibility for their part in getting the US into Iraq and they will do anything to ensure that they are back in power in 2008. I just hope they don't start selling out this country like they did...........hmmm...who was partly responsible for all that technology transfer to China in exchange for campaign funding back in the Clinton era? I guess that would be HILLARY "Treestumpankles" CLINTON (and the hillbilly hubby)!!!

And.......for the FIRST TIME EVER, I agree with something Pieman has to say. The part about her shutting her mouth!

[edit on 30-1-2007 by CreeWolf]

[edit on 30-1-2007 by CreeWolf]

[edit on 30-1-2007 by CreeWolf]



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 06:33 AM
link   
XphilesPhan, you have strong opinions on the subject. But you base your opinion on assumptions. You can only speculate to what Clinton thinks, nothing more. Basing your opinion and proclaiming it a fact is hardly justification to the situation at hand. Criticizing Clinton for thinking the next President may be a one term President makes sense how? If you were going to be President, why would you possibly hope to not get elected on the second term? Of course she would want to be a two term President. To do otherwise would make no sense whatsoever.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 01:41 AM
link   
Chissler, there is more credence to Xphilesfan's comments than you know. I can't for the life of me find the source, but a couple Democrats HAVE said it themselves....that every decision they make on what stance they take on some issues IS politically motivated, at least in part. Their stance on the war in Iraq is one of them! As I said before, the Dems CANNOT afford for there to be success in Iraq because politically, what leg do they have to stand on in 2008?



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 01:44 AM
link   
I agree with Pieman.

Why be so vociforous now all of a sudden? She's been behind this war since the beginning.

NEXT.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 06:02 AM
link   
Just more politics. She wants to get elected so she'll say what she thinks the voters want to hear. Whaaaaaaaaaaatever.

Oh .. and if she wants to start discussing who is 'irresponsible and who misused authority' then she should take a looooooong look at her and hubby Bill. The Clinton Administration. (don't forget - hot pants Sandy
)



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
No, she doesnt have a point. She is afraid that the war will make the next president unpopular, which it will, and it will result in the next president being a 1 term president over this issue.


Agreed! And that is her mistake! It's not what the next president getsfrom Bush, but the he/or she decides to do with it. If we look back at history, Vietnam was very unpopular at the end of the Johnson Adminisration. When Nixion got into office many Ameriacn were protesting every day. However, Nixion still got reelected to a second term (which he later resign, but that's a seprate topic).

We Americans have our flaws, but we're generally Reasonable people!

Tim



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 06:38 AM
link   
Whether there is merit or not, I completely understand why a Presidential candidate would not want their hands cuffed by a lame duck. It would only make sense that they want some mobility on issues when they enter the oval office.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 07:14 AM
link   
"Bush Is Irresponsible, Misused Authority" Says Hillary Clinton

I have an idea, somebody ask her if Bill Clinton was irresponsible and misused authority at WACO!!!!

Roper



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join