http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101623. html
Edwards' reason is simple, the intell was wrong, if Iraq was no imminent threat - to the US - it would be a mistake to go in.
Hillary leaves open the possibility that even if Iraq was not a threat she buys into some of the neocon ideals and getting rid of saddam to protect Israel is worth it.
who knows, she should write a letter like this one.
do you have such a link?
Yes, the intel was wrong. They both voted for the war based on faulty intel. She should not have to apologize for mistakes or lies that the Bush administration fed to the Congress. I've always had doubts on the intel before the war, but it's not unreasonable for people to belive that the president of this country was telling the truth.
My Mother has a saying: (I think she got it from The Power Of One, but she won't admit it.)
"First with the facts. Then comes the trust."
There was no reason to trust the president at that time. And no need. They could have voted no and said to come back when you are finished with all the diplomatic actions you can do.
You seem to be missing the POINT(S)!
Her APOLOGY is NOT the issue here, please get over that red herring.
What's at issue, what we are reviewing here is a) her reflective arguments on 'important' judgements she's made, b) her ability or inability to learn from past mistakes or judgements, and c) her qualifications for the job. Also, her recent AIPAC speech reveals a certain level of 'uncertainty' and lack of knowledge on foreign policy which is worrisome.
You see for Hillary NOT to admit she was wrong about her vote, her vote for war speaks volumes to me.
In 2002, Hillary Clinton, a junior senator at the time, decided to vote for the war resolution, however, it's important to note that there were a fair number of Democrats that did not vote for the war, their assessments and ultimate conclusions (on the same information that Hillary had) being relevant, in my mind, why Hillary is not qualified to be our Presidential candidate.
Please recall, for example, what Senator Bob Graham, distinguished and 'experienced' member of the Senate Intelligence Committee who voted NO presented to Congress AND HIS FELLOW DEMOCRATS.
Senator Bob Graham (D): "...I voted against the resolution - not because our nation has nothing to fear from Hussein but because I am convinced that the resolution misstates our national priorities in a dangerous way. Right now the most urgent threats to our security are posed by the shadowy networks of international terrorist organizations that have the capabilities to repeat the tragedy of Sept. 11 - not Saddam Hussein." Graham argued that Saddam posed no immediate threat to U.S. security and that an invasion of Iraq would divert attention and resources from the larger war on terrorism in Afghanistan and other places where al-Qaida had training bases...
"...I voted against the resolution - not because our nation has nothing to fear from Hussein but because I am convinced that the resolution misstates our national priorities in a dangerous way. Right now the most urgent threats to our security are posed by the shadowy networks of international terrorist organizations that have the capabilities to repeat the tragedy of Sept. 11 - not Saddam Hussein."
Graham argued that Saddam posed no immediate threat to U.S. security and that an invasion of Iraq would divert attention and resources from the larger war on terrorism in Afghanistan and other places where al-Qaida had training bases...
Those words, those principles that are so fundamental to our national security hold true today as they did back then.
BECAUSE, Hillary did not listen to his words or his judgement, and STILL will not acknowledge her misplaced judgement on the war, tells me she has some serious deficiencies in the decision making department.
So, when Hillary at her recent AIPAC dinner event was ratcheting up the WAR TALK saying that NOW 'IRAN' is the most dangerous bogeyman on the planet, and also informs us that she doesn't even "know enough about how Iranian society and their government really functions." - this brings up red flags for me that she has STILL has not LEARNED from her past mistakes, and is heading down the same path as her Iraq mistake.
I just don't think she's got what it takes. For her to even question, even hesitate that talking to Iran might NOT be the "smartest move" -- in public even -- should send off huge warning bells. That she never mentioned our European or ME allies in DIPLOMACY. That she appeared so concerned about 'acting' all tough by clinging to rhetoric more akin to Bush than an international stateswoman does not bode well for the leader of our troops or the free world.
I mean does she really think we can take Iran on by ourselves? IRAN being 3x's the size of Iraq and has a million strong army?
I can see Iraq all over again with her, except disaster coming back to the US ten-fold. I truly believe she is not qualified to be President or head of OUR National Security.
