PDA

View Full Version : Sen. Clinton Defends Iraq War Vote



BigBadBrian
11-30-2005, 12:15 PM
Sen. Clinton Defends Iraq War Vote


WASHINGTON (AP) - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Tuesday defended her vote to authorize war in Iraq amid growing unease among liberal Democrats who could determine the potential 2008 presidential candidate's future.

"I take responsibility for my vote, and I, along with a majority of Americans, expect the president and his administration to take responsibility for the false assurances, faulty evidence and mismanagement of the war," the New York senator said in a lengthy letter to thousands of people who have written her about the war.

At the same time, she said the United States must "finish what it started" in Iraq.

Clinton and other hawkish Democrats have come under criticism from liberal anti-war activists, many of whom will hold sway over presidential primary contests. The former first lady, who is up for re-election in 2006, would likely be an early front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination should she decide to seek it.

The 1,600-word letter was sent, mainly through e-mail, on Tuesday - a day before President Bush was to deliver a speech on his Iraqi policies. The president's approval ratings plummeted in recent months as the U.S. death toll and anti-war sentiments grew.

The debate has also put Clinton in a tight spot: generally viewed as pro-military, the former first lady is the most-watched member of a party that is increasingly turning against the war.

In her letter to voters, the senator cited prewar assurances from the White House that the United States would use the United Nations to resolve the issue of Iraq's purported weapons of mass destruction.

"Based on the information that we have today, Congress never would have been asked to give the president authority to use force against Iraq," she said. Clinton stopped short of saying her vote was a mistake, the political path chosen by two other potential Democratic candidates - former vice presidential candidate John Edwards and Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del.

"Given years of assurances that the war was nearly over and that the insurgents were in their 'last throes," this administration was either not being honest with the American people or did not know what was going on in Iraq," she wrote.

Clinton's allies billed the letter as her most comprehensive statement on the war to date.

"It is time for the president to stop serving up platitudes and present us with a plan for finishing this war with success and honor," she wrote.

Clinton, who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said earlier this month it would be a "big mistake" for U.S. troops to pull out immediately. She stuck with that line Tuesday. "America has a big job to do now. We must set reasonable goals to finish what we started and successfully turn over Iraqi security to Iraqis," she wrote.

Link (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20051130/D8E6QUUOD.html)

Cathedral
11-30-2005, 12:33 PM
Dammit, I'm not happy about this, but i freakin agree with her here.

I still wouldn't vote for her, but i agree with her major points on Iraq and how it should be handled at this stage.

We don't have to be there for years, but with how the Bush Admin is handeling it, we will be.
Thye have got to know that the public isn't going to buy anymore bullshit, but you can't tell that from the comments given by Bush and Rummy in the last several days.

They are as they have been, in direct opposition with what the ground troops are saying.
Great things are progressing in many parts of Iraq, but they need to have what they are asking for to finish the job and they just aren't getting it from these tools.

I have no choice but to believe they want this shit to drag out, but John Q. Public is NOT going to go along with that so they had better wise up and give the troops what they need, dammit.

Nitro Express
12-01-2005, 01:09 AM
Hillary Clinton is many things but stupid she isn't. She knows a large percentage of the voting public are not happy in either the Republican Party or Democratic Party. Even Jimmy Carter has distanced himself from the current Democratic Party because it's too radicle. The far left and Howard Dean are not assets and Hillary knows this. She's going after the more conservative Democrat and Independant votes. She might even pick up some former Republican votes . The Democratic Party is splitting apart and Hillary knows this.

DLR'sCock
12-01-2005, 03:02 AM
Please define the term finish?



I just want to know how many years will it take to train the Iraqis to defend themselves? How many are we at now, oh yes it will be 3 in March. We all know that the bombings will diminish when we leave. Civil war? Might happen whether or not we are there.

FORD
12-01-2005, 04:16 AM
Hillary is just another PNAC/AIPAC/DLC tool. I have no respect left for her at all.

ELVIS
12-01-2005, 05:36 AM
Exactly when did you have respect for her ??

FORD
12-01-2005, 05:49 AM
Originally posted by ELVIS
Exactly when did you have respect for her ??

Back in 1993 when she was trying to do something about the fucked up healthcare system in this country.

Her plan might not have been perfect, but it beat what the Republicans offerred then and now which is absolutely nothing.

ELVIS
12-01-2005, 06:07 AM
It's not a government issue!

She wanted socialized medicine...

Not in this country!

Nickdfresh
12-01-2005, 06:12 AM
No. We should just spend more and more on healthcare and get less, more than any other nation on earth....

And make sure you cry about abortion when you deny basic medical care to young children.

Hypocrites!

Warham
12-01-2005, 07:09 AM
We have the best health care access in the world for one reason. It's not run by the government.

Nickdfresh
12-01-2005, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by Warham
We have the best health care access in the world for one reason. It's not run by the government.

If you can afford it...

Guitar Shark
12-01-2005, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by Warham
We have the best health care access in the world for one reason. It's not run by the government.

Define "We."

A large percentage of Americans have NO health insurance. Those that do have seen their premiums skyrocket and the benefits reduce over the years. The people without insurance are clogging our emergency rooms which raises costs for everyone else.

Unless your head is completely buried in the sand, you should be able to recognize that the health care crisis is a HUGE issue.

ELVIS
12-01-2005, 12:06 PM
But government taking it over is NOT the answer...

Guitar Shark
12-01-2005, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by ELVIS
But government taking it over is NOT the answer...

I don't really care WHAT they do as long as they do SOMETHING...

It's being ignored right now while we fight a losing battle in Iraq.

Warham
12-01-2005, 03:28 PM
We aren't losing in Iraq, but that's another debate.

Besides, Senators can worry about two things at one time. When they've got time to worry about investigating the Eagles for suspending Terrell Owens or getting involved in steroids in baseball, they certain have enough time to think about health care.

Cathedral
12-01-2005, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by Guitar Shark
Define "We."

A large percentage of Americans have NO health insurance. Those that do have seen their premiums skyrocket and the benefits reduce over the years. The people without insurance are clogging our emergency rooms which raises costs for everyone else.

Unless your head is completely buried in the sand, you should be able to recognize that the health care crisis is a HUGE issue.

The only thing i agree with is that it is a HUGE issue, one i've been deeply engulfed in for years on a personal level.

But the problem isn't a new one confined to the current Administration.
believe me when i tell you that.
The problem with the system is the lack of protection for those who practice medicine and those who develope and manufacture the drugs we need.
If you think healthcare sucks now, just wait until everyone without it ends up on the public nipple, the changes will be devastating because then the government will then decide for you what treatments you get and when or if you get them at all.
You do not want to add a beurocrat to the discussions between you and your doctor when they have final say over your treatment.

Medicaid has already been restructured so that it is only for the disabled, it no longer carries Healthy Start for children, Care Source does and that is actually a massive improvement over how it was, you can thank the Bush Administration for that one because the plan works and you have better choices over the physicians in the plan.

Medicaire has also been restructured and they now pay for my wife's prescriptions 100% whereas before I got 20% of that bill but our malpractice settlement pays for that shit anyway so for the immediate future it wasn't actually coming out of our pocket.
This restructuring took so much of the financial burdon off our insurance provider that our premiums actually went down.
In fact i got a check from my insurance company for over payment of Premiums for the last 6 months of last year, it was a pretty good surprise given my current situation.
You can thank Bush for that as well, the Seniors will be by years end.

But that brings me to the core of the whole problem, and that is lawsuits. like i said, physicians and those who develop and manufacture the drugs we need, until Bush started moving shit around, had less protection against phony lawsuits that (and excuse my reference here) LAWYERS benefitted from more than the Plaintiff.
Damages were so over inflated for so long and so little protection was provided federally for the drug companies and Doctors that their losses are what have transferred into premium hikes.

I sued a couple of doctors but i only went after what i was entitled to, a fair settlement, an i got it. the kicker was that my own attorney made the statement, "But you can get so much more" so many times that i started to get offended, and he was only thinking about his bottom line anyway, to the tune of 40%.
But so many Billions are awarded by judgement every year to individuals who are only driven by greed and over-inflated damages that the rest of society ends up paying for it.

Heath care is an issue that has to be addressed on a state level, not the Federal level.
Hell, here in Ohio, up until the mid 90', we had the best of the best this country had to offer at The University of Cincinnati Hospital. All the best doctors came through here on their way to their own practices. But so damn many of them got their ass sued off for frivelous reasons that they no longer come here, they go somewhere else where state law provides more protection for them or they go somewhere outside of the country all together.
Doctors should be accountable for the things they do, but leaving them and those in the pharmaceutical field to the dogs if they make a mistake is wrong, because a mistake isn't malpractice, it's a mistake, but still they get taken to the cleaners because so and so had a great lawyer.

Greed is the problem, and since states won't go far enough to protect their health care professionals we look to the Feds to fix the problem as a last ditch effort to control Health Care costs.
But some of those in Congress and the Senate, Democrats at that, see a different opportunity here. they see a "Social Program" that will NOT provide better care for all of us, but it will provide them with control over how those health care funds are spent...and folks, it won't be spent on YOU or ME getting better care. if you believe that lie you are treading on water i've already been through, and the water ain't fine.

Here's what your Universal Health care system will do for YOU.
You go to the Doctor for one reason or the other.
The Doctor finds the problem, and precribes the treatment for you but instead of how it is now where you leave with a prescription and get it filled, you have to file a claim to see if that prescription is covered, and if you need extensive or continued care for a major illness, you have to ask permission by a State Doctor...now tell me, what will his main priority be?
it will be cost to the state, and then he'll/she'll reject your request for the treatment making you have to file an appeal, and guess what, people die during these appeals when these same doctors you want controlling health care take months to settle the issue.
And in the end, they end up paying nothing while the family that went broke dealing with the issue see none of that money for reimbursement.

I want protection for those who provide the care and the drugs, but i do not want a governmental Doctor who's main goal is to save money sitting in the room with my doctor and myself as we discuss treatments when the only thing they'll say is NO.

You people that support Universal Health Care have no fucking idea what you are asking for at all.
It isn't anything like what Canada has because the structure is totally different than what the Democrats are trying to do here at home.

It's hard t tell if water is too hot or too cold because steam comes off of it at both extreme's....it's better to test it before you jump in. ;)
If you have ever dealt with SSI then you've had a taste of what Universal health care will be ALL about...thanks, but No Thanks!

Phil theStalker
12-04-2005, 05:56 AM
Originally posted by FORD
Hillary is just another PNAC/AIPAC/DLC tool. I have no respect left for her at all. When it gets this bad it's going to come down to the guns in the second amendment.

There's going to be a slaughter in this country get prepared.

When government becomes so destructive the people have a right and a duty to abolish it.

Toodleloo.

I've got a war to fight and a country to fight f4or.


:spank:

FORD
12-04-2005, 01:23 PM
Here's the biggest hypocrisy.... Everyone in Congress right now will have healthcare for life, funded by the taxpayers, regardless of when they leave office.

Most of them are millionaires before they ever get elected. Therefore, we, the taxpayers are subsidizing healthcare for the rich, who can afford to pay their own bills, but not for the poorest among us. That's not only fucking crazy, it's wrong.

JESUS said that was wrong.

And why should I pay for a criminal like Duke Cunningham or Tom Delay for the rest of their miserable lives??

Elvis, maybe you have worked in nursing homes for too long to realize how many people out there aren't covered. The patients you care for are all on Medicare, which is......

....wait for it....

Government funded health care.

DrMaddVibe
12-04-2005, 02:24 PM
I don't think if a woman pees standing up she's a woman.

LoungeMachine
12-04-2005, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by ELVIS
But government taking it over is NOT the answer...


We can run the middle east, but not a bunch of spoiled doctors and petulant male nurses?

C'mon....

LoungeMachine
12-04-2005, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
I don't think if a woman pees standing up she's a woman.

How did Ann Coulter get into this thread?:D

LoungeMachine
12-04-2005, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by Warham
We aren't losing in Iraq,.


WTF????????????????????

You're on crack, jackass.



We sure as HELL aint winning.

Are you saying it's a draw, we're even? We're treading water, holding our own, ???????

THAT'S THE SAME AS LOSING, FUCKWIT:rolleyes:

Warham
12-04-2005, 04:49 PM
No, we aren't losing, Lounge.

The people in Iraq are going to be voting on a permanent Constitution in 13 days. Many Sunnis will likely participate, after boycotting the process earlier. I remember liberals howling a year ago that a vote would NEVER happen. We are two weeks away, and no car bomb is going to stop the political process.

Militarily, we are doing very well, all things considered who we are fighting and how we have to fight.

Sure, I'd like the process of training the Iraqis to speed up quite a bit, but I believe we are getting there.

LoungeMachine
12-04-2005, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by Warham
No, we aren't losing, Lounge.

The people in Iraq are going to be voting on a permanent Constitution in 13 days.

Heard this before...........

remember?

:rolleyes:

Voting doesn't change the fact we're in the middle of a civil war, that is about to get WORSE because of the vote, not better.

We heard this same bullshit from you last year, remember?

DrMaddVibe
12-04-2005, 05:52 PM
In 1994, Hillary Rodham Clinton set out to change the country's health-care system and convened a panel to develop a plan secretly. This was a endeavor paid for by taxpayers, but held behind closed doors-- in violation of federal law.

Important aspects of the plan:

* The plan aimed to cut the number of doctors (called "cost centers") by one quarter in order to cut demand by limiting supply.
* The plan aimed to cut costs by cutting the number of specialists in half.
* The plan prescribed the following fines:

* $5,000 for refusing to join the government-mandated health plan.

* $5,000 for failing to pay premiums on time.

* 15 years to doctors who received "anything of value" in exchange for helping patients short-circuit the bureaucracy.

* $10,000 a day for faulty physician paperwork.

* $50,000 for unauthorized patient treatment.

* $100,000 a day for drug companies that messed up federal filings.

* Would have mandated the Federal Government to build a database containing every American's medical records and require all individuals to carry a card containing a chip storing our complete medical history. This information would be available to government officials and researchers without your approval or knowledge.
* Would have set out to control the number and type of doctors permitted to practice in an geographical area.
* A Congressional Budget Office report (8-10-94) said the bill would cost more than $1 trillion in the first eight years.
* An association of U.S. Hospitals study estimated the plan would have added 59 new government offices staffed by 100,000 new bureaucrats.

Hillary quotes about the plan:

* When a woman complained that she didn't want to get shoved into a plan not of her choosing, the first lady lectured, "It's time to put the common good, the national interest, ahead of individuals."
* When told the plan could bankrupt small businesses, Mrs. Clinton sighed, "I can't be responsible for every undercapitalized small business in America."

Other quotes about the plan:

* "I have never read an official document that seemed so suffused with coercion and political naivete ... with its drastic prescriptions for controlling the conduct of state governments, employers, drug manufacturers, doctors, hospitals and you and me."

-- Martha Derthick of the University of Virginia

* Senator Moynihan said, "The American people got it clear enough…to cut the number of doctors in the country by a quarter…If you have fewer doctors you have fewer doctor bills. But you don't associate it with improving medicine."

Moynihan also noted, Hillary's bill aimed to cut costs by cutting "the number of specialists in half." Moynihan vehemently objected, arguing that specialists are a function of science--new discoveries create new specialties. Moynihan, defending New York's teaching hospitals which produce specialists, said, "We are not swamped with specialists; we abound in them. And that is surely the glory of this great moment of medical discovery."

The illegality of the panel:

* The secrecy of the task force was challenged in a lawsuit by the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons. The judge, imposing $286,000 in sanctions against the administration for the AAPS's legal fees, denounced what he called the "cover-up" of efforts to keep the health care planning secret. Noting that "reprehensible" misstatements had been made to him, he denounced decisions "made at the highest levels of government," which must be held accountable "when its officials run amok." He said the executive branch "was dishonest with this court" and declared that "some government officials never learn that the cover-up can be worse than the underlying conduct."

Would Mrs. Clinton Still Pursue This Plan?:

* "You may remember that we tried to do that [pass her health care bill] in 1993 and 1994. We weren't totally successful, but I did not give up."

-- Hillary Clinton speech, February 22, 2000.

FORD
12-04-2005, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
I don't think if a woman pees standing up she's a woman.

True, but what does Ann Coulter have to do with this thread? :confused:

LoungeMachine
12-04-2005, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
How did Ann Coulter get into this thread?:D

You plagarized me, FORDO :D ;)

FORD
12-04-2005, 06:51 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
You plagarized me, FORDO :D ;)

Yeah, I should have read down the thread first. It was such an obvious response I'm not surprised you got there first :D

LoungeMachine
12-04-2005, 06:53 PM
Originally posted by FORD
Yeah, I should have read down the thread first. It was such an obvious response I'm not surprised you got there first :D

It was a softball sitting on a Tee.

I felt guilty, but had to swing.

;)

DrMaddVibe
12-04-2005, 07:41 PM
It's the only way you can hit one outta the park, Sparky.