Speakeasy forum

General discussion

So it was Clinton who lied?

by Evie / April 22, 2004 10:58 PM PDT
If what Hillary told Larry King is true ...

The lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq contradicts years of intelligence indicating Saddam had such weapons, which also was the conclusion of officials in the Clinton administration.

"The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration," she said. "It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared.

"But I think that in the case of the [Bush] administration, they really believed it. They really thought they were right, but they didn't let enough sunlight into their thinking process to really have the kind of debate that needs to take place when a serious decision occurs like that."


Emphasis mine. So is she saying that her husband didn't really believe it now? Or how about all the Democrats, including Kerry, who expressed the need to eliminate the WMD's even more stridently than Bush himself?

Evie Happy
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: So it was Clinton who lied?
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: So it was Clinton who lied?
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Re:So it was Clinton who lied?
by Mary Kay / April 23, 2004 12:09 AM PDT

She's saying it wasn't proved to them that it was so. I don't think she is assigning blame.

Collapse -
Re:Re:So it was Clinton who lied?
by Dan McC / April 23, 2004 1:27 AM PDT

I got the impression that in the gray/gray world of intel there has to be many discussions with many points of view represented. And that she did not think this happened before bush charged unprepared into the conquest of Iraq.

Dan

Collapse -
Re:Re:Re:So it was Clinton who lied?
by Kiddpeat / April 24, 2004 1:21 PM PDT

I get the impression that the Monday morning perspective does wonders for one's judgement.

Collapse -
I get the impression
by Dan McC / April 25, 2004 11:59 PM PDT

that it's best to ignore your bait.

Collapse -
A pity Hillory isn't standing for president
by SteveGargini / April 24, 2004 9:00 AM PDT

She is obviously a great deal more honest than Clinton, and a great deal better looking than Kerry.
We had a female Prime Minister and she was very strong. I realise it wouldn't do the Republicans a whole lot of good if she stood, and was a success.
Just a point of view on my part, speaking as an outsider, and with no affiliation with either party.

Collapse -
Sorry ........Hillary.......not hillory :( nt
by SteveGargini / April 24, 2004 8:03 PM PDT

nt

Collapse -
Some think she has already
by Roger NC / April 24, 2004 10:28 PM PDT

Not sure who will agree and disagree, but I honestly susupect she made more of the policy decisions than 'ole Bill did.

Wouldn't be the first time of course, government by proxie you could call it I guess. Lots of first ladies probably had huge influence on their husbands. Just some I suspect when beyond influence.

RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

Collapse -
It has always been of interest to me
by SteveGargini / April 25, 2004 2:52 AM PDT

Just how many decisions are made based on discussion with their wives. The close proximity must have the effect of shared ideas.
Good point Roger.

Collapse -
It's tempting to think so, but I didn't see a major Hillary role.
by Kiddpeat / April 25, 2004 6:23 AM PDT

Look how she mucked up health care, Tyson chicken, and the pharmacuetical industry.

Collapse -
Re:A pity Hillory isn't standing for president
by Evie / April 25, 2004 4:09 AM PDT

Hi Steve,

Sorry, can't agree with you there. Her honesty is parallel to her husband's. If she were elected, I fear that would be the last woman President for the next century or more. She will try to enact a radical agenda that will cause much backlash. I sure hope women don't vote for her merely for her gender when she does run.

Evie Happy

Collapse -
I must admit Evie - being thousands of miles away - over the pond
by SteveGargini / April 25, 2004 6:10 AM PDT

I don't get to hear much about her.
I doubt if she would ever run for President, since she would be the first potential women President, and that in itself holds too many unknowns to even risk it.
My history of the U.S is not nearly as good as yours.
Would I be right in saying that there has never been a women President elected?

Collapse -
Re:I must admit Evie - being thousands of miles away - over the pond
by Evie / April 26, 2004 1:57 AM PDT
I don't get to hear much about her.

Consider yourself lucky Wink

Oh she will run for President. Current buzz is whether or not she will run as Veep this go round. The logic being that if she sees Kerry's candidacy as not hopeful of winning, but viable enough for her to unload her negative baggage as a national candidate in '04, she'll sign up. She doesn't want him to win, cuz no way will Hillary want to put off her own run until 2012 (and if Kerry were to -- God forbid! -- win, it would be highly unusual for a VP to challenge a sitting Prez for his second term). If she sits this round out, she will be a leading candidate in 2008 -- that is if she survives her 2006 Senate challenge (run Rudy run!!!!) and the brewing FEC fundraising issues that will bubble to the surface shortly.

Can you tell I'm not a fan? IMO, a successful female President would have to appeal broadly to women AND men of both parties. Hillary's negatives are just too (well deservedly) high for that. If she did manage to win the office, I just can't fathom there being eventual backlash. Geraldine Ferraro is a fine woman who ran for VP with Mondale. While I really don't think it is fair to pin the failure of that ticket on her, there does seem to be a tangible air of "gun shy" hovering around our national politics and there hasn't even been a woman strongly considered since that I recall. The "Hillary factor" is so much bigger. I can't for the life of me understand the appeal Hillary has to those who respect her. JMO.

Evie Happy
Popular Forums
icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

The Samsung RF23M8090SG

One of the best French door fridges we've tested

A good-looking fridge with useful features like an auto-filling water pitcher and a temperature-adjustable "FlexZone" drawer. It was a near-flawless performer in our cooling tests.