digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall now online!
Check out the latest Digg Townhall, where Kevin and Jay answered the top questions from the Digg Community!

See the original image at huffingtonpost.com —

The Iraq Question: Why Can't Clinton Admit She Was Wrong?

huffingtonpost.com — Consider these two questions when deciding how to vote on Tuesday and beyond: Why did Senator Clinton give George W. Bush the authority to invade Iraq; and why can she not bring herself to admit she was wrong? Senator Clinton still seems to cling to the argument that Bush mismanaged the whole project, that it was worth doing but it was done badly.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • cashman57, on 02/05/2008, -41/+7Both Clinton and Obama voted to support the use of force in Iraq so if the Iraq debacle is your #1 vote qualification you need to skip over both of the Democrat lawyers.
    • N3tw0rk, on 02/05/2008, -5/+33Obama didn't vote for the war, and there are documented speeches he gave speaking out against going to war. Get your facts straight buddy.
      • jasqwerty, on 02/05/2008, -14/+5So, care to share even one instance of him voting against any war measure? Actions > Words
        • sharpfork, on 02/05/2008, -3/+6He was campaigning for the US senate at the time openly criticizing the rush to war. He has been open and consistent on the issue ever since- regardless of what Bill Clinton using Rove techniques might be spouting.
        • lowfalls, on 02/05/2008, -6/+4Yes. When he voted against the war in the first place.
        • thefirstenemy, on 02/05/2008, -3/+7He's submitted legislation calling for the withdrawal of U.S. forces.
          • Swift2, on 02/05/2008, -4/+2So has Clinton. In fact both of them have nearly identical records on Iraq.
        • jasqwerty, on 02/05/2008, -8/+3>>When he voted against the war in the first place

          This never happened

          >>at the time openly criticizing the rush to war

          Actions > Words

          >>He's submitted legislation calling for the withdrawal of U.S. forces.

          Oh has he? And has he ever voted down an appropriations bill for a war he disagrees with so much?
    • jmk4422, on 02/05/2008, -4/+26I cannot believe there are people as stupid as you still around. Quick history lesson: Obama was a State Senator in Illinois in 2002 when the vote for authorization of force in Iraq was debated and passed in Washington D.C. Illinois state senators, as a general rule, don't get a vote in the United States Senate. However, on 26 October 2002 Mr. Obama made the following speech at what had been billed as an anti-war rally in Chicago:

      "I don’t oppose all wars...What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne...

      "I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

      "I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars."

      (source: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_ ... )
    • newfoundnoise82, on 02/05/2008, -3/+8You could make an argument that neither one of them voted against the war, but that both voted for it? No, as stated above Obama wasn't even in the senate at the time.

      He did all he could to stop this war, the same can not be said for Hillary and it's why I can not vote for her period.
      • pavanb500, on 02/05/2008, -1/+0No need to vote for her period...she's well past that age where she still has them
    • spucky, on 02/05/2008, -5/+7Jesus ***** christ. Digg is turning into fark. Stop lying *****.
  • ssn697, on 02/05/2008, -2/+66Hillary NEVER admits she is wrong. If she is shown to be wrong by someone, she goes out of her way to go after that person. Critical personal flaw, IMO.
    • rz8472, on 02/05/2008, -0/+6Also unlike Obama is supports Kyl-Lieberman (basically can be construed as a declaration of war against Iran) and has set no END DATE for when she is going to complete withdrawal, leaving the possibility of an open-ended commitment. It seems that she is second-guessing and triangulating everything in case the polls go the other way.

      Look at her rhetoric at the debates. It's basically "I voted for UN inspectors not the war, this is George Bush's war not mine, and we were right in liberating Iraq but the Iraqis screwed it up so now we're leaving".
    • mlirblur, on 02/05/2008, -0/+6"If she is shown to be wrong by someone, she goes out of her way to go after that person."

      Sound familiar? Bush perhaps?

      (hillary=bush)
      • sbsmith07, on 02/05/2008, -0/+0omg hillary breathes air just like bush!!!
        (hillary=bush)!!!
    • bluezinc, on 02/05/2008, -5/+4Why can't Hillary admit she was wrong? The answer is simple; she's a woman.
      • sbsmith07, on 02/05/2008, -1/+0why does she need to admit she was wrong? the biggest wrong neone should be worrying about is the fact that all that falsified intelligence was able to reach congressional ears
    • Hobbes24, on 02/05/2008, -1/+4i'd say her crippling lack of likeability is her biggest personal flaw
    • ukfoole, on 02/05/2008, -2/+3Because then she would have to admit that Bill Clinton lied about Iraq the whole time he was in office. Remember, this is the guy that blew up an aspirin plant in the Sudan because it thought that the al-Queada was using it to make nuke material for Iraq. This is the guy that put forth a mandate that the US would be in Iraq to help Iraqis dethrone Saddam. Or, are you too young to remember "clinton iraq 1998"
      • JustinCase18, on 02/05/2008, -0/+3Let's not forget that a lot of the intelligence that was gathered to make the decision to invade Iraq was gathered during the previous administration. (So if you want to claim someone "lied" you'd have to go after both administrations. Haven't we had enough Clinton / Bush or will we be grooming Chelsea and Jenna next?)
      • sbsmith07, on 02/05/2008, -0/+0I forgot how our (U.S.) system of government was designed...wasn't it designed to allow one person to make all decisions and rule the country w/o question of his authority? yea, wait i seem to remember these two words ...cabinet, congress...from 4th grade social studies class; i don't know what they mean tho, probably nothing. So, lets go ahead and blame king Clinton, I'm sure he did all the intelligence gathering alone and any conclusions amounted to were influenced by none. What ever happened during his term was his fault and his alone; there is simply no one else to blame that's the way our system is designed...hah, what a joke
        • JustinCase18, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1I guess your education ended around 4th grade, the term was "administration" not "King". Congress was given all the information and made a decision based on that information. Now that we have reason to believe the information was "faulty", we want someone to blame and everyone is ducking for cover and blaming the man at the top.
          • sbsmith07, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1my comment wasn't directed at your statement, it was directed at ukfoole's, and as far as i can tell he never used the term "administration".
    • CrazedLeper, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2Hilary knows how stupid Americans are. Saying you were mistaken about one thing will end your career. Of course, saying you were right about everything all the time is not possible so Americans always get the most shameless liar as a leader.
  • fudged71, on 02/05/2008, -11/+2admitting you are wrong = failure
    • Aensland, on 02/05/2008, -1/+16not admitting you were wrong WHEN you were actually wrong = douchebag
    • cwcentral, on 02/05/2008, -1/+2politics 101:
      admitting that you're wrong while not the majority & not in power == end of career
      admitting that you're wrong while in power == hounding media, but who cares, good chance you'll be reeelected.

      Doing the right thing doesn't guarantee reelection. It's about context.
      • ganlet, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1I would respect and it would change my judgment of a candidate admitted they were wrong.
  • Happy_Phantom, on 02/05/2008, -8/+1Gary Hart still has the '80s big hair?
    • Dylson, on 02/05/2008, -1/+1Yes. Wait, no? *Smiles and nods.
    • rz8472, on 02/05/2008, -1/+1Any idea where I can buy his yacht, the SS Monkey Business?
  • thomoore, on 02/05/2008, -18/+6It's OK to say we shouldn't have gone into Iraq, but we did. We broke it, it's ours. Now what? Do we really want to bail out and let the Taliban take over the Iraqi oil money? This article
    http://www.scragged.com/articles/polygamy-terroris ...
    explains some of what we're up against. How would Mr. Obama or Hillary handle the situation as it now is?
    • Stonedonkey, on 02/05/2008, -0/+12I think you're missing the forest for the trees here, although that is a fair question. What's at issue here is Hillary's extreme reluctance to admit she was wrong. And I don't know about you, but I've gotten real tired of that stubbornness over the last seven years. If she can't accommodate the possibility of a mistake on this issue, then what other controversial topic will have her digging her heels in?
    • a6n28f, on 02/05/2008, -2/+18I count 380 times you've spammed digg with this same comment. http://www.neaveru.com/digg/stats/thomoore

      Buried, blocked and reported.

      (And for god's sake, what does the Taliban have to do with Iraq?)
      • Michael9636, on 08/04/2008, -1/+11Thanks for keeping track! 380? I have seen thomoore's and cashman57's comments repeated word for word, mindlessly, on Obama submissions over and over and over, but never realized it has been so extensive. Thanks for pointing this out. The Taliban in Iraq comment is almost pathetic.
  • N3tw0rk, on 02/05/2008, -1/+60The kind of stubbornness we are seeing in Hillary is exactly why Bush has kept us in Iraq. This shows what kind of president she would be, staying the course and never admit any wrong-doing.
    • TChalla, on 02/05/2008, -2/+2Amen, brother (or sister)!
    • bclinton, on 02/05/2008, -3/+1Its scary to think that there are +49 other dumbases out there like you.......
  • Michael9636, on 08/04/2008, -1/+46Hillary's inability to admit she was wrong is a serious flaw. It makes her look like she's walking in the footsteps of Bush and Cheney, who also cannot admit they were ever wrong.

    But the more serious problem I see is the gradual realization I am sensing that she feels invading Iraq and occupying that country, was the right thing to do, but the invasion was not executed properly. If that is the case, I could never, ever, support her.
    • Zecchetti, on 02/05/2008, -1/+1If she becomes president, she's probably all set to become the most evil woman in history.
  • msk275, on 02/05/2008, -4/+8Let's face it, this is about Experience vs. Change.

    If Hillary admits she was wrong, that will throw that whole argument out because obviously a bad decision don't help your experience card and Obama takes the cake on that point.

    Not going to lie, my eyes are going to be glued to that TV screen when the results start rolling in tomorrow night, not just for the Democrats side, but for the Republicans as well. It'd be pretty sweet to see McCain upset.

    We'll just have to wait and see... 24 hours from now... it'll be a different place here in the USA.

    Get out and Vote Tomorrow! Be a Part of History!

    I'm going at 7AM sharp, I gotta make class at 8AM.

    Peace.
    • bluezinc, on 02/05/2008, -0/+5Hillary has more experience over Obama in the same way one twin is older than the other. A few more senate years where she voted the party line and didn't stop to question anything, that's all. Being married to the president doesn't count as experience.
    • Oracle95, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2It would be nice, but we've still got another month, by that time other states will probably have already eliminated any candidate that I would have considered.
      • BadAshe86, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1I've been disenfranchised! We haven't even had a chance to vote and there aren't any Republicans left on the Republican ticket!
  • jmk4422, on 02/05/2008, -0/+19The politically safe thing for Hillary to do is to never admit she made a mistake. People tend to see an admission like that as a sign of weakness. All politicians spin mistakes: it's the only way to avoid appearing weak. That being said, this isn't going away. Ever. Especially if John McCain becomes the Republican nominee. He will hit her over and over again with that vote, saying she supported the war from the beginning and that she's a coward, now, for wanting to leave. It will be Bush vs. Kerry part 2 and we all know how that ended. What we need instead is a candidate who was right from the beginning. What we need is a candidate who had the courage to speak out against the war when it was not politically safe to do so. What we need, in short, is Obama.
  • NYC83, on 02/05/2008, -1/+6http://www.digg.com/2008_us_elections/She_Voted_Fo ...
  • kavery, on 02/05/2008, -9/+4Because she's a bitch.

    Really, that's the only substance I can bring to this conversation.
    • writerwriter, on 02/05/2008, -2/+2You call that substance?
      Wow.
      So, those SAT scores... Low 600s or so?
  • itsradBrad, on 02/05/2008, -10/+15Because she is a woman.
    • writerwriter, on 02/05/2008, -3/+6Ah, submit yourself immediately to the Smithsonian or the Museum of Natural History in Boston... they're missing their live, Cro magnon man specimen...
      Nice misogyny, there buddy...
      • itsradBrad, on 02/05/2008, -3/+3Try not to take these joke comments so seriously in future.

        It will save you having to make up "witty" rebuttals.
      • bluezinc, on 02/05/2008, -3/+4As the Smithsonian is missing a cro-magnon, you are missing a sense of humor. Too bad too, women find those sexy.
  • Jamihabs, on 02/05/2008, -18/+3Hillary's vote for war in Iraq was right. She knows it was right.

    Pulling our of Iraq now would be wrong. She knows it would be wrong.

    For now, she will say what she thinks she has to say to win. I hope,after she wins, she will do what she knows is right.
    • Corrosionx, on 02/05/2008, -1/+7Hillary's vote for war in Iraq was wrong. She thinks it was right.
      Pulling our of Iraq now would be right. She knows it would be wrong.

      There fixed it for you.
  • Tahiri, on 02/05/2008, -6/+10Why can't diggers allow people to have opposing opinions?
    • Aensland, on 02/05/2008, -2/+8" 'cuz it's my way, or the highway! "
      " yer either with me, or with the terrrists! "
    • chicofaraby, on 02/05/2008, -3/+13Wow, I never realized that, as a digger, I had the power to deny people their opinion. SWEET!

      YOU GUYS, YOU DON"T GET AN OPINION! BAM! Their opinion is GONE! The power is awesome.
    • bluezinc, on 02/05/2008, -1/+5We allow them, we just voice our support or opposition by way of thumbs up or down. Just because you got your feelings hurt, doesn't mean we're fascists.
  • DuffyDirect, on 02/05/2008, -12/+3Did Ron Paul endorse Obama?
  • Patogrande, on 02/05/2008, -4/+5She can't say anything because as soon as she does, it will be the most wonderfully pure fuel her critics could use against her. She's not stupid.
  • BannedTwice, on 02/05/2008, -12/+3Cause she's not? The War in Iraq is valid and just. Islamofacism should be stopped at all costs.

    "We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." - J. Kennedy.
    • writerwriter, on 02/05/2008, -3/+2Holy crap man, are you nuts???
      You need to seriously get an education.
      READ: Rule by Secrecy and The Terror Conspiracy
      Watch any of End Game; Zeitgeist (www.zeitgeistmovie.com); Best online Documentaries: 911: Fear and the Selling of the American Empire...
      it's not a war. It's an invasion and it's about oil. If it were really a war, Bush would stop holding hands with and kissing the various Saudi princes he entertains in his rose garden... that's just weird... because they'd be bombing the hell out of the US. You wanna piss someone off? Don't go for the Saudis...
      Grow up man. There is rampant hijacking of the US public's mind and sentiments in order that the government has YOU, Joe Voter, occupied with the very spun 'news' you're drowning in when you're not numbed out by American Idol or The Real Desperate Housewives....
      WriterWriter
      www.stupid-files.blogspot.com
      All the videos mentioned here are on my Blog. Go find 'em.
      NOW!
    • MeetMyBackhand, on 02/05/2008, -1/+3Really? You really think our foreign policy of invading other countries enhances our freedom, or "assure(s) the survival and the success of liberty"? What do you think would happen if another country invaded ours because of some internal squabbles? And then stuck around for a bit playing policeman? I'm under the impression that many people would not be happy with said country. And needless to say, we end up giving up more and more of our liberties to stop terrorism/Islamofacism (i.e. Patriot Act). But to mute your point entirely- we were not led into Iraq to fight Islamofacism, we were led by supposed "weapons of mass destruction."

      Islamofacism may be bad, but we're exacerbating the problem. And from our actions in Iraq, or the very fact we invaded, are we much better than facists? Or just a different type?
    • bluezinc, on 02/05/2008, -1/+3Iraq was the only in the country that DIDNT have a problem with Islamofascism. How does it feel to be pwned?
      • Gabberwok, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1"Islamofascism" is a made up word, so technically no country has problems with it. Same with "homicide bombers". I really wish Rupert Murdoch would stop butchering the English language in his attempts to spin propaganda...
        • bluezinc, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1It's a generally accepted term for a real movement involving islam parading as fascism. Just like in America where some areas have a kind of christian fascism.
  • sharpfork, on 02/05/2008, -2/+10bush + clinton + clinton + bush + bush + clinton does not = change...
    20 years of holding the presidency between two families is enough. If you want to keep the same old never admit you are wrong battle between the old Washington guard for power crap going on in Washington, vote for Hillary and lets make it 24 or 28 years.
    • annabellee2, on 02/05/2008, -0/+4Does this make you think that we are really turning 3rd world? I thought this Dynasty type of thing only happened there or in Argentina... it was wrong to let Bush II take on the role. It would be equally foolish to let Hillary do so.
    • TremorX, on 02/05/2008, -0/+3Don't forget that Bush was also Reagan's VP. So, technically, it's already 28 years with either a Bush or Clinton in the White House.
    • cwcentral, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2And how is this different from the Roosevelts, Tafts, or Kennedys? Considering the 3 families and linked presidents are viewed as extremely positive.
  • eminiguy, on 02/05/2008, -2/+10Let's be blunt: this is more than just a personal flaw. This borders on a psychological disorder. I have dealt with at least one person like that in my life and I will never forget him. He had an uncanny knack for becoming the most hated person anywhere he showed up. You should not be suprised that Hillary is so reviled. I personally don't hate her, but I perfectly understand why this happens.
  • Richandler, on 02/05/2008, -8/+10Why can't Obama admit that funding the war and re-authorizing the Patriot Act is wrong?

    The answer is the same. They are politicians. Not honest human beings.
    • annabellee2, on 02/05/2008, -1/+5You know Lincoln voted against Polk's Mexican war but once it was being fought, he voted to fund it because not to do so would have been to let down the troops already fighting it... besides any withdrawal has to be done so the consequences, including for those who have backed us don't end up as a slaughter for them.
      • Richandler, on 02/05/2008, -2/+4So you're saying no matter what you fight for, no matter how absurd the reason it would be considered bad to stop the fighting because the soldiers would have died in vain? I'm missing the part where they aren't already dying for all the wrong reasons. The British withdrew. Where they were is now the most peaceful region in Iraq.

        The philosophical question still remains. Who is more evil the person who wages the war or the person who gives that person the money to wage that war?
  • mal1964, on 02/05/2008, -8/+2Well at the time of the vote and with the Intelligence she and everybody had, she wasn't. She wasn't wrong the Intelligence was.
    • sharpfork, on 02/05/2008, -1/+4Sounds like a Hillary supporter is using the Bush defense. More of the same if Hillary gets in.
      • mal1964, on 02/05/2008, -1/+2No I haven't made up my mind yet, but that's how I feel about that.
    • ADVIZR, on 02/05/2008, -1/+1I've got a bridge to sell you.
      • mal1964, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2I hope you are the real owner of the Brooklyn Bridge, that's the only one i want and have paid for it many times just to find out they did not own it.
    • TremorX, on 02/05/2008, -2/+3Funny, 23 other Democratic senators weren't 'fooled'.
  • RRJackson, on 02/05/2008, -11/+3Obama's people aren't letting up with this Hillary Clinton smear campaign. He's about the dirtiest politician I can remember, as far as Internet smear campaigns go. If he gets the nomination I may vote Republican for the first time in my life.
    • sharpfork, on 02/05/2008, -2/+11So Obama is doing the Smearing, not Bill or the other Hillary surrogates? Riiiight. Keep your head in the sand, its easier to not think in there. I've given $$ only to Ron Paul this elections cycle and I can clearly see Hillary is running a slash and burn campaign against Obama- win at any cost.
      • RRJackson, on 02/05/2008, -4/+3For the past week Digg has been wall-to-wall. It's all Obama and a big chunk of it is anti-Clinton smear pieces. I don't see that stuff coming from any of the other candidates.
        • ADVIZR, on 02/05/2008, -3/+5Don't confuse the truth with "smearing." Yes, the truth hurts.
          • RRJackson, on 02/05/2008, -4/+1It's cheap political smear campaigning. It's not anything new. He's just showing his true colors at the 11th hour.
    • annabellee2, on 02/05/2008, -1/+6What smear? Is it smearing to be critical of someone's stance on something? I was for the war too and I am not for withdrawing precipitously and without making sure the withdrawal doesn't cause more harm but I am backing Obama nonetheless... he was right. those of us who were for the war were just plain wrong and boy is it bleeding this country and Iraq... you want to go on paying the costs of that war when we have so many needs at home. Get real!
      • digindrivefast, on 02/05/2008, -2/+1Sorry > Check out Ron Paul. Obama is not the person to Run this country, but he could be a great turn around if he will read the words of MLK and Ron Paul.
        • RRJackson, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2If Ron Paul had any chance whatsoever of winning he might be worth considering. But he hasn't. So it's not.
    • qwerter, on 02/05/2008, -1/+2Er, for the record, Obama did not write this article, so I'm not sure how you can say he's "smearing" anybody.
      • RRJackson, on 02/05/2008, -1/+1These pieces aren't planting themselves all over Digg. This is his campaign at work.
        • ganlet, on 02/05/2008, -1/+2No, this is Diggers choosing articles they wish to submit and fellow diggers who dont believe Hilary would make a good President digging the article. That is the whole point.
  • JeffS, on 02/05/2008, -12/+5For Hillary to admit she was wrong she would have first had to have been wrong.
    • chicofaraby, on 02/05/2008, -2/+9Invading Iraq was wrong. She was wrong.
  • ellisgl, on 02/05/2008, -4/+4Ah - When they showed the American public the "Intelligence" - I knew it was same stuff from the Gulf War... It was recycled and BS back then. That tanker had milk..
  • writerwriter, on 02/05/2008, -6/+2Why should she ever admit to anything? She knows that US voters are lemmings, mostly, and voting machines can be hacked... See G. W. Bush: how to steal TWO elections by rigging voting machines and impregnating Chads....
    She doesn't have to tell the truth now or ever. She'll likely take the election and then, 'cause her man is bestest friends ever with Georgie's daddy, you in the US will have the continuation of the Bush/Clinton Dynasty - just long enough for Chelsea or one of those Bush twins to get themselves geared up... Let's see. Chelsea will be what? 30 in eight years?
    Meanwhile, a totally viable candidate, who really should win, won't because the US is still terrified of the colour of body organs....
    WriterWriter
    www.stupid-files.blogspot.com
  • jalo, on 02/05/2008, -1/+9Depends on what your definition of "admit" is?
  • manova, on 02/05/2008, -6/+3This is the one (and only) thing I like about Hillary. She is sticking by her vote and not doing any hand waving to say if I only knew then or some such BS. She voted for the war because she thought it was the right thing to do. She thinks it has been mismanaged and if she was leading it, it would be managed correctly. I think the people that go back and try to take their vote back are the dishonest ones. And it is even more dishonest to say you would have voted a particular way...if you had been elected to something other than a state legislator at the time. It is easy to say what you would do when nothing is on the line.
    • melfster, on 02/05/2008, -2/+5Sorry but Everything u wrote is BS. If people can't admit when they are wrong then they are cowards. For instance Rumsfield believed that smaller nibbler army could win the war in Iraq. He denied the insurgency until the day he stepped down. Do I admire him for sticking to his guns ..... NO way. I actually admire people that admit there mistakes and learn from them. If MS Clinton thought it was the right thing to do why wasn't she calling for war before 9/11. The truth is there was great emotion going on and she didn't want to appear weak. It was very unpopular to oppose the war at the time. I have the deapest respect for those that stood up and did oppose the war.
  • chuj, on 02/05/2008, -2/+8She's got great mentor who as I remember couldn't admit to screwing either.
  • melfster, on 02/05/2008, -0/+8I don't understand why Hillary claims she has more experience. Its not like she has been the president (Unless she claims she was running the country when President Clinton got elected). The both have exactly 0 executive experience. In my mind It all comes down to who do u trust. Can u really trust Clinton to tell u truth? I mean her husband was not the most honest person in world. And she like him shares some of those traits. Obama while not perfect comes closest to a person who I can trust.
    • digindrivefast, on 02/05/2008, -3/+1He's a "yes" man.
      Read. CONVERSE. Convert Obama if you can, he's close, really close to what this country needs but he is not the answer for NOW. Right NOW.
      If You think we should not be at War, you should not vote for Obama.
  • digindrivefast, on 02/05/2008, -1/+3She's not able to discern "right from wrong", "good from evil" let alone a "vote up or down", "yes or no"...
    Just like her "coat tails" she did not inhale, vote, or otherwise do anything meaningful in her life except survive the 60's
  • bingobongony, on 02/05/2008, -5/+3Hate to tell you idiots...but MOST people feel the same way...that is was worth doing, but that it was badly mishandled. The fact that most people want out now does NOt change the fact that most people feel that it was worth doing.
  • jm4847, on 02/05/2008, -2/+3Because admitting that would be seen as a sign of weakness.
  • bobbknight, on 02/05/2008, -0/+3Never once have I ever heard a Clinton utter the words, I was wrong and I'm sorry!!!!!!
  • DudeAsInCool, on 02/05/2008, -2/+3Here's her apology:
    "Knowing what we know now, I would never have voted for it," (Hillary Clinton) said, adding she was not casting a vote to authorize preemptive war but intended to give President George W. Bush the authority to send inspectors back in to Iraq. "I do not believe that most of us who voted to give the president authority thought he would so misuse the authority we gave him," he said.
    http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0 ...

    Obama says he was always against the war--but he never voted against it. After Pennsylvania Congressman John Murtha called for withdrawal from Iraq last fall, Obama rejected such a move in a speech before the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, saying the United States needed 'to manage our exit in a responsible way—with the hope of leaving a stable foundation for the future.' ” ... In 2007, Sen. Obama voted against a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq.
    http://joesschool.blogs.com/olsononline/2006/12/is ...

    Where's the beef?

  • formergthing, on 02/05/2008, -4/+9Dude - almost everyone was behind the war when it started - like 95% of congress and 80% of America was all for it.

    How quickly people forget..
    • syedazeem, on 02/05/2008, -6/+5Half the democrats voted against the Iraq war bill. You scumbag!
    • chicofaraby, on 02/05/2008, -4/+3Millions of us protested the illegal invasion in the streets of every major American city. A majority of Democrats in Congress voted against the illegal invasion.

      You are wrong. Check your facts.
      • RuffRidr, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2~40% of Democrats voted for the Iraq resolution. That is, before it became politically convenient to change their positions. Kerry, Ted, John, Hillary and the other figureheads of the left saw the same intelligence reports that the President and his cabinet saw and that's why they voted for the war. When they saw that the war was a wedge issue that they could use to get votes, they changed their position. That's why they won in '06 and they are still hanging on to that strategy now. They can try and take the moral high ground all they want, but they are beholden to their votes just like every other congressman is. It doesn't matter how much you try to whitewash it Chico.
        • chicofaraby, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1"Kerry, Ted, John, Hillary and the other figureheads of the left"

          What do those Senators have to do with those of us on the left? They don't vote for us. The only leftist in the Senate is Bernie Sanders.

          But the fact remains that that leaves 60% who were never fooled by the Bush ***** machine. 60 > 40.
  • CaviMike, on 02/05/2008, -3/+1Look how many times Bush ignored the question. It worked for him, didn't it?
  • snichael, on 02/05/2008, -2/+2No, the REAL question is: "WHY is the left wing of the Democratic Party so OBSESSED with this one vote that they've done real damage to their party just in order to throw a meaningless tantrum?" (Think I'm being hyperbolic? Here's the facts: If not for the Lieberman fiasco in 2006, the Dems would've had a TRUE Majority in the Senate for at least this 2 year term -- as it stands now, it's split 50/50 and they have to rely on the benevolence of, um, Joe Lieberman to vote along with them! Real productive!)
    • chicofaraby, on 02/05/2008, -1/+3Yeah, why worry about a potential president's judgment being so poor that they would waste trillions of dollars and kill millions of innocents over nonexistent WMD.

      It's much more important to try to move the Democrats further to the right with Joe Lieberman.
  • tehxen3, on 02/05/2008, -5/+1Admitting flaws shows weakness and lack of confidence, not a good trait for a leader who is supposed to represent US.
    • mozert, on 02/05/2008, -1/+3I've buried you, and I've taken enormous satisfaction from doing so.
  • daschupa, on 02/05/2008, -5/+1Back when she agreed to the war, it was political suicide to go against Bush. He was riding the wave of 9-11. Iraq had WMD's up the yin yang, Sadam was helping Osama, Osama was hiding in Iraq; It was a different time. Still, she should admit her error or stop bashing Bush for making the decision to enter the war.
    • chicofaraby, on 02/05/2008, -1/+3"Iraq had WMD's up the yin yang, Sadam was helping Osama, Osama was hiding in Iraq"

      All of which was ***** and the majority of Democrats in Congress voted against Bush's *****.
  • cmost, on 02/05/2008, -3/+1Why can't Clinton admit she was wrong? Because she's a woman. Do they ever admit when they're wrong? I think not.
    • Swift2, on 02/05/2008, -0/+5You know, if you said crap like that against Obama, people would rightly call you a racist. "They're lazy, you know, and they're after white women." That's beyond the pale. But it's quite all right to say crap like that against a woman. You should be ashamed of yourself.
      • cmost, on 02/05/2008, -3/+0Umm, I was being facetious. Don't get your panties in a bunch.
  • pavanb500, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1I'd hate to see all the fake tears she spouts after admitting being wrong..
  • metkillerjoe, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1I am not a fan of Clint whatsoever, but the point is, she is not responsible for how the president managed the war. Nobody could have anticipated he was an idiot fiscally and militarily.
    • qwerter, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2We knew he was an idiot in general. The rest should have been easy to deduce.
  • mr5150, on 02/05/2008, -1/+2Clinton's, Bush's what is the difference? All are cut from the same cloth of collectivism..the agenda is the same, the execution may differ but the prize is identical.

    when will people ***** read and learn.
  • brakezone, on 02/05/2008, -0/+0Considering they all voted for the iraq war based upon lies comming from the administration, none of them could have known. She said knowing what she knows now she would not have done it.

    If you all vote for Obama because you believe the ***** propoganda on digg, you'd be a hypocrite.
  • codmate, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1Simple - becuase it's political career suicide to admit a mistake in war.
  • ReligionOfPeace, on 02/05/2008, -3/+1Because she is a vile, self-serving, power hunger, lying beast from hell who will do anything at to achieve her goal of domination over the United States. She is hellbent upon ruling America and will allow nothing, be it the law, the truth, or justice from standing in her way.

    Hillary is evil incarnate, a re-incarnation of Adolph Hitler.
    • Swift2, on 02/05/2008, -1/+2You are completely insane, "ReligionOfPeace."
      • ReligionOfPeace, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1Even a paranoid can be right. Hillary's comments since she became president, er, I mean since her husband was elected president all show a pronounced tendency towards "protecting the little people from themselves."
      • CrazedLeper, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1Buried for questioning the sanity of a total stranger based upon a single paragraph of text.
    • CrazedLeper, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1A bit of an overstatement, to say the least. Frankly, every word of that totally applies to bush whose grandfather actually financed Hitler.
      • ReligionOfPeace, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1Yeah. No argument. Bush is a ***** nightmare. But at least he's demonstrably insane. It'll help for his trial.

        Too bad there aren't any candidates worth a *****.

        I liked Ike. That was the end. After Ike, it all went down the tubes.
  • snatchmstr, on 02/05/2008, -0/+3What was she going to cry about today? Not a good trait to have for a leader to shed tears on a daily basis.
    • JustinCase18, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2She'll definitely gain a lot of respect negotiating with Islamic leaders. She's already got two strikes against her being a leader, but she likes to show her emotions and that makes for a piss poor negotiator.
    • CrazedLeper, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1Unfortunately, you've got a point. I'm sure all the campaigning is very stressful and she may be showing signs that it's too stressful. How much more so the job? Then again, all the unfeeling dolts who have, without conscience, led the country in to countless wars and disasters could probably indicates that maybe the job requires a little human feeling.
  • Swift2, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1On the contrary, Hillary was saying it was the wrong decision on the Russert show by the end of 2003. She's said that she voted for the threat to use force to get the inspectors back in there. They got in there, so it worked. The question is, why did Bush kick the inspectors out and rush to invade Iraq? Bush, or Rove, insisted on this vote a month before the midterms, to get the maximum effect: vote against the authorization to use force (not a declaration of war, of course) and we'll go against all Democrats as soft on terror. And the mood of the country at that time was very hawkish. What happened to the Democrats in the midterms? That's right. They lost, big time. John Edwards voted the same way, and Kerry did too.
    It's pretty simple now. Hillary has been answering the question without an apology, because she's been thinking of the general election, when she'll be up against a real hawk. She wants to be taken seriously as commander-in-chief.
    Notice the extreme ridicule she's gotten because she's teared up on a couple of occasions? That's what a female candidate will get with the slightest "softness" in her position. She says she thought that was the right vote. If she had voted against it, she would have been voting against putting inspectors in! How could she vote against that? Don't elect a woman!
    Edwards apologized, made the mea culpa, and never had to deal with this again. Fine. How'd his campaign do, exactly? He cared about the poor, and he got savage ridicule because, well, he's female! He's gay! Look at him! He's the Breck girl!
    Get how this works? Hillary says it was the wrong decision. She won't say she's sorry. She does admit she was wrong.
  • Treoinmypocket, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2Uh. Maybe because she wans't wrong on this one. Had we gone in with a bigger force and a plan for dealing with the resulting chaos from our "success" we really would have been able to say "mission accomplished".

  • misfit410, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1You don't want her to admit she was wrong, you want her to claim Bush lied to her and that she fell for it.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 56 of 56 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.