Gold9472
12-02-2005, 04:33 PM
Hil used to be strictly for the war
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/regional/story/370813p-315434c.html
By JAMES GORDON MEEK
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON - Sen. Hillary Clinton left one thing out this week when she tried to explain her views on Iraq - namely that she used to agree almost completely with President Bush, even after the war took a nosedive.
On Tuesday, Clinton wrote in a 1,600-word letter to supporters that her 2002 vote for war in Iraq was based on "evidence presented by the [Bush] administration."
"The 'evidence' of weapons of mass destruction and links to Al Qaeda turned out to be false," Clinton wrote.
But just months after the bombs started falling, Clinton (D-N.Y.) called a Daily News reporter to insist she had no second thoughts about her vote for war.
The war was worth it just to remove Saddam Hussein from power, she said.
Clinton emphatically told The News in her 2003 call, "I felt that it was appropriate under the circumstances, which really went back to 1998 under the Clinton administration's conclusion that the regime had to change, that the President [Bush] had authority to pursue that goal."
"Why was the intelligence consistent from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration?" Clinton added. "The intelligence was consistent for over a decade."
On the eve of war, even the senator's aides echoed Team Bush's confidence in a swift victory, including one who boasted, "It's going to be a cakewalk."
At the time of the 2003 phone call, the insurgency had blossomed and the White House had finally backed off claims that Iraq had rebuilt its nuclear bomb program.
Some experts don't fault Clinton for her omission, but admit she is clearly "feeling the heat" over Iraq.
"If the tide shifts, she's on the wrong side of the sea wall," said Baruch College political scientist Doug Muzzio.
Flustered Clinton aides yesterday sidestepped the question of why the senator's letter ignored the intelligence from her husband's administration.
Spokesman Philippe Reines said she "laid out a thoughtful explanation to her constituents of her position on Iraq, reiterating her disagreement with the way the President has used the authority granted to him."
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/regional/story/370813p-315434c.html
By JAMES GORDON MEEK
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON - Sen. Hillary Clinton left one thing out this week when she tried to explain her views on Iraq - namely that she used to agree almost completely with President Bush, even after the war took a nosedive.
On Tuesday, Clinton wrote in a 1,600-word letter to supporters that her 2002 vote for war in Iraq was based on "evidence presented by the [Bush] administration."
"The 'evidence' of weapons of mass destruction and links to Al Qaeda turned out to be false," Clinton wrote.
But just months after the bombs started falling, Clinton (D-N.Y.) called a Daily News reporter to insist she had no second thoughts about her vote for war.
The war was worth it just to remove Saddam Hussein from power, she said.
Clinton emphatically told The News in her 2003 call, "I felt that it was appropriate under the circumstances, which really went back to 1998 under the Clinton administration's conclusion that the regime had to change, that the President [Bush] had authority to pursue that goal."
"Why was the intelligence consistent from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration?" Clinton added. "The intelligence was consistent for over a decade."
On the eve of war, even the senator's aides echoed Team Bush's confidence in a swift victory, including one who boasted, "It's going to be a cakewalk."
At the time of the 2003 phone call, the insurgency had blossomed and the White House had finally backed off claims that Iraq had rebuilt its nuclear bomb program.
Some experts don't fault Clinton for her omission, but admit she is clearly "feeling the heat" over Iraq.
"If the tide shifts, she's on the wrong side of the sea wall," said Baruch College political scientist Doug Muzzio.
Flustered Clinton aides yesterday sidestepped the question of why the senator's letter ignored the intelligence from her husband's administration.
Spokesman Philippe Reines said she "laid out a thoughtful explanation to her constituents of her position on Iraq, reiterating her disagreement with the way the President has used the authority granted to him."