Politics
When it comes to domestic politics I wonder what in the world we as Americans think when it comes time to elect an official to our highest office. Is it strength of character? Political experience? ideological zeal? what is it that we want or need in a leader that represents our interest at the highest level. When it comes to the debate between Clinton and Giuliani what will be the tipping point, or will it ever come to a debate between them, will Mcain and Obama be the ones in the finals?
I have yet to determine my vote, but I think that who ever does take control of the office remember that all actions have reactions and that nothing can ever be undone. I for one admire Clinton for not bowing to pressure from within her party calling for an apology for her vote in support of the Iraq war. I think that her response that she acted in good faith on the word of the President is enough to justify her position, the fact that the information in hindsight was patently false should not condemn her to recant her good actions, it should only serve to exemplify her moral conviction and strength of character.
I think that 2008 will be a good year.
It isn’t clear to me why, for H. Clinton, the status of G.W. Bush as the president renders him sufficiently authoritative to justify a massively expensive endeavour that is certain to inflict significant human casualties with naught but a metaphorical wink and a pat on the head.
Certainly there is some authority that goes hand-in-hand with the presidency since that post is supposedly among the best informed on those matters pertinent to national security, but the vulnerability of anyone in the position of president to corruption or errors in reasoning ought, in my view, to be sufficient reason to withold support for an effort like the Iraq war until a comprehensive and compelling case has been made explicitly in its favour.
I’m not privy to all of the information that H. Clinton had and did not have access to during that important time, but if my recollection of the evidence presented is at all commensurate with the evidence she had access to, then an apology might be appropriate.
Thom Parks - “I for one admire Clinton for not bowing to pressure from within her party calling for an apology for her vote in support of the Iraq war. I think that her response that she acted in good faith on the word of the President is enough to justify her position, the fact that the information in hindsight was patently false should not condemn her to recant her good actions, it should only serve to exemplify her moral conviction and strength of character.”
INCREDIBLY NAIVE - IT WAS OBVIOUS FROM THE BEGINNING, FROM THE U.N. INVESTIGATIONS, FROM THE VARIOUS REPORTS SUBMITTED BY U.N. INSPECTORS, FROM EUROPEAN INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES - THAT THERE WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ. HILLARY, LIKE THE VAST MAJORITY OF OUR AMERICAN POLITICIANS - CORRUPT AND OWNED OR BLACKMAILED BY ISRAELI INTERESTS - VOTED AS THEY WERE TOLD BY THEIR ISRAELI HANDLERS - LATER USING BUSH AS A COVER WHEN HAVING TO EXPLAIN IT TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUSTING BUSH TO USE PROPERLY OUR AMERICAN INTELLIGENCE RESOURCES AND MAKE A DECISION BENEFITING AMERICA - THE CIA, THE PENTAGON AND THE WHITE HOUSE ARE RUN BY ISRAEL ANYWAY. IT WAS A MATTER OF NOT AGREEING WITH WHAT THE ISRAELI NEO-CON GANG OF WOLFOWITZ, FEITH, PERLE, CHENEY et al ORDERED BUSH TO DO - EVERY POLITICIAN IN THE U.S. UNDERSTOOD THAT, AND IF THEY DIDN’T AT FIRST - THEY COULD ALWAYS CHECK WITH AIPAC FIRST AND ONLY THEN LISTEN TO AIPAC’S WHITE HOUSE MARIONETTE - BUSH. AND SO THE VOTE FOR WAR WITH IRAQ - FOR THE BENEFIT OF ISRAEL AND DETRIMENT OF AMERICAN INTERESTS IN THE MIDDLE EAST!