Monday, October 01, 2007

Hillary: First Iraq, now Iran?

For someone who says that she regrets voting to give Bush authorization to use force against Iraq, Hillary sure has a funny way of showing it. Last week, Hillary became the only candidate for the Democratic nomination for POTUS to side with Sen. Lieberman to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guards a terrorist group. For a more informed read into exactly what the Bush administration has in store for Iran, thanks to the Hillary's and Lieberman's of the world, take a looksy at Seymour M. Hersh's New Yorker article, "Shifting Targets."

The only question is when do the bombs start falling on Iran?

Hillary's being roundly criticized for her support of Lieberman and Bush here, here, here, and here, and justifiably so.

h/t: Beyond the Clintons and BlueBloggin


Larry said...

For the person who vocally supported the Iraq war for 3 1/2 years, until she decided to run, and for someone who claims she will end the war and bring the troops home, she has only shown she will pursue the Bush war for world dominance.

Anonymous said...

...and this is why it is Obama or Kucinich for me...

and this is also why the people of the country MUST finally say no to the Congress and the President this time before they completely take us down the road to disaster.

Thanks BG for all you do and your informative posts.

Anonymous said...

This is why i support either Obama or Kucinich, and why the American people are going to have to make some sort of stand against the President and the Congress to prevent another disaster- this one will be larger than the last

Button Gwinnett said...

For someone who at one time fought the good fight against the Vietnam War and then against President Nixon, I wonder if the Hillary of 1972 would even recognize the Hillary of 2007? The Hillary of 1972 fought against an unnecessary, the death of millions of civilians and soldiers, and corruption amongst the power elite. The Hillary of 2007 now IS the power elite and apparently traded in her morals and ideals somewhere along the way.

Steve, this Congress is a big disappointment. We thought that we were trading up in 2006. But thus far, it seems to have been only a slightly lateral move.

American Interests said...

Hillary just wants to seize power and will gladly shift positions to do so; she suffers from mental states of metamorphosis brought on by shifting political needs.

As I read the post it reminded of a piece I saw in a local paper about the moving positions of not just Hillary but Democrats, see:,25197,22508205-26397,00.html

PoliShifter said...

I guess she figures she could just explain away her decision with "if I knew then what I know now..."

Worked the first time. She probably thinks it will work again.

"If I knew we were going to bomb Iran I would have voted against it. I mean, no one thought we were authorizing the bombing of Iran"

Funny how everyone forgets how much of tryannt Bush is.

The guy writes law with signing statements. I'm sure he sees this sense of the Senate thing as giving him the authority to bomb Iran. And if it doesn't, he'll just say it does.

Who can stop him? No one.

Button Gwinnett said...

Poli, no Dem should've supported Bush and Lieberman on this. Especially ones telling people that they regret their vote on Iraq. Not only does it show poor judgment, but it now also makes them accomplices to whatever happens next.

Personally, I don't feel like picking a fight with Iran. Oh, they'll use this new terrorist designation as an excuse to do so. But given their "evidence" justifying invading Iraq, anything they come up with is suspect.

Larry said...

Waiting for Hillary to win is like waiting for the next World War to be launched.

nytexan said...

Hillary will say what she needs to get the nomination and win the white House. Then, she will continue down the same war path as Bush.

Obama was right Hillary is Bush lite.
Her vote for the Iran Red Guard should be the first signal.

BTW:Thanks for the h/t