pinto
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-20-04 08:27 PM
Original message |
Clinton making clear, direct points re: Bush admin./Iraq/Congress (CNN) |
|
Edited on Tue Apr-20-04 08:31 PM by pinto
Sen Clinton lays out brief, clear points about Bushco and relations with Congress.
Says they either have a plan they are not disclosing, to Congress or the American people, or they don't have a plan.
Setting a poor precedent for relations with Congress and a Constitutional government.
|
Jacobin
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-20-04 08:42 PM
Response to Original message |
|
When did Senator Clinton demand an exit strategy from IraqNam before voting in favor of the IWR?
|
Catherine Vincent
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-20-04 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. Maybe she (and others) assumed there was one. |
alfredo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-20-04 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
3. When the vote was held, it was being sold as leverage, not |
|
absolute certainty of war. I think too many were scared that if they voted against it, they would not be reelected. I also think that many actually believed the intelligence briefings.
|
justgamma
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-20-04 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
4. Anyone belong to a Union? |
|
I equate the vote for the war, sort of like the authorization to strike vote. It doesn't mean your going on strike, it just means your leaving the option open.
|
pinto
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-20-04 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
5. I know. Yet, she's asking now, as is Congress. That's a "better late than |
|
never" solution, I understand. But change has never happened backwards. We can only change, what?, today and tomorrow, right?
As far as blame goes, if she is held responsible by her constituents for a failure to question the IWR adequately at that time, she can be voted out of office, as can any Congressman who cast a vote.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Mon May 13th 2024, 02:54 AM
Response to Original message |