Roberts echoed Balz assertion of Clinton shift from "staunch[ ] support[ ]" of Iraq war
SUMMARY: A day after The Washington Post's Dan Balz wrote that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is "continuing her steady evolution from one of the war's staunchest supporters to one of the administration's most prominent critics," CNN's John Roberts asserted that Clinton's "language has shifted over the years from a staunch supporter of the Iraq war to now one of its fiercest critics."
Echoing The Washington Post from the day before, CNN senior national correspondent John Roberts asserted on the January 19 edition of CNN's The Situation Room that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) "language has shifted over the years from a staunch supporter of the Iraq war to now one of its fiercest critics." Roberts' statement recalled the assertion by chief political reporter Dan Balz in a January 18 Post article that Clinton is "continuing her steady evolution from one of the war's staunchest supporters to one of the administration's most prominent critics."
In response to Balz' article, The Daily Howler weblog commented: "[H]ow long has it been since Hillary Clinton was 'one of the war's staunchest supporters?' " The Howler pointed to Clinton's comments from the August 29, 2004, edition of CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, during which she said of the Iraq war resolution, "[I]f we had known then what we know now, there wouldn't have been a vote."
Additionally, on October 17, 2003 -- less than seven months after the war began -- Clinton expressed doubt about President Bush's leadership in the war, noting that her "yes" vote for an $87 billion supplemental "was a vote for our troops, it was a vote for our mission, but it was not a vote for our national leadership." In her press release, Clinton added that "the administration's inability and unwillingness to solicit international support was in part responsible for the enormous size of the supplemental appropriation. She described it as 'a bill for failed leadership.' " More recently, Clinton co-sponsored and was one of 38 of the 44 Democrats then in the Senate who voted in favor of a resolution by Democratic Sens. Carl Levin (MI) and Jack Reed (RI), introduced on June 19, 2006, calling on the Bush administration to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2006 "after consultation with the Government of Iraq."
From the January 19 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
JOHN ROBERTS: [Host] Wolf [Blitzer], the senator told me that she has seen a marked deterioration in Iraq from the last time that she was there. "A steady diet of bad news, setbacks, mistakes, and problems" is how she described it.
An assessment like that could be expected from a potential Democratic presidential candidate, but it is interesting to note how her language has shifted over the years from a staunch supporter of the Iraq war to now one of its fiercest critics. She also didn't have much good to say about Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri [Kamal] al-Maliki, whom she met in Baghdad last Saturday.
Shifting your position based new information is bad thing?
And "staying the course", despite evidence that you're totally lost is a good thing?
what part of the whole flip-flop blitzkrieg did you not get?.;0D
Normal people call "admitting a mistake and correcting it."
When the new information is that the star witness for the State (that would be Bungle) lied, and conspired to lie some more, and then lied even more - of course, the only oath broken by all that lying, was the part about "preserve and protect".
sometimes you are about as lost as lost can be. sometimes it takes a while to realize when one has been HAD. straight out of george bushs' mouth came the lie that started this whole mess, saddam had WMD, and we were in danger of attack. he even convinced half of congress. under these circumstances they agreed, but kicker here is that brother george was already in receipt of papers from two groups of inspectors, and three branches of our own intel. agencies telling him the information he was making these assertions on was false. people have tried to believe in this man and have given him every opportunity to get it right far to long. SO? FLIP-FLOPPER? maybe, but not in this case,
How many winking laughing stoopid emoticons do I need to put in there?
I hope you don't think I was actually using the term "flip-flop" seriously.
When did Hillary become an opponent of the war?! She's been for it since Day One. She even makes threats against Iran. Is this an example of the Demmies trying to LIE to us and tell us their pet war criminal Hillary is somehow changing her tune?
Cindy Sheehan supported the Green senatorial candidate over Clinton in the last election because Hillary is PRO-war.
Wow...co-sponsoring another non-binding resolution that has no force and will be ignored! Wow! That will change things! Making the withdrawal conditional over our puppet government in Iraq telling us that we can leave! Wow! They'll do that for sure (and lose all that power and access to vast amounts of money).
Another example of Democrats NOT stopping the war, just making more useless and empty gestures meant to keep their supporters flim-flammed while US soldiers and Iraqis keep dying.
Troops! Home! NOW! Nothing else is acceptable.
obviously that meant a lot to the new york voters.
can you not read or do you just refuse t obelieve your own lying eyes? lordy, its right in front of you...Bob somerby and Media Matters have done all the work for you...showing the truth about Hillary's statements over the war - not the hyped craziness of the Hillary haters....goodness. ..and then to say that since Cindy Sheehan voted `GREEN"...oh boy, that proves how `right' and `pure' your muddled thinking is...Jeeze, let me tell ya something bucko, if every Dem Senator voted against the authority back in 03 Bush would still have gone for `regime change' in Iraq...but ...if you boneheads hadnt voted GREEN in 00...he wiould NEVER of had that opportunity and we wouldnt be in Iraq and NOONE woulda died....you silly, dense, phony, neo-idealistic, tool of the other side...
...that the Democrats have consistently voted to initiate and continue this war crime in the last three years? It's our fault that Hillary Clinton votes FOR the war? It's our fault that she votes to send our young men and women to be Corporate America and Israel's hired killers in Iraq? It's our fault she supports Israeli war crimes and calls for military action against Iran? It's our fault the Democrat ranks are full of anti-arab racists who would bomb Tehran in a heartbeat for their masters at AIPAC.
I voted AGAINST the corporate corruption and the evil being perpetuated in our names....you voted for those who commit those crimes.
Gee, I wonder who's fault this really is.
who among the democrats want to bomb tehran? names please.
From Counterpunch, Jan 9, 2007:
"Following these reports, the new House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told the Jerusalem Post that Democrats wouldn't rule out using force on Iran to block Tehran's nuclear aspirations. In the past similar remarks had been made by Democratic leaders Sen. Harry Reid and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, along with presidential hopeful John Edwards and Sen. Hillary Clinton. Even superman Barack Obama won't challenge the Bush administration's erroneous Iran approach. "
[link to www.counterpunch.org]
More Democrats kissing up to their AIPAC masters, it seems. If AIPAC wants Tehran bombed, the Democrats will most certainly comply.
You really don't keep a critical eye on your party, do you?
try to stay with the facts do you. saying you would not rule force against their nuclear facilites is entirely different than indiscrininate bombing of tehran.
A year and a half ago, Clinton was calling for more troops in Iraq, just as she was trying to bolster her tough-enough-to-fight-the-war-on-terrorism credentials. It took a year more before she began seriously talking about ending the war, just as it the polls indicated that it would be wise to do so. Now she is really going strongly after Bush and the war, just as it becomes mainstream to do so. When it counted, Clinton voted for the war and was uncritical of Bush. She never questioned the bogus intelligence at the time. She has shown absolutely no moral courage on the issue of the Iraq War, which is the biggest issue of our time. I know that this website seems focused on defending her at every turn, but try to have at least a little objectivity. No one believes that Clinton was there from the beginning going after Bush and this war. Maybe it's a slight exaggeration to say she was a "staunch" supporter of the war, but a supporter she was, while many of us stood out there protesting and trying to stop this mad man. Clinton will never receive my vote. Nor will Biden or any of the other Democrats who worried more about politics than the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.
Just expect mindless worship. Hillary could personally gun down a room full of school children and the Demmies would find some excuse for it. Same way they find excuses for all their Party leaders who have given Bush the green light and the greenbacks to invade and occupy Iraq. Even Feingold has voted to fund the war crimes.
But party loyalty seems to be far above personal principles to many people.
Hillary's response to Blitzer in August 2004 is contained here:
What she does here is, fundamentally, to refuse (again) to publically regret giving Bush the authority to do what he did.
And the earlier quotation (see above) from October, 2003 about her vote for the $87 billion supplemental shows in her own words that she was voting for "our mission" in Iraq.
How any of this is supposed to demonstrate her early (2003, 2004)resistance to this moral tragedy is beyond me.
CLINTON: Right, right. Well, indeed I did. (Ready? Wait for it....) And if someone asked me that if we had known then what we know now, there wouldn't have been a vote.
(Got it? Understand now....)
You know, no administration would have come to the Congress and asked for a vote that would have authorized any kind of action based on what we now know.
...but still, no expression of regret - e.g., no expression of regret for her vote, and none either for her uncritical acceptance of the manifestly bogus 'intelligence' (propaganda in any other tongue) Bush and Cheney were busy fabricating. Saying that she plainly got it wrong, and that she deeply regrets having got it wrong, would help. But "sorry" is tough.
Blix and the UN inspectors were proving that Bush was a liar and there were no WMD in Iraq three months prior to the invasion. Gee, where was Hillary then? Wasn't she paying attention?
Oh, little sidenote, she never complained while her husband bombed Iraq weekly and assisted in the deaths of 1 million Iraqi citizens.
bill clinton bombed iraq "weekly". baloney.
The average rate of US warplanes over Iraq dropping a bomb somewhere on someone from 1992 to 2000 was once a week. The BBC reported every incident while CNN and FOX were too busy drooling over Lewinski to bother to report them.
And that bull about them only bombing radar sites or anti-aircraft is ridiculous. How many radars did Iraq have to justify the sheer number of those US air strikes? Reports from regional reporters stated that those US warplanes bombed civilian buildings, even tents, at random. Yes, your beloved Bill Clinton is a war criminal.
is more than a bit different than "weekly". do you include the bombs dropped after saddam forced the inspectors out in 97? i'm sure that upped the average more than a bit.
...that Hillary's remark, viz.,
tells us, essentially, that one can imagine circumstances in which she wouldn't have been required to exercise her judgment. True enough. But why should anyone take comfort from that?
I am dismayed to see Media Matters consistently rushing to defend the war-supporting and free trade pushing Senator and now candidate for President Hillary Clinton. While I think that the right-wing attacks Hillary for all of the wrong reasons, it is clear that she does not and has not represented progressive policy goals.
It did not take a genius to know that the Iraq war was bogus in 2002.
I was in the streets with millions all over the world protesting the war before it started. Hillary voted against the world and with Bush, and said "yes" to war. We must hold her accountable.
I look to Media Matters for consistent progressive criticism of the corporate media. Unfortunately, Media Matters seems inclined to defend any politician willing to identify as a Democrat, regardless of how regressive their politics are.
Sincerely, Dan Denvir Portland, OR
I agree 100%. Clinton's failure to vote against the war in the first place is inexcusable, as was her tepid pullback of support. For those reasons, I supported her opponent in the primary (Jonathan Tasini) and will not support her in the Demcratic presidential primary.
Your opinion sounds like something you practice in front of your family or the mirror. Assuming motivations behind Senator Clinton's actions that agree with your pre -formed opinion of her, making the things she says fit your non objective view. Let's look at your opinions over the past few years and the pattern forms. You wants us to see your view of her but actually we see her view of you but go on and keep talking down to us because you are most always wrong. We are the viewers who watch such programs as yours just to avoid your bias.
my apology, i didnt get the drift
I'm not the only poster who's had his clumsy sarcasm not translate into print.
Taken a few nasty beatings from people I was in complete agreement eith.
Until quite recently, Ms. Clinton's pose on Iraq has been indistinguishable from that of Bush.
Meet the Press, Sunday Feb. 20, 2005: