Reply #46: That does not just mean polls.

[BootinUp]

It includes the opinions of our representatives. They are humans too. There is little question in my mind that she has a hawkish outlook on foreign policy and was forming her opinions based on material supplied by the administration. I do not think her votes were just for political expediency. I have had this argument with people before. They interpret the Clintons policies as only a triangulation and not supported by their own convictions. How appropriate for those people who disagree with said policies and want to attack them as unprincipled.

Political pressure can change ones views. If you debate issues on DU or with other people are you never swayed to a different view? Political pressure means there is an active debate going on. Personally I do not think it was a hard stretch for Hillary to support the President in foreign policy matters. She was in the WH and understands the seriousness of protecting the country from threats.

I do not agree with you that Bush's case prior to the vote in October was removal of Hussein regardless of the findings of inspectors.

From a Bush speech right before the vote:


Clearly, to actually work, any new inspections, sanctions or enforcement mechanisms will have to be very different. America wants the U.N. to be an effective organization that helps keep the peace. And that is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements. Among those requirements: the Iraqi regime must reveal and destroy, under U.N. supervision, all existing weapons of mass destruction. To ensure that we learn the truth, the regime must allow witnesses to its illegal activities to be interviewed outside the country -- and these witnesses must be free to bring their families with them so they all beyond the reach of Saddam Hussein's terror and murder. And inspectors must have access to any site, at any time, without pre-clearance, without delay, without exceptions.

The time for denying, deceiving, and delaying has come to an end. Saddam Hussein must disarm himself -- or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.

Many nations are joining us in insisting that Saddam Hussein's regime be held accountable. They are committed to defending the international security that protects the lives of both our citizens and theirs. And that's why America is challenging all nations to take the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council seriously.

And these resolutions are clear. In addition to declaring and destroying all of its weapons of mass destruction, Iraq must end its support for terrorism. It must cease the persecution of its civilian population. It must stop all illicit trade outside the Oil For Food program. It must release or account for all Gulf War personnel, including an American pilot, whose fate is still unknown.

By taking these steps, and by only taking these steps, the Iraqi regime has an opportunity to avoid conflict. Taking these steps would also change the nature of the Iraqi regime itself. America hopes the regime will make that choice. Unfortunately, at least so far, we have little reason to expect it. And that's why two administrations -- mine and President Clinton's -- have stated that regime change in Iraq is the only certain means of removing a great danger to our nation.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html