You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #37: Hillary is part of the neocon establishment. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
CoffeeCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-02-08 03:13 PM
Response to Original message
37. Hillary is part of the neocon establishment.
Edited on Mon Jun-02-08 03:17 PM by TwoSparkles
She's backed their war votes...every step of the way. That's indisputable. She can "parse" her
Iraq-war vote or her Kyl/Lieberman vote any way she wants. In the end, she votes with them.

Furthermore, the neocons wrote a letter to then-President Bill Clinton in 1998. The letter was
signed by Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, and other assorted neocons. They asked Clinton for war
with Iraq. Clinton refused.

Fast forward to the Iraq war vote. The same neocon cast of characters who asked President
Clinton for war, were now asking for Congressional approval. Does anyone actually believe
that Hillary (with her "yes" vote) didn't fully comprehend that the neocons who asked her
husband for war, were back again--asking for it again? She knew they wanted this war--because
they asked her husband for it.

They rode Sept 11 fear, and tales of WMD into Iraq--and SHE, better than anyone else, knew it
was a lie.

Also, as a New York Senator, sitting on the Armed Services Committee--she barely peeped as Bush
tore down our democracy, dismantled our civil rights, erased Habeas Corpus, enacted torture as
a national policy and wiretapped illegally.

All of us were screaming from the rafters about this stuff. Where was Hillary Clinton?

She's not about change. She never was. She ran on "experience" until she lost Iowa and saw that Obama
and Edwards would obliterate her as "change" candidates.

She's not what we need to restore our democracy, unite the country and roll back the BushCo damage.

I would not support her in the vp slot. That makes no sense at all. She and Obama aren't even
speaking the same language.

As far as a cabinet-level position, I'd be against that too--but I wouldn't consider it to be as
disastrous as vp. People say she'd be great at implementing healthcare. She failed miserably
when she had that responsibility during Bill's administration. She's not a team player. She's a dirty
trickster and she uses ham-handed tactics. Plus, her plan was secretive and non-inclusive--which
was myopic, and part of the reason her plan failed.

I don't like her at all, from a political standpoint--because her philosophies and her tactics
are not healthy for the country.

I think she would make a fabulous CEO of a Fortunate 100 company. I think her personality, temperment
and her talents would fit perfectly in the corporate world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC