Clinton was "misled" when she supported war

Seems a typical case of backtracking. I think there will be a lot of that in time.

 

Other than probably the neocons who didn't care if there was evidence or not I would say just about all of us who supported the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 were misled.

 

Amen to that. I have to admit that I was taken in. Who would have thought a president would have misled us like that?

 

Strong delusion anyone?

 

Was it the president who did the misleading or was the president and primeminster of Britain misled themselves and they innocently passed on what they thought to be right information?

 

Blair?.... Innocent?... Do those two words belong in the same sentence?

 

As an Ulsterman with no current, viable, parliament you have no say on the national matters... :thumbs:

 

Seems to be par for the course for Clinton. She was mislead into thinking her husband wasn't cheating on her, and even attacked the "vast right wing conspiracy." Turned out she was wrong.

Now she was mislead into supporting the war? Her husband said the exact same things that Bush said about this war. Perhaps that should have been the first clue to doubt Bush.

 

Turns out she was right, when the press uncovered that a wealthy nutcase (Peter W. Smith) had offered money to Arkansas state policemen who he was trying to convince to accuse Clinton of sexual misconduct, and right-wing activist Richard M. Scaife had even persuaded the "independent" prosecuter Starr, to accept a cushy job as chancellor of a university in which he had considerable clout. (Starr reconsidered and turned the appointment down, after the media got wind of the deal)
http://www.salon.com/news/1998/04/cov_17newsa.html

Danny Ferguson, the trooper who tipped off Clinton, said that he couldn't talk to the press about it, because they'd get him if he did. He at least, was convinced about a conspiracy.

Turns out that David Hale, who was trying to get a reduced sentence for his part in Watergate, was getting money from Scaife operatives. (Starr later reluctantly reported that there was no evidence Clinton was guilty of any wrongdoing in that scandal)

There's more. Would you like to hear more?

 

Werent you around 1969-1974

 

Yes, I'd like to hear more

 

Her husband wasn't cheating on her? Come on, Galatian. You know she was mislead.

She is either really naive or a liar. She went out and defended her husband against these charges of infidelity. Now, did she believe that her husband was faithful to her (making her incredibly naive, and probably the last person in teh country to believe that), or did she go out and tell a bald-faced lie (making her a liar).

What's the other options? How was she right?

 

I think you meant Whitewater.

 

Saying they are misled is, I believe,is a tacit admission that they are looking for someone else to blame for their failure to understand the difference between hard and proven facts and intelligence estimates..


That's an especially egregious admission for a Senator.

 

Personally, I take full responsibility for being wrong to support the invasion of Iraq. I have a good friend who didn't. I should have listened to him instead of the neocons.

 

Not if you contend you were misled, you don't.

 

The evidence that that neocons had been wanting to invade Iraq for years was easily available. I willfully ignored it - much to my chagrin.

Fortunately, four years later I now have a plethora of news sources and opinion sources at my fingertips. I won't be so easily misled again.

 

Yeah, I know about Nixon. Like Ken, I take full responsibility for believing Bush when he told us all those falsehoods.

As I said before, he was a pretty good governor of Texas, and although I had some reservations about his personal life and morals, I was willing to give him the benefit of a doubt.

Shame on me.