Clinton Makes False Claim. Also: Water Wet
Clinton, showing that she apparently can’t help herself, once again made a false claim. This one is even more hilariously wrong than the whole landing under sniper fire snafu.
This time, Clinton seeks to convince us that she opposed the Iraq war before Barack Obama.
First, in classic Clintonian style, she makes the claim that it only counts to measure their opinion since they were both in the Senate. This of course avoids the “inconvenient truth” that Clinton voted for the war while Obama opposed it from the start.
As if this weren’t some of the most blatant parsing you’ve ever seen, it turns out that even if you accept the ridiculous premise that opposition to the Iraq war only counts after Obama entered the Senate, it’s still not true!
From the ABC story:
Scrambling to support their boss’s claim, Clinton campaign officials pointed to a paper statement Clinton issued on Jan. 26, 2005, explaining her vote to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State.
But as it turns out:
But Obama offered criticisms of the war in Iraq eight days before that, directly to Rice, in his very first meeting as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Jan. 18.
Obama pushed Rice on her answers to previous questioners regarding the effectiveness of Iraqi troops, and he criticized the administration for conveying a never-ending commitment to a US troop presence in Iraq.
And that’s your daily Clinton “misstatement”.
lmao @ "Also water wet"
only one per day?
It seems to be a fight between who said what and how they voted. My problem with this whole "I opposed it first" situation is that there’s a difference between saying something and then acting on it.
I know Obama made the speech on the day of the resolution, but I would still love to know how he would have voted on the resolution had he been in the Senate. But, we’ll probably never know.
Don’t get me wrong, I support Obama, but I think that rather than focusing on who said what first, the media should ask that question more often: how would he have voted?
@ Michael
Well, considering that he bothered to read the relevant Intel, and he actually SAID how he would have voted, not to mention that he continued to oppose the war in numerous ways both before and after joining the Senate, I don’t see why you think your question hasn’t been answered.
Did I mention that the relevant Intel made it quite clear that force of any sort, in particular a war, would destroy any chance we had of limiting future terrorism, disbanding the terrorist networks’ communications, and keeping the general populace as well as other nations seeing us in a positive light, thus entrenching terrorism ever more firmly?
Or did you, like Clinton, not bother reading it?