From the King Of Blogging, Sean Conners. Various articles and op/ed's on just about anything from A to Z. Politics, religion, entertainment and whatever else seems interesting at the moment. Members and non-members alike are welcomed to participate in th
and not about her bill this time...but a more important bill...
Published on May 29, 2007 By Sean Conners aka SConn1 In Democrat
This summer reading season is seeing a crop of new books about Senator Clinton. Some of them positive, some of them negative. Most of which, even the ones that don't paint the forcmer 1st lady in a positive light, aren't kind about their marriage. Unfortunately, that's not much of a bombshell. Real news might be if we found out they had a great marriage.

But more disturbing are Senator Clinton's past actions, or inactions in regards to the biggest issue of our times, the war on terror. At least one book notes that Hillary never read the NIE (National Intel Est.) before casting her vote to invade Iraq. This is more of a revalation than anything about Bill's womanizing and possibly wanting to leave Hillary for another woman way back when. This is certainly a claim that she must speak about and explain.

Not that Hillary is the only one guilty of not reading legislation before voting on it. Sometimes it's expected and accepted. But when it comes to matters like this, reading the "evidence" for oneself is kind of necessary. Especially if someone is going to go round for ovre 4 years claiming that "with the information that she had" she could only vote "yes" on an Iraq invasion. If the charges hold true, then "the only information she had" was polls apparantly and not any evaluation of any actual intelligence or information that was available. 23 other Senators managed to sift thru the evidence and view the risk as being an ill advised choice, and so should have Mrs. Clinton.

That is specifically what she and other members of Congress were sent there to do. To represent us and our interests. Not her re-election interests or Presidential ambitions. I think most Americans can deal with someone getting a summary from a staffer on a small highway bill or other minor, everyday legislation. But when it comes to this, and things like it, it is the Senator's sworn duty to actually have a look at the evidence.

This desertion of duty is the kind of thing that needs to be examined more than anything having to do with the Lewinski affair. As I and others have said before, a woman scorned can do some wild stuff. Now some might try to conflate that with some "fitness" for office. As in some "wink & nod" exercize in the back room of the "good ol boys club" where things like that and what does she do when "that time of the month" comes, are typical fodder.

But men have their moments of vengence, dictatorial "bitchiness" and taking things way too personally as well. Men can do things out of embarrassment or shame just like a gal can.

But casting the most important vote of the 2002 Congress based on political positioning while not unique is not a trait I look for in a President.

And she'll need to explain that before ever earning my vote.

Comments
on May 29, 2007
Actually, this came out a few years back.  Where of all the Intel members of congress, only about 6 actually read the stuff.  I dont recall Hillary being singled out at the time, but only about 6 of them actually took the time to peruse the NIE (since it was classified, they can only tell us who took the time to look at it, not read it).
on May 29, 2007
Actually, this came out a few years back.

sure,,but these books are reminding us of such things. and i think this is a lil more important than the tripe about bill's indescretions and related junk. this is about how she does her job as a Senator.
on May 29, 2007

this is about how she does her job as a Senator.
 

No argument from me.  But then I am just surprised that any read it (I heard that Edwards did - or at least paid a visit to it).

on May 29, 2007
But then I am just surprised that any read it


some did, some didn't..and that's a measure on how one does theri job. not the only one, by any means, but one important one.
on May 29, 2007
It doesn't surprise me at all that Hillary works just like her husband and votes however polls tell her to.  Neither have the moral compass to pick a position and stay with it, and both rely entirely on the majority of the public to tell them what to think and do.
on May 29, 2007
It doesn't surprise me at all that Hillary works just like her husband and votes however polls tell her to. Neither have the moral compass to pick a position and stay with it, and both rely entirely on the majority of the public to tell them what to think and do.


i'm not goin there quite yet, but thanks for the comments.
on May 30, 2007
I agree with terp.  It seems quite common that democrats (Kerry is another that came to mind) that bases their positions that day on what public polling tells them.  Not to say there are a great number of politicians who do that, but the democrats seem to want to run the country based on polls.


on May 30, 2007
Not to say there are a great number of politicians who do that, but the democrats seem to want to run the country based on polls.


cmon now...stop with the stereotypes. look at the GOP primary so far. the big story is the sell out of principles from the social conservatives because they believe that giuliani is the only guy who has a prayer during the general. and speaking of the GOP primary, let's not forget mitt romney, mr "convenient position change." john mc casin started courting the religious right last year, after swearing he wouldn't play into and pander to the falwell crowd.

wanting to be on the winning side, which is usually the majority side, knows no party lines or the like. it's almost instinctual for people who have to spend most of their time getting re-elected. which is a bigger problem, i believe, than any 1 or any group of politicians doing what politicians do increasingly.
Meta
Views
» 417
Comments
» 8
Category
Sponsored Links