When Madeleine Albright said it was ‘worth it’ to kill hundreds of thousands of kids over Saddam’s non-existent WMD programs, did you ever ask yourself this question?
Are you confusing me with someone who was for that war?When Madeleine Albright said it was ‘worth it’ to kill hundreds of thousands of kids over Saddam’s non-existent WMD programs, did you ever ask yourself this question?
I’ve asked you before which of Hillary’s war did you not like, and you’ve always demurred.Are you confusing me with someone who was for that war?
Ah, so I don't play your games therefore I must have been all for every war since time began.I’ve asked you before which of Hillary’s war did you not like, and you’ve always demurred.
I don’t understand why people support someone with so many failed wars (and the hundreds of thousands of corpses that go with them) on her resume.
Can you explain?
You vote for a warmonger with a string of failed wars to her credit and hundreds of thousands of corpses.Ah, so I don't play your games therefore I must have been all for every war since time began.
Rational as ever.
Because the choice was her or Trump.You vote for a warmonger with a string of failed wars to her credit and hundreds of thousands of corpses.
Why?
Was Iraq a success?Because the choice was her or Trump.
It was a very easy choice. And proof that it was the correct choice grows more each day.
I'd ask about her "String of failed wars" but you know, I'm not really interested in your revisionist history or conspiracy theories. Peddle them somewhere else.
Was Iraq a success?
Was Syria a success?
Do you consider Libya a success?
Or the regime change effort she backed in Yemen?
Revisionist history would be calling any of those successes, but I don’t even find neocons that bold.
As I said: I’ve asked you before which of Hillary’s war did you not like, and you’ve always demurred.
All conflicts that happened while Clinton was working for the government are not 'her wars'.As I said: I’ve asked you before which of Hillary’s war did you not like, and you’ve always demurred.
Coward.
She was in favor of them, and advocated for them, and voted for them.All conflicts that happened while Clinton was working for the government are not 'her wars'.
But please, carry on.
I hear Vietnam was her fault too.She was in favor of them, and advocated for them, and voted for them.
She actually has a special responsibility for these wars that 300+ million Americans not at the levers of power ever can.
https://www.washingtonpost.com
To critics, Clinton’s late conversion seemed opportunistic. Power and Rice had spent weeks trying to persuade a reluctant president to open a military front in Libya. Clinton held back and let them blaze the trail, they said.
Her allies call that careful, deliberate, thoughtful decision-making.
After meeting Jibril, her mind was made up. Clinton called the White House late Monday night. The Security Council passed its resolution Thursday. And on Saturday, the bombing began.
Do you disagree with Madeleine Albright when she said to 60 Minutes in 1996 that killing hundreds of thousands of kids was good policy?
Do you think the neocons are the baddies, and just don’t realize it?
That that’s why they keep finding new wars after every failure?
Another cowardly deflection.I hear Vietnam was her fault too.
Well, HORT had been getting a little better over the last few days…WTF is it with all of you and the R Word.Setting aside the comparison issue, airdrops without distribution plans are pretty retarded.
And Korea, and WW2.I hear Vietnam was her fault too.