Hillary Refuses to Apologize for Her War Vote

Hillary Refuses to Apologize for Her War Vote


A cheer for Senator Clinton. From the New York Times:

    . . . yesterday morning Mrs. Clinton rolled out a new response to those demanding contrition: She said she was willing to lose support from voters rather than make an apology she did not believe in.

“If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from.�

This post isn’t an endorsement of her candidancy. But she’s moved up a notch or two in my estimation. Having taken this stance, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to reverse her stance. Even for a Clinton.

Cross-posted at American Future.

  • bob in fl

    Well, she went up a notch in my book, & I’m not too fond of her either.

  • http://www.kozoru.com Justin Gardner

    Agreed. She shouldn’t apologize for her war vote if she thought it was the right thing to do. But if she didn’t think it was right, but she did it anyway because she was afraid…well, that’s a different story. We’ll see if we hear this from her on the campaign trail. Stay tuned because I have a feeling we could be hearing that from her in the coming year.

  • Bob J Young

    All the senators/presidential candidates have placed themselves in a really untenable situation.

    If you admit the vote was wrong, then you are also admitting that you followed the herd during a public opinion stampede. In other words, you showed poor judgment. Definitely not something a presidential candidate is supposed to do.

    On the other hand if you don’t renounce your vote, you are by default saying you still support an unpopular war.

    I don’t think Hillary’s lack of remorse has anything to do with conviction, morality or ideas. It is simply a cold political calculation on making the best of a bad situation. If anything, my opinion of her just went down. I want a president who will admit mistakes. (I know I’m never going to get one, but I can still wish for one.)

  • http://www.warning1938alert.ytmnd.com Jimmy the Dhimmi

    Eh, its all B.S.

    She’s trying to spin it like John Kerry. She is still claiming that the vote was to authorize “more diplomacy” or the threat of force, but not military action (which is bulls**t).

    John Edwards is the only one of these candidates who says he actually thought Saddam had WMD and believed in his vote at the time.

  • http://none sid davisson

    Senator Clinton has shown that she cannot be trusted to stand for many midwest concerns.She is not trustworthy.I doubt that she’ll convince most in the heartland/rustbelt to vote for her.

  • BenG

    The only thing that resembles cow droppings around here are the way Democrats are being buffalo’d into having to defend themselves about going to war in Iraq. This was entirely a Republican debacle, being that they controlled all three branches of gov. at the time, and they were’nt open to any suggestions. Now, if you want to accuse them of being

  • BenG

    Sorry, wrong button… If you want to accuse the Dems. of being spineless after things started going bad, or for not raising enough of a fuss about the way monies were being appropriated and then spent, then I can agree. I was very fustrated by the lack of any oversight taken by any of our elected officials.
    But you wanna talk B.S. – how about how funding for the war was to come from Iraqi oil ? Or the many other misconceptions we were told about this war from the party in power. If you wanna talk about trust, how can you be questioning the actions of the party that had nothing to do with our present situation?
    So, let’s see. A Republican administration’s idea to invade Iraq, a Republican House and Senate to rubber stamp it, and you’re still talking about how the Clintons can’t be trusted. Yea, that’s great.