QUESTION: When is Hillary actually lying?

ANSWER:  She only lies when she opens her mouth to speak.

 

My friends, there is so much lying material here, we could fill ten web sites with only this information. We have attempted to weed out a lot (and believe me, there is a lot) of meaningless and repetitive information.

 

Check out a few of these more famous whoppers:

In 1997 - three years before Hillary's run for Senate in New York:

 

 "People think that because I care so much about public issues, I should run for office myself.

I don't want to run for office."

The Unique Voice of Hillary Rodham Clinton: A Portrait in Her Own Words by Hillary Rodham Clinton and Claire G. Osborne, p. 63, Avon Books.
 

Tim Russert: "Would you accept the nomination [in 2004] for president or vice president?"
Hillary Clinton: "No."
Russert: "Will you run in 2008?"
Hillary Clinton: "I have no plans to run for president"
-NBC's "Meet the Press," 9/15/02

 

"I'm so happy being senator from New York right now. I love my life. I love my job. I want to see it through," Clinton said. "The people of New York took a chance on me, and I'm well aware of that.

"I said I wouldn't run, and I really mean it.

I'm not going to run."

Source: CNN.com, "Hillary Clinton: No regret on Iraq vote"

 

HILLARY ON IRAQ AND TERRORISM

 

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

 

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."

Source: transcript of Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, October 10, 2002

 

Ed Note:

It is clear that she would like you to forget she ever said these things ...

consider the following:

 

 

New York Daily News

Hillary's big lie grows

Wednesday, January 31st, 2007

There she goes again. Hillary Clinton told another whopper. Actually, it's the same whopper she and her husband told before.

In Iowa last weekend, Clinton was asked about her 2002 vote to suppport the Iraq war. It's a tough question for her, given the war's unpopularity among Democrats. Moreover, her two leading opponents for the 2008 presidential nomination have crowd-pleasing positions. Former Sen. John Edwards said his vote for the war was a mistake and he regretted it, and Sen. Barack Obama opposed the war before the invasion.

So Clinton's camp sees her pro-war vote as heavy baggage. She has never denounced it or said it was wrong, but, at times, has done something worse. She has lied about the reasons for it.

Sunday in Davenport, Iowa, was one of those times. Asked about her vote by a man in front of a mostly adoring rally, Clinton trotted out the whopper. She said she was misled by President Bush about the resolution. "He said at the time he was going to the United Nations to put inspectors back into Iraq, to figure out whether they still had any WMD," she said, adding, "He took the authority that others and I gave him and he misused it."

That's very similar to how Bill Clinton defended her last year. In an interview with ABC News, he said Dems who voted for the resolution did so only to force Saddam Hussein to give up, not to use force. "They felt, frankly, let down" about the invasion, Clinton said, painting Dems as dupes of Bush.

It's a clever argument, but it's not true. It's not even within spinning distance of being true.

Here are the facts. The resolution passed the Senate on Oct. 10, 2002, by a vote of 77 to 23, with support from Clinton, Edwards and about 20 other Dems.

Its purpose was clear from its title: "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq." Opponents, including Sens. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), voted no because they thought it meant war was inevitable.

They had good reason to worry. Bush made it clear he intended to "disarm" Iraq and the resolution gave him that authority. He could use our armed forces, Section 3 said, "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" to defend America and enforce UN resolutions. Separately, an amendment requiring Security Council approval for an invasion was defeated. Clinton helped to defeat that amendment.

To hear the Clintons fudge now, you would think the invasion began the very next day. In fact, it began five months later, in March 2003. During those months, as U.S. troops massed in the Mideast, there is no record of Hillary Clinton opposing the invasion or claiming she had been misled.

Indeed, an article in The Washington Post on March 9, 2003, lamented that Congress had been mostly silent since the resolution passed. The only major exception came when Kennedy, Byrd and some House members urged Bush to let weapons inspectors finish their work. Clinton was not recorded as being part of that effort.

That the war has gone badly is a tragedy and a disaster. It is why Democrats won Congress last year. But anybody who wants to be President and commander in chief cannot play the role of victim when the going gets tough on the campaign trail. Blaming others for your own conduct and fudging history are not the right stuff for the Oval Office. Even, or especially, when your name is Clinton.