Originally Posted by
stdreb27
As for edwards, I really don't like that either, I'd rather have someone who says I made the right decision the first time. And I'm sticking to it.
I absolutely agree. What I'm saying is that assuming that there are always going to be occasions when a change of course is warranted, I respect more the candidates who make clear the reasons why, rather than try to dodge the issue. Every time Hillary dodges the issue of why her position has changed, it suggests that she is changing it for reasons that benefit only herself, and doesn't want to admit it.
On the other hand, it's important to understand a course of action before setting out on it. President Bush told us numerous times in numerous speeches that the war would take a long time, cost lives, resources, dollars. I respect and admire his willingness to accept the judgement of history rather than the judgment of the day, to move forward with what he knows to be morally right. Just for the record, I wish I could vote for him again.
Ergo, one could argue that the change of course being pushed by the democrats (and some republicans) is indicative of failure to truly understand the task at hand before voting on it, something that is in and of itself reprehensible, especially when the fate of a nation - any nation - is at stake.
Hillary loves to talk about how the President gave false information about the war, that he pushed for it. Well if she is the strong leader she claims she would not have let him push her. I don't buy it. Edwards says the same thing. Sure, he doesn't push responsibility back on Bush, but he still claims that he was pushed. Obama does nothing but polish his laurels about how he never voted for it in the first place. FINE. WE GET IT. When are you going to stop telling us that and start talking about what you are going to do about it?
The real question we must ask is WHY? every democrat has "made a mistake." What was their motivation then, and what has changed now.
Second if they were fooled by Bush, Why weren't they smart enough to figure it out. If they get the wool pulled over their eyes then they really shouldn't be in the most powerful position in the world.
It is nice to see that someone else on this planet has the accumen to understand this.
I've been asking myself this same question. I live in a very republican-heavy area of the country, but we have some very staunch dems at work. When I ask them this question in so many words, I just get a kind of blank stare and a "uh... hmmm."
And third now she is saying "well I'm probably not going too" Why is their another change assuming she wins the election.
I submit to you this: We are never going to know what Hillary (or ANY of the canidates to varying degrees) is going to do until she actuall does (or doesn't) do them once in office.
If you really think about it, the only one we can be sure will be maintaining the same position on the war tomorrow or next week or next month or next year is President Bush. To me, that's the real food for thought.
What's really too bad is that we can't have a democratic candidate with the steadfastness of Bush, and Bush running against him/her for a third term. Then we can really have a vote on the issue, not a vote on the salesmanship of a bunch of seemingly empty promises and patronizing pandering.
