Final-Fan said:
I agree Trump didn't have a strong stand publicly. But he was claiming that he DID have a strong stand publicly. So the introduction to the question Holt wanted to ask was reasonable in saying "well actually you are on the record as being for the war and there is no evidence you were against it, so..."
While we're on the subject, Clinton didn't exactly egg Bush on to go to war. When she voted to authorize force, she said (and I quote an article on the subject that quoted her speech): “Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first … I take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible. Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely—and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause—I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go away with delay will oppose any United Nations resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.”
She added, “This is a difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make. Any vote that may lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction. … My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose.” A vote for the resolution, she argued, “is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our president. And we say to him: Use these powers wisely and as a last resort.”
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2016/02/hillary_clinton_told_the_truth_about_her_iraq_war_vote.html
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2002-10-10/html/CREC-2002-10-10-pt1-PgS10233-7.htm
Lastly, are you seriously suggesting I could not dig up as many outrageous acts by Trump? He didn't even ask about the wall.
(P.S. Fortune built as a public servant? Two minutes of Google shows an article with apparently good sources (Forbes etc.) showing that the Clintons left the White House with little money; that they've made massive amounts on bestselling books, giving speeches (which she's been criticized for but which can hardly be called corrupt), etc.; and I would personally speculate that Bill, having made more money, pays more of her living expenses, so she will have accumulated wealth more easily than if she was living alone. And bringing up financial past deeds is hardly safe ground for Trump, what with his business bankruptcies, scams he's being sued over, etc.)
|
But he didn't asked it this way but said "You supported the war in Irak", and that's a troll. I mean, the questions are prepared for a long time, reviewed, it's not by accident he didn't say it in the correct way you suggest. It's even more disturbing than that, because it adds up to Clinton's baits.
About the vote, at the end of the day she voted "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq", I saw it as a disclaimer considering the fact that the probability that Iraq had WMD, or that they would oppose further inspections was about zero.
For Trump's outrageous acts, I'm not talking about quantity. Trump can (and indeed did) hundreds of stupid tweets and talks, it does not have the same impact. Currently, there are strong indications that laws does not apply to Clinton. Trump break some laws, at the scope of his somewhat unsignificant business, and he is sued accordingly.
PS: I wanted to imply that she did not get it from a salary, I already googled it. I'm talking about the fact that she get so much money from speeches we don't even know what they are about (Sanders asked to see them, he did not get them), we kind of know she does them for companies from Wall-Street, foreign companies, etc., but don't know exactly as it is not in his tax return. So yeah, it could be corruption indeed. Frankly, I don't think it can be anything else than corruption at a scale never seen before, but if we get back to the topic which is about the debate, a fair question would be : "You got 21 millions of dollars from speeches to the most critisized and influential companies, and we don't know the content and details. What proves it is not corruption ?". Personally, I don't care if it's safe ground for Trump or not.
