...she’d like to go on record with how much she admires him.
Hillary said this to General Petraeus during his testimony before Congress:
“You have been made the de facto spokesman for what many of us believe to be a failed policy. Despite what I view as your rather extraordinary efforts in your testimony ... I think that the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief.”
What can that possibly mean other than the fact that she thinks the General was, well, lying?
Now, however, Hillary is saying this:
ons, including at the last hearing, how much I respect Gen. Petraeus and his service to our country,” Clinton told CNN’s John Roberts on “American Morning.”“I speak for myself,” said the New York Democrat when asked if she thought the ad, which ran in The New York Times last week, was out of line. “I am a very strong admirer of Gen. Petraeus and his record of service for our country and the dedication that he has brought to a very difficult job that many of us think does not have a military solution,”
So she admires the General who she has also accused of misrepresenting the situation in Iraq to Congress in order to please President Bush? Or, at the very least, on Bush’s orders?
Hillary’s trying to have it both ways, and it just doesn’t work like that.
1 comment:
That's Hillary for you! As two faced as they come! And aren't the democrats suppose to be a party of virtue? Well, that's a joke. And as usual it really doesn't matter which party you belong to in politics.
However, being a registered democrat makes me long for some other kind of politican because we've already had 8 years with another Clinton. (Who I'd like to add did keep the books balanced in addition to "not" starting a preemptive war.)
And also, just a parting note for Republicans, because it appears that they've decided to cast their lot with Bush and the Iraq war. And will go the distance, even if it means they have to drink the cool aid.
A party of unity or a party of madness?
Post a Comment