[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by the truth

As a senator On October 11, 2002, Clinton voted in favor of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq, commonly known as the Iraq War Resolution, to give President Bush authority for the Iraq War. She has blood on her hands for that forever.

During an April 20, 2004, Clinton was asked about her October 2002 vote in favor of the Iraq war resolution.

Obviously, I've thought about that a lot in the months since. No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade.... The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared.

But in a speech on June 13, 2006, Clinton tried to back track and flip flop from the worst foreign policy decision in living memory...sharply criticized President George W. Bush's handling of the Iraq War,[306] saying that Bush "rushed to war" and "refused to let the UN inspectors conduct and complete their mission ... We need to be building alliances instead of isolation around the world

she then became secretary of state in 09 and duly attacked libya and after gadaffi was smashed to pieces and dragged through the city , which she laughed about....the country fell into chaos..she supported the bombings of youoslavia, she armed thousands in syria with wepaons many of which fell into the hands of ISIS terrorists , all of which were formed from the chasm left behind in iraq and libya ...she wants to keep the american imperial stranglehold in the middle east as it is...and her whole career is backed by the most corrupt distrusted corporations in america who have lined her pockets for decades..hence the clintons despite being mere politicians for the past 30 yrs are worth over $100 million

I actually think we in the UK had a lot to do with the fall of Gaddafi and what then ensued in Libya.

Anyway, she was not a leader of the USA at the time of Iraq and as a Senator, along with many other Senators too of both USA parties, she was just one other vote.

Just as all the MPs in the UK, of all Parties except the Lib Dems also supported action in Iraq here.

You keep saying she did all this, she was 'not' the President, she was not the Senate or the House of representatives.
She was only supporting a motion put forward by the president,

Whatever was done would need the sanctioning of said president/s of the times, not herself, and it would need the approval of the 2 houses too, with loads more voting the same way as she did.

I know you appear to have a thing against women at times but many other Senators supported all that was done, not just Hillary, and the then presidents of the USA too.
Along with other Countries too such as France as to Libya.

You are being selective, and really in part blaming the wrong person totally for it all,just to suit your odd argument at times, the buck stops with the presidents and Prime Ministers of Countries who support any action anywhere and who indeed propose it too.
Asking their MPs or Senators to support their plans.

Last time I checked, I found nothing wrong with people being rich either, most Presidents and their families end up rich as generally our UK PMs do too.
Rather a bit of a red herring that one to me.