Audio: Rush examines 2003 Hillary vs. 2007 Hillary

posted at 11:25 am on January 30, 2007 by Ian

I was listening to Rush yesterday in the car and I heard this must listen to audio of Rush comparing Hillary in 2003 to Hillary in 2007. My, my, so much can change in just four years.

Hillary in Iowa:

HILLARY: I said that we should not go to war unless we have allies. So he took the authority that I and others gave him and he misused it, and I regret that deeply. And if we had known then what we know now, there never would have been a vote and I never would have voted to give this president that authority.

Hillary in 2003:

HILLARY: With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I just do not believe that, given the attitudes of many people in the world community today, that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems, were it not for the United States leadership, and I’m talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo where my husband could not get a Security Council resolution to save the Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. And we did it alone as the United States, and we had to do it alone. And so I see it somewhat differently. So forgive me for my experience and perspective.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

What I find poetically tragic about this whole business is that Hillary is but a figurehead for millions of barking moonbats.

Explanation, forthwith:

Hillary’s constituency is far more worried about sticking it to the man (as exemplified by George Bush) than they ever have been about actually doing the right thing. What did Hillary’s husband actually accomplish in his eight-year administration? Anyone? That’s right: Precisely dick.

It’s all about getting back at Bush. Hillary knows this, and deep down inside, the people that voted for her know this. She would not have moved to, and been elected in, New York otherwise.

gryphon202 on January 30, 2007 at 11:42 AM

Not sure how this makes any difference. The nutroots accepted Kerry’s gross inconsistencies as a testament to their overriding moral pragmatism, and they’ll certainly do the same with Hillary should she win the nomination. And if it’s the American public that’s supposed to be affected by this, then the same argument holds; Kerry received more votes in 2004 than any other Presidential candidate in American history (save W. in the same election).

Point being, the voting public has a political memory of about 2 weeks. Consistency only matters if the MSM has a dog in the hunt, i.e. if it’s a Republican.

spmat on January 30, 2007 at 11:42 AM

Hillarity may only be a feint, a smokescreen-the ‘Dem powers that be’ by now have decided on their candidate, and it might not be HClinton. She might have the VP slot locked up-Obama/Clinton would be a hard team to beat. Clinton/Obama much easier.

Doug on January 30, 2007 at 12:10 PM

Allies …….. we don’t need no steenking allies!

Oops, I think I just hurt someone’s feelings.

*sniff*sniff*

fogw on January 30, 2007 at 12:11 PM

The Pantsuit is a fraud.

The Righty blogosphere will show her to be so…..

….let the games begin!!!!!!!!

seejanemom on January 30, 2007 at 12:31 PM

More from the DoubleTalk Express I see.

Both Hillary and McCain are in business class.

Kini on January 30, 2007 at 12:31 PM

Daddy!

RushBaby on January 30, 2007 at 12:33 PM

Hillary would say or do anything to get elected, including directly contradict herself on a daily basis, and everyone knows it. Her supporters and the enemedia could care less–after all, Bill lied every day for 8 years and they were cool with that. They know exactly what they’re buying, and they don’t expect any better. So pointing out her rhetorical contortions gets you nowhere with them, although it’s worth doing anyway. And yes, it’s amazingly ironic that the same people who support the likes of Bill and Hillary and their dishonest ilk will become apoplectic screaming “Bush lied!” when he didn’t. But that’s what you get with people who have absolutely no concern for the truth.

Oh, and don’t forget, Hillary is half black.

ReubenJCogburn on January 30, 2007 at 12:34 PM

The Pantsuit is a fraud.

The Righty blogosphere will show her to be so…..

We had better have our hearts and minds ready for the fight, Jane. I want your words to be true, so very much. I fear the inaction and complacency of the past. I also fear the Republicans failing to offer up a truly acceptable alternative.

Giving us yet another example of a Clinton changing the story to fit the audience keeps our focus where it belongs, that she is no good for this nation. But it won’t change anyone’s mind from the side they’ve chosen. The left couldn’t be swayed by this set of quotes if they haven’t seen through her lies in the past, and the rest of us can’t be much more disgusted by her power-at-all-cost life than we already were.

Freelancer on January 30, 2007 at 12:46 PM

Hillary also said:

“There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm’s way, that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I’ve followed for more than a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information, intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, tried to discount the political or other factors that I didn’t believe should be in any way a part of this decision. I would love to agree with you, but I can’t based on my own understanding and assessment of the situation.”

So here’s my question. If this was something she “followed for more than a decade” and “carefully review[ed] the information” and “talk[ed] with people whose opinions [she] trusted” and she “tried to discount the political or other factors that [she] didn’t believe should be in any way a part of this decision”… and she still voted for it, then does it really give American voters a comforting feeling to now hear that she feels like her decision was a very bad one? Ignoring that this is an obvious flip-flop for political expediency, do we really want Hillary as President if she is so capable of making such bad decisions after such a prolonged review of the situation… or the fact that she surrounds herself with trusted advisors that are so completely wrong on matters of foreign policy?

I don’t think so.

TexasRainmaker on January 30, 2007 at 12:52 PM

And if we had known then what we know now, there never would have been a vote and I never would have voted to give this president that authority.

I wouldn’t accept this excuse from my teenager, much less a Senator.

ctmom on January 30, 2007 at 1:32 PM

I pointed out to my ever-indulgent wife the key difference:

People despised Bill Clinton.
People hate George Bush.

It’s sad that so many have crossed that line.

Still, I wonder where Hillary will land on the ‘dislike’ continuum overall? Me, I think I’m at right about ‘loathe’.

KCSteve on January 30, 2007 at 1:38 PM

And if we had known then what we know now, there never would have been a vote and I never would have voted to give this president that authority.

Honrable lady, you, the President, and us, are not fortune-tellers.

Entelechy on January 30, 2007 at 1:45 PM

I love rush. I don’t care what anyone says about him. He’s hysterical.

One Angry Christian on January 30, 2007 at 2:54 PM

Liar, liar! Your empty pant suit’s on fire!

SouthernGent on January 30, 2007 at 6:49 PM

Hillary Clinton has had a glamor shot make over since 04. It is well known she was going to move more to the center a little at a time. Ha Ha She really got snookered with THE VOTE though. Ha monkey see monkey do. The “Hicks ” in Iowa spot a phony through and through. Lucky she has her own money cause with her early pol results the party wouldn’t gamble a plug nickel on her. Now she’s starting to waffle on it. “If we knew then what we know now” I’m like what “we”, do you have a mouse in youe pocket?! Lets see Hmm The iron lady is waffling so that must make her a waffle iron!

sonnyspats1 on January 30, 2007 at 8:38 PM

waffle iron… good one.

What I don’t see written about Hillary is that she is the world’s #1 enabler. She knew all about Wild Bill’s unfaithfullness/sexual harrassments/rapes but did nothing about them. What does this say about her?

If she won’t authentically deal with a sexually disturbed and perverted husband what will she do when the Muslim world taps off a nuke in a major U.S. city? She’s an enabler remember. She’ll do nothing. Her marriage was a safe place for perversion and sexual addiction. America would never be a safe place with her as the commander headmistress in chief. In her mind we’d always deserve the mass murders that we got so all we’d get from her is hand wringing.

Mojave Mark on January 30, 2007 at 9:16 PM

And a chat. Don’t forget we’d get a conversation.

Freelancer on January 30, 2007 at 10:48 PM

She’s a lying opportunist. She’s so, um, Democrat.

georgej on January 31, 2007 at 6:30 AM

I love Rush. Where would we be without him? Think about it… if he didn’t start his show in 1988, where would we be today? He is honestly someone that has changed the entire world… It is scary, VERY SCARY to think where this country, this world would be without him….

Any Comments?

BeauMec17 on January 31, 2007 at 7:26 AM

I love Rush. Where would we be without him? Think about it… if he didn’t start his show in 1988, where would we be today? He is honestly someone that has changed the entire world… It is scary, VERY SCARY to think where this country, this world would be without him….

Any Comments?

BeauMec17 on January 31, 2007 at 7:26 AM

Rush is the greatest, but he is only a citizen like you and me. Rush is doing more that his share of the work (for which he gets compensated for quite handsomely I might add). It doesn’t take an Executive order from the oval office to get permission to be ACTIVELY patriotic. It is a right guaranteed by our Constitution. More scarey is the fact the conservatives don’t EXERSISE their right to assemble. Use it or loose it! This is a POWERFUL and POTENT tactic that has been used by the minorities for decades. We sit home and watch it get played out on TV. Sean Hanity is doing nation wide events, 3 or 4 anyway. He’s calling it Americans for Patiotism or something of that nature, so I will attend that with the ferver of a rock concert of days gone by.

sonnyspats1 on January 31, 2007 at 12:03 PM

Forgive me for my greatness.

Anil Petra on January 31, 2007 at 12:57 PM