Iraq-Basher Hillary to Congressional Libya Critics: “Whose Side Are You On?”

It wasn’t that long ago that Hillary Clinton was not only against the Iraq War, but was calling our top general in Iraq a liar.

But, that was during the Bush Administration.
Yesterday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lambasted Congressional critics of the illegal Libyan War excursion, lambasting them, “Whose side are you on, anyway?”
From the State Department’s website, via HotAir:

QUESTION: It’s a good subject for the floor. (Laughter.) We’ve entered a situation in Libya that looks increasingly quagmire-like. And it’s starting to create a political headache for the Administration with Republican leaders arguing that the actions were inappropriate in the sense that they circumvented congressional approval for them. What is the – your vision for the endgame, a medium-term plan for U.S. involvement in Libya? And what do you make of House Speaker Boehner’s remarks?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, again, I am going to be testifying tomorrow at great length, probably longer than anyone cares to listen about all of these issues – Brad’s question, your question I’m sure will be fodder for the testimony. But I have to take issue with your underlying premise. I think that there is very clear progress being made in the organization and the operational ability of the opposition, the Transitional National Council, the military efforts on the ground. I don’t think there’s any doubt in anyone’s mind that Qadhafi and the people around him have their backs against the wall. The kind of support that we saw forthcoming for the Libyan opposition at the recent Libyan Contact Group meeting in Abu Dhabi was very heartening. Money is flowing, other support is available.

So I know we live in a hyper-information-centric world right now, and March seems like it’s a decade ago, but by my calendar, it’s only months. And in those months, we have seen an international coalition come together unprecedented between not only NATO, but Arab nations, the Arab League, and the United Nations. This is something that I don’t think anyone could have predicted, but it is a very strong signal as to what the world expects to have happen, and I say with all respect that the Congress is certainly free to raise any questions or objections, and I’m sure I will hear that tomorrow when I testify.

But the bottom line is, whose side are you on? Are you on Qadhafi’s side or are you on the side of the aspirations of the Libyan people and the international coalition that has been created to support them? For the Obama Administration, the answer to that question is very easy.

Allahpundit added, “Not only is that a direct quote, the State Department actually chose it as the video highlight from her presser yesterday in Jamaica.”

Get news like this in your Facebook News Feed,
Gateway Pundit

Commenting Policy

Please adhere to our commenting policy to avoid being banned. As a privately owned website, we reserve the right to remove any comment and ban any user at any time.

Comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal or abusive attacks on other users may be removed and result in a ban.

Facebook Comments

Disqus Comments

  • ar05075

    What a two faced waffling POS you are Hitlary.

  • Joe College

    I’m on the side with the United States Constitution. And you?

  • Andreas K.

    “But the bottom line is, whose side are you on? Are you on Qadhafi’s side or are you on the side of the aspirations of the Libyan people and the international coalition that has been created to support them? For the Obama Administration, the answer to that question is very easy.”

    So I have choice between a drug addicted, brutal oppressor, who, at least, allows women some kind of freedom (as seen in his body guards) and a group of rabid jihadis, who will install an even more brutal regime, on the other side.

    I go with Old Momo in this case.

    Of course the “Obama Administration” goes with the jihadis. That says a lot.

  • Carbon Pootprint

    Did anyone ask her what Qadhafi’ did to get on Soros’ bad side?

  • Sickofobama

    Hey Hitlery:



  • Sickofobama

    My typing is horrible today.

    WE ARE ON AMERICA’S SIDE is what I meant to type.

    Everyday I get up to read more nightmarish stuff coming out of the Commie Regime in the White House


  • Ipso Facto

    As if this woman has any credibility about anything. Hillary Clinton is one of the most dysfunctional mendacious people on the planet and while she may have managed to extract a bit of money from our economy, she is simply not to be taken seriously.

    While she wrapped her ambition in the flag, the truth is that she was the person, who, upon learning about her husband’s indiscretions, went after the women with whom her husband was indiscrete – instead of confronting her husband about being indiscrete in the first place. Could there be any better example of a person so blinded by her own political ambition that she enabled her own abusive husband while persecuting the women of low self esteem who stooped so low as to become involved with the flagrant philanderer?

    Her bizarre behavior, along with her totally inept entrance into the realm of healthcare (which went down in flames so completely because of her ineptitude and inability to play well with others) makes her nothing but a study subject for those wishing to explore the depths of aberrant human behavior.

  • tommy mc donnell

    well i know i’m not on al-qaeda’s side.

  • Betsy Ross

    “Suspension of disbelief”, BTW, was a phrase created by an English poet, literary critic and philosopher named Samuel Taylor Coleridge. He penned the phrase in his Biographia Literaria, published in 1817.
    I always wondered how Hilary came about to hear that phrase and then use it in her scathing remarks to Gen. Petraeus on the Senate floor.

  • Scott

    Hillary and Bill,

    The dysfuncitional duo who left office broke and owing millions in legal fees, now have a declared net worth of around 50 million…The people who pardoned Puerto Rican terrorists to garner the puerto rican vote for her New York Senate bid. He even closed Roosevelt Roads Naval Air Station denying the US Navy an eastern Atlantic training area. The woman who slandered General Petraeus when she said believing his testimony before Congress required the willful suspension of all disbelief…The woman who promised third world nations 250 billion a year in transfer payments for global warming caused by the United States. The woman who declared that the bloodthirsty Assad of Syria is a reformer….We have a man-child as President and a ridiculous caricature of a Secretary of State…

  • bobbymike

    Did anyone ASK HER about what she said about Iraq? Come on Republicans TAKE THESE PEOPLE ON!!!

    Sorry for the caps I can’t take it anymore, stop being wimps Republicans this is a fight for the survival of this nation.

  • retired military

    Last time I checked dont we have a right to disagree with any administration?

  • jorgen

    The Republicans are siding with USA side and they are against the Jihadis. For more than two years, I have asked the more interesting question: whose side is Obozo’s administration on? Have they ever sided with USA?

  • Nadadhimmi


  • AuntieMadder

    OT: This made me feel physically ill…and it wasn’t due to just the sound of Tom Brokaw’s voice this time.

    Here’s a snip from the page:

    “We can pat ourselves on the back about the past 223 years, but we cannot let the Constitution become an obstacle to the U.S.’s moving into the future with a sensible health care system, a globalized economy, an evolving sense of civil and political rights. The Constitution, as Martin Luther King Jr. said in his great speech on the Mall, is a promissory note. That note had not been fulfilled for African Americans. But I would say the Constitution remains a promissory note, one in which ‘We the People’ in each generation try to create that more perfect union.”

    I worry that they won’t know what we’ve got ’til it’s gone.

  • Ginger

    bobbymike…….. It is ok… I have been SCREAMING every since that kenyan fraud made himself known that he was going to run for the president of the United States. I was screaming at the TRAITOR John McCain to get LOUD! He was to passive but boy when he picked SARAH PALIN! 🙂

  • Chris in N.Va.

    This 60+ yr-old USAF vet is SOOOOO in agreement with the sentiments herein that the key component is not whether you’re on “my” side or “your” side, but whether you’re on the side of the Constitution….which Secretary BimboBrain has supposedly (with fingers secretly crossed behind her back?) sworn to uphold.

    Yeah, right, like THAT ever amounted to a load of manure once it gets in the way of Libs’ lemmings-off-the-cliff national agenda (just look at our Quisling/Chamberlain/Naracssisit-in-Chief’s behavior).

  • JPeden

    For the Obama Administration, the answer to that question is very easy.

    Yes, “People are just my pawns.”


    hey billary STFU…we are allowed to express what ever we want…and what we really want is for you and your impeached POS husband to fade away for good

  • rabble-rouser

    #2-totally agree w/Joe College. It’s unbelievable the idea that our Prez, his cabinet, Congress, etc… believe they are above the law and answer to no one. YES YOU DO. You answer to US “the people”. You took an oath to serve US, and the moment you forgot about US, you lost all credibility with US. Back your bags its time to clean house.

  • big L

    I am with #5.
    Too much time with HUMA, Hillary. We are supposed to have AMERICAN values, not hybrid
    switch-hitting,bi-directional views between Saudi views and Lib views.

    K-dafyu will reamin in power. these “rebels” his people,imo and are a manufactured opposition.
    thereason is that K-Daffy does not want a real insurgency and wantsto draw out any of his opponents and kill them. These tribal folks love to fight and kill. If they die so what, off to nirvana.
    That is why, you idiot-Hillary, your are wrong. Even if K-daffy is killed by NATO, his family is there
    and will be a ruling junta.

  • bg


    “Whose Side Are You On?”

    typical, as that is a question Hillary & her ilk need to answer..

    as for me, i’m not only for deposing Qaddafi, but his protege Obama..

    follow. the. money.

    also scroll up/down, follow the links & connecting
    links as you go for more info (pardon repeats)..

    and/but, i still don’t see it happening.. i think this was their way of
    protecting him, imho it’s all an act that will not only end up bad for
    the Middle East Freedom lovers, but even moreso for US.. *sigh*


  • donb

    FTA: “But the bottom line is, whose side are you on?….For the Obama Administration, the answer to that question is very easy.”

    Very, very sadly so!
    In Libya, the side with the Al-Queda recruits.
    In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood side.
    In Syria, the murderous (reformist?) dictator’s side.
    In Lebanon, Hezbollah’s side.
    In Israel, Hamas’s side.
    In Iran, Ahmedinejad’s side.
    In Columbia, Chavez’s and FARC’s side.
    In Honduras, Chavez’s side.

    Here in the USA, as in the rest of the world, it is increasingly clear that “the Obama Administration” in on the side with the toughest goons and meanest thugs, and not on the side with the aspirations of ANY freedom-loving peoples.

  • burt

    I’m confused. Not long ago questioning the Administration was the definition of patriotism.

  • mg4us

    weel said Joe #2. . .

    no more Clintons, No more Bushes, No more Libtards. . .time to get a real Constituional-following and America-loving person in the WH in 2012. . . and also in House and Senate – November 2010 was a start. .

  • donb

    Hillary, yes, for the Obama Administration, the answer to that question is very easy:

    The wrong side of history!

  • SSBN 627(B)

    Gosh, I guess being under fire musta rattled her poor widdle brain.

    The real answer, Hill-DOG, is the side you’re not on, you ’60’s reject trailer-trash dopehead.

  • StrangernFiction

    I’m on the non-Mohammedan side.

  • Comanche Voter

    Hillary, whose backside looks like the Graf Zeppelin in an orange pantsuit, should never, ever, under any circumstances–make a reference to the “bottom line”.

    And how dare this bimbo question my patriotism? Wasn’t that sort of her all purpose mantra back in the days when she was chowdering against the Iraq War?

  • bg


    “Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who
    harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price.”

    Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
    During an interview on CBS Evening News with Dan Rather
    September 13, 2001

    “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that
    Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons
    stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also
    given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members…

    It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to
    increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep
    trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he
    could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as
    we know all too well, effects American security.

    This is a very difficult vote, this is probably the hardest decision I’ve ever
    had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast
    it with conviction.”

    Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
    Addressing the US Senate
    October 10, 2002

    video/s & more @ link..


  • bg
  • J

    The even more ironic part is that supposedly evil, illegal warmonger President Bush offered Senator Hillary Clinton the opportunity she now would deny her former Senate colleagues: the opportunity to vote on military action.

  • Valerie

    This is significant for what she did not say. She did not support BO’s procedural actions. Indeed, she started making the case the President should have made to Congress. So the message is, the rest of the government is working properly on this action item, whether or not the White House has co-ordinated properly with Congress.

    She is in effect saying that BO’s failure to comply with the War Powers Act is his own, unnecessary failure. She’s listening to the advice of somebody who’s good. Hillary in the past has been known to speak too bluntly.

  • bg


    Valerie #33

    make up my mind, are they Hillary’s words, or someone else’s?? 😀

    seriously though, i agree with your synopsis.. however, as blunt as
    Hillary can be, she doth have a habit of speaking self contradictions,
    an art dear leader also aces..