Hillary: I said I opposed pre-emptive war but then I voted for it

[welshTerrier2]

Let's take a look at a classic Clinton equivocation IN HER OWN WORDS ...

put the following two statements side by side and you'll quickly see the two-faced, speak-out-of-both-sides-of-her-mouth, Hillary Clinton.

The quotes shown below can be found in Clinton's speech explaining why she was voting for the IWR.

In her first quote, Clinton explained that she did NOT support the doctrine of pre-emption.

"My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption ..."

but then she closed her speech, frantically spinning a perfect 180 degrees, with this gem:

"And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed."

The second quote was from the last line of her speech. That's where most speakers punch home their final point.

So, Senator Having-It-Both-Ways said that her vote was to let Saddam know that if he didn't disarm, he would be disarmed. Well, what better definition of a pre-emptive war can there be? Right there, in her concluding sentence, after telling us her vote for this damned war was not a vote for pre-emption, she admits she voted to disarm Saddam if he didn't disarm. She didn't say she was voting for war because Saddam attacked the US. She said she was voting for war because Saddam had arms. And that, my friends, is the very meaning of "pre-emptive" war.

Apparently Senator Having-It-Both-Ways voted against pre-emptive war before she voted for it.

By the way, the above quotes do an excellent job highlighting the hypocrisy of Clinton's vote but they weren't what I considered that ultimate flaw in her tragic reasoning that resulted in her vote for the IWR. This one, there in all its naked splendor, highlights exactly why we should never trust her judgment:

"I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible."

She took bush at his word?????????????????

Was there a single DU'er who believed bush wasn't going to war? Even one? If you're out there, if you are the one person on DU who believed bush should have been, as Hillary said, taken "at his word", please rise and be counted. And all the sadly misguided Hillary supporters, what do you think of that statement? Rise and be counted. She said this was the hardest vote she ever had to cast but that she "cast it with conviction." Well, friends, she got that right; we should convict her not just for what she did but for WHY she did it. She trusted bush.

cartoon anyone? http://cartoonbox.slate.com/hottopic/?image=32&topicid=131

[BayCityProgressive]

1. Hey stop it!

She has a "D" after her name which means she is a goddess from heaven who shines like the early morning sun! This was just another chance for her to polish up her triangulating skills.

[Colobo]

4. LOL...

Just like Joementum used to have a D by his name...? Give'em Hell Zell? :)

[rodeodance]

2. oh for petey's sake!! She is not vote for a pre-emptive war!!

[welshTerrier2]

13. you say that but you offer no support for your statement

she, in her own words, said that her vote was to tell Saddam to disarm or he would BE DISARMED.

deal with it! that is the very definition of pre-emptive war.

pre-emptive war is calling for a war against someone who has not attacked you.

[Australian]

99. you say that but you offer no support for your statement

That is NOT the definition of pre-emptive war.

Why are you lying in your efforts to throw mud?

[welshTerrier2]

100. you say that but you offer no support for your statement

great. you said i was lying and provided no support for your argument. none.

DID YOU?

well, i guess i can't return the favor and say you're lying since you didn't actually say what pre-emptive war is.

so, instead, i'll refer you to Chapter VII of the UN Charter to which the US is a signatory nation. Chapter VII is entitled "ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION". In that Chapter's Article 51, the UN clearly defined exactly when war by one country against another is legally justified. As you'll see in the following definition, going to war for "BE DISARMED", Clinton's hawkish utterance, is a VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.

here is what the Charter's Article 51 says on the subject:

Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.

you see, the legal standard requires an "armed attack". The historical standard, of course, broadens the definition to include an "imminent threat". Was there evidence that Saddam was about to attack the US? Do you believe he was about to attack the US? The standard has never been and should never be "having arms". Authorizing an invasion, as Clinton did with her vote, in the absence of either an armed attack, the standard defined by the UN, or in the absence of an "imminent threat", is authorizing pre-emptive war.

And, btw, you didn't address an important point raised in the OP. Clinton said she took bush "AT HIS WORD". Did you ever take bush "AT HIS WORD"?

[Clarkie1]

60. It was a vote for war and everyone knew it, including her!

Enough of the lie!

SENATOR BYRD: ELOQUENTLY RESISTING THE RUSH TO WAR -- (Senate - October 10, 2002)

GPO's PDF
--- Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome this opportunity to commend our outstanding colleague, Senator ROBERT BYRD, for his thoughtful and eloquent op-ed article in The New York Times this morning. In his article, Senator BYRD rightfully condemns the failure of Congress to take adequate time to exercise our all-important constitutional responsibility in deciding WHETHER OR NOT AMERICA SHOULD GO TO WAR WITH IRAQ.

Instead of fairly assessing the full consequences of the administration's proposal, Congress is allowing itself to be rushed into a premature DECISION TO GO TO WAR. Many of us agree with Senator BYRD, and so do large numbers of Americans across the country.

We owe the Senate and the Nation a more thoughtful deliberation about war. Senator BYRD'S article is a powerful statement urging Congress not delegate our constitutional power to the President, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:



Congress Must Resist the Rush to War

(By Robert C. Byrd)
WASHINGTON.--A sudden appetite for war with Iraq seems to have consumed the Bush administration and Congress. The debate that began in the Senate last week is centered not on the fundamental and monumental questions of whether and why the United States should go to war with Iraq, but rather on the mechanics of how best to wordsmith the president's use-of-force resolution in order give him virtually unchecked authority to commit the nation's military to an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation.

How have we gotten to this low point in the history of Congress? Are we too feeble to resist the demands of a president who is determined to bend the collective will of Congress to his will--a president who is changing the conventional understanding of the term ``self-defense''? And why are we allowing the executive to rush our decision-making right before an election? Congress, under pressure from the executive branch, should not hand away its Constitutional powers. We should not hamstring future Congresses by casting such a shortsighted vote. We owe our country a due deliberation.

I have listened closely to the president, I have questioned the members of his war cabinet. I have searched for that single piece of evidence that would convince me that the president must have in his hands, before the month is out, open-ended Congressional authorization to deliver an unprovoked attack on Iraq. I remain unconvinced. The president's case for an unprovoked attack is circumstantial at best. Saddam Hussein is a threat, but the threat is not so great that we must be stampeded to provide such authority to this president just weeks before an election.

Why are we being hounded into action on a resolution that turns over to President Bush the Congress's Constitutional power to declare war? This resolution would authorize the president to use the military forces of this nation wherever, whenever and however he determines, and for as long as he determines, if he can somehow make a connection to Iraq. It is a blank check for the president to take whatever action he feels ``is necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posted by Iraq.'' This broad resolution underwrites, promotes and endorses the unprecedented Bush doctrine of preventive war and pre-emptive strikes--detailed in a recent publication, ``National Security Strategy of the United Staets''--against any nation that the president, and the president alone, determines to be a threat.

We are at the gravest of moments. Members of Congress must not simply walk away from their Constitutional responsibilities. We are the directly elected representatives of the American people, and the American people expect us to carry out our duty, not simply hand it off to this or any other president. To do so would be to fail the people we represent and to fall woefully short of our sworn oath to support and defend the Constitution.

We may not always be able to avoid war, particularly if it is thrust upon us, but Congress must not attempt to give away the authority to determine when war is to be declared. We must not allow any president to unleash the dogs of war at his own discretion and for an unlimited period of time.

Yet that is what we are being asked to do. The judgment of history will not be kind to us if we take this step.

Members of Congress should take time out and go home to listen to their constituents. We must not yield to this absurd pressure to act now, 27 days before an election that will determine the entire membership of the House of Representatives and that of a third of the Senate. Congress should take the time to hear form the American people, to answer their remaining questions and to put the frenzy of ballot-box politics behind us before we vote. We should hear them well, because while it is Congress that casts the vote, it is the American people who will pay for a war with the lives of their sons and daughters.


http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r107:2:./temp/~r1 ... ::

[LibDemAlways]

3. If this was indeed the hardest vote she ever had to cast,

she probably consulted her husband. He knew damn well what the neocons were up to. He got a letter signed by the likes of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Perle back in January of 1998 on PNAC letterhead laying out the neocon arguments for going to war with Iraq.

He either turned them down or ignored them. How the hell did she fall into the trap?

[BayCityProgressive]

9. well it must have been hard

she took every position in the country in that speech. I think the dear senator may need medication for multiple personalities.

[Smarmie Doofus]

74. She made an educated guess that the war....

>>>>He either turned them down or ignored them. How the hell did she fall into the trap?>>>>

would likely turn out better for Bush than it did. Spawning an orgy of flag-waving, jingoism and McCarthy-ite witch-hunts for lilly livered liberals who voted no.

She guessed wrong, but now seems to be trying to obscure the issue entirely.

[LibDemAlways]

92. I know she made a guess, but I don't think it was

terribly educated. She should have listened more closely to what those who voted "no" were saying. Putting her trust in a bunch of neocon warmongers she had to know were neocon warmongers was a very foolish move. She doesn't seem to be able to admit she was flat out wrong. After the nightmare which is Bush, I'd like to see someone in the WH who takes responsibility for - rather than trying to explain away - his or her mistakes.

[SaveElmer]

5. Paul Wellstone in favor of preemptive war? By your standards yes

"Saddam must give arms inspectors unfettered access. And, if he does not comply with this new U.N. resolution there will be consequences, including the use of appropriate military force.” -Paul Wellstone

October 7, 2002

[welshTerrier2]

15. consequences are not necessarily war

you seem to keep pointing out the conduct of everyone except Hillary. this is not a valid excuse for the hypocrisy inherent in her speech.

you make it about "my standards" but you do not refute exactly what Hillary said. I'm using HER WORDS.

HER WORDS called for Saddam to "BE DISARMED" if he didn't disarm voluntarily. That is calling for pre-emptive war!

Wellstone isn't running for President; Clinton is. Your efforts at distraction from what she actually said have failed.

BTW, did Wellstone ever say that he took bush "AT HIS WORD"? did you take bush "AT HIS WORD"?

[SaveElmer]

18. Nice try...

Wellstone was open to disarming Saddam militarily...that is a fact...

[welshTerrier2]

21. but Elmer, this thread is about Hillary

talk about nice tries ...

how about you answer the question? pretty please? pretty pretty please? pretty pretty pretty please?

the question, Elmer, is whether you took bush "AT HIS WORD" the way Hillary SAID SHE DID?

did ya? huh? did ya?

[SaveElmer]

24. By pointing out hypocrisy in your argument...

I am answering....

You are willfully misinterpreting her comments...very transparent

[welshTerrier2]

40. you are answering? really?

here's the question again. please point to your RESPONSIVE answer.

when Hillary said she took bush AT HIS WORD, did you agree with her that bush should have been taken AT HIS WORD?

or would you prefer to just make another non-responsive ad hominem attack on me?

someone is transparent. you got that part right.

so, Elmer, did you take bush AT HIS WORD? your unwillingness to respond to that very direct question (and very fair question) tells us a lot about your mission here on DU.

[SaveElmer]

87. Changing the topic...

Since you cannot refute that Paul Wellstone would also have been willing to take military action against Iraq....

However, in 2002 I did not have the same level of distruct in Bush that I have now...yes...

We were only 18 months into his pResidency, Afghanistan at that time had gone smoothly, Iraq, by all accounts was ramping up its WMD capability, had not allowed inspectors in in 4 years...

So I am not saying I would have voted for it necessarily, and I would certainly have voted for amendments to strengthen its power in terms of defining the objective....but I may have...

Your mission here at DU is also very clear...to use any method possible to disparage Hillary Clinton and other centrists...very transparent


btw here is another DU'er who seemed to think the IWR wasn't all that bad of an idea!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=605385#605633

[Tellurian]

89. Well, the other option is a purely selfish one..

attention... Hillary's vote has been dissected and explained to death.
There isn't a human being alive that doesn't understand her intention..

If they don't, it's deliberate and they are using it to circulate propaganda. No surprise here from this OP.

[SaveElmer]

90. Well like the Freeps...

They have nothing positive to say about their own candidates...so they feel like they have to disparage others...


They are simply doing what Republicans have become adept at doing...going so far overboard in their criticism of Hillary, that they begin to generate sympathy for her...

[Tellurian]

91. I guess for some that may be true..

as for myself, I look at the source and apply a healthy dose of logic.
Which I'm sure is true of the many reading here especially when you compare
the number of posts to the page perviews...

[ShortnFiery]

16. Wellstone would NOT have voted for the IRW, so the point is moot. n/t

[SaveElmer]

20. Hardly...

The argument is that by saying "disarm or be disarmed" Hillary was advocating for preemptive war...

Paul Wellstone said the same thing...granted he wouldn't have authorized it through the IWR, but he was open to the concept under a different authority...

The fact is...Hillary was not supporting preemptive war despite the hysterical attempts to make it look like she was...

[ShortnFiery]

22. B.S. every liberal with an IQ above 100 knew that voting for the IRW

was a "green light" for our Idiot King to launch and invasion of Iraq.

WE ALL KNEW IT! Why was Hillary so ignorant, or was it willful ignorance? :shrug:

[SaveElmer]

25. Horseshit...

Dishonest hindsight at its worst!

[ShortnFiery]

28. That's not dishonest.

Why do you think Cheney was going to Foggy Bottom every damn day on the run up to the invasion?

It gets back to Senator Clinton trusting The Unitary Executive.

Hell, even us average, non-intellectual type liberals (90+ and above) could judge by Bush's disgusting demeanor and KNEW IN OUR HEARTS, MINDS AND SOUL, that he was itching to start his invasion. It was so DAMN CLEAR! :shrug:

[SaveElmer]

31. You are ignoring the situation...

In October 2002 and conflating it with the runup to war in early 2003...

[ShortnFiery]

43. That's the point, peace loving people wised up.

And be advised, Our Unitary Executive will have Iran Bombed if CONGRESS does not stop him.

Bank on it! Bush will have us BOMB IRAN. :(

[SOS]

75. Excellent point

We see what's happening.
Blaming Iran for IEDs, which even Gates can't back up.
Patriot missles being shipped to the US friendly dictatorships in the Gulf.
Aircraft carriers being positioned off the coast of Iran.

Why hasn't one of the Senators, who was "misled" about Iraq, introduced a law forbidding an attack on Iran without Congressional approval?
What will be their excuse next time?
They were too busy to read Michael "Aluminum Tubes" Gordon's disinformation on the front page of the Times?

[SaveElmer]

84. I think he'd love to...

But I don't think it will happen...too much opposition...both from the public, and from the military

[suziedemocrat]

81. Not true - I remember that time and HATING the idea fo going to war in Iraq.

She made a huge political misjudgment - let's call it what it was.

[ngant17]

38. perception is all that matters to the public

and, rightly or wrongly, it is clear to me that I perceived dear Ms. War-Hawk of New York to speaking and acting accordingly.

It's unfair to bring Wellstone into the argument, he died before this mess really got underway and besides that, I never felt that Wellstone was going to be a war-hawk, it's clearly not in his track record to ally himself with the reactionary right on the Iraq/Sadaam Hussein issue.

[Pithy Cherub]

30. Hold it... wait for it... buh dum dum Wellstone still voted NO.

Wellstone wanted a weapons inspection but the IWR was not defined in scope in effect a blank check and Hillary gave it with her signature included on it to a known liar. Now she is unable to get her lips in a moveable formation to admit she was a co-signer on the check, but the Bank trust of Voters knows she co-signed. Co-sponsorship is another level of endorsement and she did not partake in that, but she is responsible for her actions - its got to be galling when the one term senator from North carolina was at the least smart enough to say whoops a year ago and here's Hillary wearing her scarlet IWR debacle today with her latest pantsuit. Hillary is a nice lady, but she horrifically and publicly blew it. Now, she is approaching that bright red line of no return that if she admits it it will forever be in the news. Bad politics - who is advising her again...

When the senate historian questions its speed and constitutionality people should have paid attention. When a four star general says nope don't do it this is a bad PNAC idea don't do it (Wellstone, Boxer - Hillary's brother was married to her daughter and Kennedy credit Clark with their NO's) and the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee says NO, when the judicial conscience of the senate says NO that did not register with the sheepish Aye voters that day in 2002.

[SaveElmer]

32. Irrelevent

The OP contends by saying Saddam should "disarm or be disarmed" that Hillary was advocating preemptive war. Paul Wellstone made the same point. He simply wanted a different mechanism for initiating military action...

The OP is engaging in a dishonest and selective interpretation of Hillary's comments.

[Pithy Cherub]

36. Its the outcome ...

It matters and Hillary put her poltical career in George Bush's hands with that vote for whatever reason.

[suziedemocrat]

82. "different mechanism" = no blank check for Bush (sounds good to me.)

[SaveElmer]

86. Wouldn't matter to the Iraqis...

Who'd still be getting bombed...

[SOS]

35. Wellstone voted No

nt

[SaveElmer]

37. Irrelevent...

Again, the OP is arguing that Hillary's statement "disarm or be disarmed" is a call for preemptive war...

Paul Wellstone made the same point. He simply would have chosen a different method for initiating military action...

The OP is selectively and dishonestly misinterpreting Hillary's statement...

[SOS]

49. Wellstone voted NO Hillary voted YES

And that's irrelevant?
If the votes of our Senators are "irrelevant" why even have a Congress in the first place?

[SaveElmer]

85. Well if you are not going t o stick to the topic...

I will move on...

[SOS]

93. You brought up Senator Wellstone

on a thread about Hillary's Iraq War vote. So I'll stick to your topic.

Wellstone was very clear that he would only back military force if sanctioned by the United Nations, after inspections, with a coalition, consistent with international law.

Wellstone states opposition to Iraq war:

U.S. Sen. Paul Wellstone, DFL-Minn., spoke out on the floor of the U.S. Senate Thursday against unilateral U.S. action against Iraq. Wellstone says he will vote "no" on the use-of-force resolution the White House is requesting. Republican leaders say it's a dangerous vote for Wellstone, who's in a tough re-election race with Republican Norm Coleman. Coleman supports the White House.

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/200210/03_zdechlikm_wellstoneiraq/

Equating Wellstone's position on Iraq with Hillary's vote on the IWR is simply inaccurate.
The only thing that matters is the vote.

[SaveElmer]

97. The topic was not support of the IWR...

The topic was whether the dishonest use of Hillary's quote "disarm or be disarmed" constituted a support for preemptive war...it does not...

If you contend it does, then so does Wellstone's statement

Makes little difference through what body or by what mechanism it occurs, especially to those being bombed...Paul Wellstone was open to "preemptive" military action against Iraq if they did not disarm...that is a fact

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[enough already]

42. Last I checked, Wellstone was still dead

He won't be running for President. Back to the drawing board...

[Clarkie1]

62. There you go again.....changing the topic.

Paul Wellstone would have never voted for war and you know it.

Your responses to credible attacks on Hillary Clinton's integrity and truthfulness are pathetic and less than weak.

[SaveElmer]

88. Irrelevnt to the topic...

Not unusual for you however!

[The Ghost]

6. uuughhhhhhhh

what is so hard about this??

she voted for weapons inspectors, as promised, by Bush, thats it. and if the weapons inspectors found weapons, then we attack, cause that would have meant Saddam lied. if they found nothing, then no attack.

but Bush didn't give them the time they needed to show there were no weapons. so Bush did mis-use the authority.

sure Clinton should have been able to read the tea-leaves better, that Bush was gonna attack no matter what, but a lot of people did not read them, in fact, MOST people did not read them.

[Colobo]

8. Obama did

And that should count for something...

[The Ghost]

10. agreed

exact reason why Clark and Obama are my top candidates, for having the intelligence, not 'experience', to see that this war was pointless and avoidable.

anyone know where Richardson stood on Iraq before the invasion?

[suziedemocrat]

83. Yes - I want to know where Richardson stood on this subject at the time.

[SOS]

47. There was no requirement for any inspections in the IWR

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the
President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

What efforts were those?
There was NO legally binding requirement for any inspectors.

[Clarkie1]

59. It was a vote for war and she knew it!

Enough of the "reading the tea leaves" crap...everyone knew it was a vote for war!

SENATOR BYRD: ELOQUENTLY RESISTING THE RUSH TO WAR -- (Senate - October 10, 2002)

GPO's PDF
--- Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome this opportunity to commend our outstanding colleague, Senator ROBERT BYRD, for his thoughtful and eloquent op-ed article in The New York Times this morning. In his article, Senator BYRD rightfully condemns the failure of Congress to take adequate time to exercise our all-important constitutional responsibility in deciding WHETHER OR NOT AMERICA SHOULD GO TO WAR WITH IRAQ.

Instead of fairly assessing the full consequences of the administration's proposal, Congress is allowing itself to be rushed into a premature DECISION TO GO TO WAR. Many of us agree with Senator BYRD, and so do large numbers of Americans across the country.

We owe the Senate and the Nation a more thoughtful deliberation about war. Senator BYRD'S article is a powerful statement urging Congress not delegate our constitutional power to the President, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:



Congress Must Resist the Rush to War

(By Robert C. Byrd)
WASHINGTON.--A sudden appetite for war with Iraq seems to have consumed the Bush administration and Congress. The debate that began in the Senate last week is centered not on the fundamental and monumental questions of whether and why the United States should go to war with Iraq, but rather on the mechanics of how best to wordsmith the president's use-of-force resolution in order give him virtually unchecked authority to commit the nation's military to an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation.

How have we gotten to this low point in the history of Congress? Are we too feeble to resist the demands of a president who is determined to bend the collective will of Congress to his will--a president who is changing the conventional understanding of the term ``self-defense''? And why are we allowing the executive to rush our decision-making right before an election? Congress, under pressure from the executive branch, should not hand away its Constitutional powers. We should not hamstring future Congresses by casting such a shortsighted vote. We owe our country a due deliberation.

I have listened closely to the president, I have questioned the members of his war cabinet. I have searched for that single piece of evidence that would convince me that the president must have in his hands, before the month is out, open-ended Congressional authorization to deliver an unprovoked attack on Iraq. I remain unconvinced. The president's case for an unprovoked attack is circumstantial at best. Saddam Hussein is a threat, but the threat is not so great that we must be stampeded to provide such authority to this president just weeks before an election.

Why are we being hounded into action on a resolution that turns over to President Bush the Congress's Constitutional power to declare war? This resolution would authorize the president to use the military forces of this nation wherever, whenever and however he determines, and for as long as he determines, if he can somehow make a connection to Iraq. It is a blank check for the president to take whatever action he feels ``is necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posted by Iraq.'' This broad resolution underwrites, promotes and endorses the unprecedented Bush doctrine of preventive war and pre-emptive strikes--detailed in a recent publication, ``National Security Strategy of the United Staets''--against any nation that the president, and the president alone, determines to be a threat.

We are at the gravest of moments. Members of Congress must not simply walk away from their Constitutional responsibilities. We are the directly elected representatives of the American people, and the American people expect us to carry out our duty, not simply hand it off to this or any other president. To do so would be to fail the people we represent and to fall woefully short of our sworn oath to support and defend the Constitution.

We may not always be able to avoid war, particularly if it is thrust upon us, but Congress must not attempt to give away the authority to determine when war is to be declared. We must not allow any president to unleash the dogs of war at his own discretion and for an unlimited period of time.

Yet that is what we are being asked to do. The judgment of history will not be kind to us if we take this step.

Members of Congress should take time out and go home to listen to their constituents. We must not yield to this absurd pressure to act now, 27 days before an election that will determine the entire membership of the House of Representatives and that of a third of the Senate. Congress should take the time to hear form the American people, to answer their remaining questions and to put the frenzy of ballot-box politics behind us before we vote. We should hear them well, because while it is Congress that casts the vote, it is the American people who will pay for a war with the lives of their sons and daughters.


http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r107:2:./temp/~r1 ... ::

[oasis]

7. "seek to avoid war, if at all possible". No further translation needed. Thanks.(eom)

[IndianaGreen]

11. Is that why Hillary is such a hawk on Iran, to "avoid war"?

You should read her recent speech to AIPAC, Hillary sounds like one of Israel's righwingers and Joe Lieberman when it comes to Iran. We have been down this path before, and it invariably leads to war.

[BayCityProgressive]

12. hey

peace is "hard work". Iran is EVIL EVIL EVIL. Where have we heard this before?

[oasis]

14. I think you read too much into her AIPAC address. Others have an entirely

different take on the same speech.

[IndianaGreen]

48. Senator Clinton won't rule out use of force to stop 'pro-terrorist' Iran

I am sure that Bibi Netanyahu just loves her AIPAC remarks!

Senator Clinton won't rule out use of force to stop 'pro-terrorist' Iran

John Byrne
Published: Saturday February 3, 2007

Clinton told some 1,700 AIPAC supporters that the US must take any step to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

"U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," she said. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table."

"To deny the Holocaust places Iran's leadership in company with the most despicable bigots and historical revisionists," she added. Clinton excoriated the Iranian administration's "pro-terrorist, anti-American, anti-Israeli rhetoric."

<snip>

According to New Yorker investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, a classified draft CIA assessment has found no firm evidence of a secret drive by Iran to develop nuclear weapons, as alleged by the White House.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Senator_Clinton_wont_run_out_war_0203.html

[welshTerrier2]

19. take bush "AT HIS WORD" - no translation needed

did you, Oasis, take bush "AT HIS WORD"?

and "seek to avoid war" is nothing more than Clinton trying to have it both ways. You say no further translation needed. Really???

It needs plenty of translation when, in the exact same speech, she said that her vote meant that Saddam had to disarm or BE DISARMED!

that doesn't need any translation either. it couldn't be clearer. BE DISARMED clearly means WAR. PRE-EMPTIVE WAR.

could that be any clearer?

[oasis]

27. Did Hillary hypnotize Bush into kicking Hans Blix and the inspectors out?

I'm taking "Hillary's word". She didn't want war nor did Kerry or Edwards.

Welsh Terrier I commend you on your anti-war energy and activism but, it is crystal clear to me that this is entirely Bush's war.

[IndianaGreen]

41. Did Hillary raise the alarm when Bush kicked the UN inspectors out? No!

Did she listen to the thousands of calls, e-mails, and letters she got from her constituents against the war? No!

Hillary thought she was smarter than us on the war. Now she thinks she is still smarter than us and that we will forget her own failures. Wrong on both counts!

[oasis]

57. "Alarm" or no,there was no stopping "The Deceider". You know that. (nt)

[welshTerrier2]

64. "we might as well vote with bush because he'll do it anyway"

i couldn't agree more with your argument that bush was planning to go to war and MIGHT even have ignored the vote in the Senate.

however, i fail to see how that translates into a justification for giving him what he wanted. first of all, as we discussed elsewhere in this thread, the IWR never should have come to the Senate floor.

but, once it did, it was a hideous blunder to go along with it.

how was it possible for anyone to have "trusted bush"? why would anyone, as you so astutely pointed out, fail to realize there was no stopping him? why would anyone have authorized bush to use the military as HE determined to be necessary?

yes, all of those who voted for the IWR are responsible for the catastrophe it caused. but those running for high office should be held most accountable. we should not ignore the devastation their failure has caused and we should not support their candidacies.

[oasis]

67. There was no stopping him AFTER their IWR vote. Kerry cautioned Bush

to use force only as a last resort.

[SOS]

78. Hillary said Bush was obsessed with Iraq since 2001.

From today's NYT on Hillary's visit to NH:

""Mrs. Clinton used tough language to blame President Bush and his advisers for Iraq, asserting that they came into power in 2001 with an “obsession“ to oust Saddam Hussein and resolve the “unfinished business” of the first Persian Gulf war.

“From almost the first day they got into office,” Mrs. Clinton said, “they were trying to figure out how to get rid of Saddam Hussein. I’m not a psychiatrist; I don’t know all of the reasons behind their concern, some might say their obsession.”"

At Bush's first cabinet meeting in January 2001 he asked how he could go to war with Iraq. Apparently Hillary was aware of Bush's obsession with war in Iraq, since she pointed that out this weekend.

An "obsessed" man, who was gunning for war nine months before 9/11, was going to use his authorization for the use of military force to avoid war?
Seem pretty far fetched.

[oasis]

98. I doubt if Hillary was aware of PNAC's clout before the invasion of Iraq. Since then,

she's had a chance to research PNAC's influence on Bush and examine his real motives for going to war.

[welshTerrier2]

52. i appreciate your tone but your argument is not "crystal clear"

you said you're taking "Hillary's word" that she didn't "want war". let's be clear; i have NOT said that she "wanted war". nor have i used any language to suggest that this isn't "bush's war".

i have no interest in disputing either one of those allegations. that, however, was not the point of this thread.

regardless of what Clinton "wanted", this thread is looking at her OWN WORDS and her actions.

She couldn't have been more clear when she said her vote for the IWR was NOT a vote for the doctrine of pre-emptive war. Fair enough? that's what she said.

But, look at what else she said. She said Saddam had to disarm or BE DISARMED. She did say that right? I'm not twisting her meaning when she used those words, am I? isn't that a fair statement about the final line of her IWR speech? it's not "out of context". She clearly was saying that her vote for the IWR was to give Saddam a choice: either disarm or BE DISARMED. it's hard to see how BE DISARMED can mean anything other than PRE-EMPTIVE war. Isn't it?

would you argue otherwise? i appreciate the tone of your post and i'm more than open to discussing this issue. Maybe Clinton wasn't even aware that, though she saw herself as opposed to pre-emption, her actions, based on her exact words, resulted in her doing the exact opposite. She voted for pre-emptive war when she said Saddam would BE DISARMED. Saddam had not attacked the US.

so, whether you support Hillary or not, what is your view of this. Is voting for the IWR BECAUSE SADDAM HAD TO DISARM OR BE DISARMED a vote for pre-emptive war? i'm listening but it's hard to see how it wasn't.

and again, what is your judgment about anyone taking bush "at his word"? The Democrats controlled the Senate when that IWR vote was brought up. It never should have reached the Senate floor. When it did, the last thing Democrats should have done was "trust bush". How could they have? I don't mean to be snide about this but did you trust him? I'm willing to bet you did NOT. No one on DU trusted bush. But Hillary said she took bush "AT HIS WORD".

To me, that was unconscionable. bush and cheney, the ultimate petro-imperialists chomping at the bit to go to war, and Hillary believed them? and now we're expected to trust her? how is that possible?

do you know what that resolution said? you probably do. here is what the resolution authorized:

AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate ...

as HE determines to be necessary and appropriate ... Hillary took bush "AT HIS WORD" and authorized him to do what HE determines to be necessary and appropriate. is it just Hillary who voted for this garbage. No, but she's running for president and it's her time to be held accountable for her hideous mistake. She trusted bush at the most critical moment and she failed her country.

[oasis]

61. Was I disappointed with the senate? yes.

Do I understand what the senate was up against (Bush popularity, 9/11 sentiment, inconclusive evidence,N.Y. Times, Colin Powell's deception)? yes. Sen. Bob Graham (Intelligence Comm.) knew the score and voted against IWR. He was duty bound not to share the findings of the committee. Others were not provided with the same intelligence which may have swayed their votes.

Dem senators were bamboozled.Plain and simple.

[Clarkie1]

63. That's what she said...it's part of her lies.

She knew it was a vote for war; everyone did.

SENATOR BYRD: ELOQUENTLY RESISTING THE RUSH TO WAR -- (Senate - October 10, 2002)

GPO's PDF
--- Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome this opportunity to commend our outstanding colleague, Senator ROBERT BYRD, for his thoughtful and eloquent op-ed article in The New York Times this morning. In his article, Senator BYRD rightfully condemns the failure of Congress to take adequate time to exercise our all-important constitutional responsibility in deciding WHETHER OR NOT AMERICA SHOULD GO TO WAR WITH IRAQ.

Instead of fairly assessing the full consequences of the administration's proposal, Congress is allowing itself to be rushed into a premature DECISION TO GO TO WAR. Many of us agree with Senator BYRD, and so do large numbers of Americans across the country.

We owe the Senate and the Nation a more thoughtful deliberation about war. Senator BYRD'S article is a powerful statement urging Congress not delegate our constitutional power to the President, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:



Congress Must Resist the Rush to War

(By Robert C. Byrd)
WASHINGTON.--A sudden appetite for war with Iraq seems to have consumed the Bush administration and Congress. The debate that began in the Senate last week is centered not on the fundamental and monumental questions of whether and why the United States should go to war with Iraq, but rather on the mechanics of how best to wordsmith the president's use-of-force resolution in order give him virtually unchecked authority to commit the nation's military to an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation.

How have we gotten to this low point in the history of Congress? Are we too feeble to resist the demands of a president who is determined to bend the collective will of Congress to his will--a president who is changing the conventional understanding of the term ``self-defense''? And why are we allowing the executive to rush our decision-making right before an election? Congress, under pressure from the executive branch, should not hand away its Constitutional powers. We should not hamstring future Congresses by casting such a shortsighted vote. We owe our country a due deliberation.

I have listened closely to the president, I have questioned the members of his war cabinet. I have searched for that single piece of evidence that would convince me that the president must have in his hands, before the month is out, open-ended Congressional authorization to deliver an unprovoked attack on Iraq. I remain unconvinced. The president's case for an unprovoked attack is circumstantial at best. Saddam Hussein is a threat, but the threat is not so great that we must be stampeded to provide such authority to this president just weeks before an election.

Why are we being hounded into action on a resolution that turns over to President Bush the Congress's Constitutional power to declare war? This resolution would authorize the president to use the military forces of this nation wherever, whenever and however he determines, and for as long as he determines, if he can somehow make a connection to Iraq. It is a blank check for the president to take whatever action he feels ``is necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posted by Iraq.'' This broad resolution underwrites, promotes and endorses the unprecedented Bush doctrine of preventive war and pre-emptive strikes--detailed in a recent publication, ``National Security Strategy of the United Staets''--against any nation that the president, and the president alone, determines to be a threat.

We are at the gravest of moments. Members of Congress must not simply walk away from their Constitutional responsibilities. We are the directly elected representatives of the American people, and the American people expect us to carry out our duty, not simply hand it off to this or any other president. To do so would be to fail the people we represent and to fall woefully short of our sworn oath to support and defend the Constitution.

We may not always be able to avoid war, particularly if it is thrust upon us, but Congress must not attempt to give away the authority to determine when war is to be declared. We must not allow any president to unleash the dogs of war at his own discretion and for an unlimited period of time.

Yet that is what we are being asked to do. The judgment of history will not be kind to us if we take this step.

Members of Congress should take time out and go home to listen to their constituents. We must not yield to this absurd pressure to act now, 27 days before an election that will determine the entire membership of the House of Representatives and that of a third of the Senate. Congress should take the time to hear form the American people, to answer their remaining questions and to put the frenzy of ballot-box politics behind us before we vote. We should hear them well, because while it is Congress that casts the vote, it is the American people who will pay for a war with the lives of their sons and daughters.


http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r107:2:./temp/~r1 ... ::

[mtnsnake]

17. Yeah, that's almost as bad as what Kerry and Edwards did

In 2004, Kerry said he would have still voted for the congressional resolution authorizing force against Iraq even if he had known then no weapons of mass destruction would be found.

Edwards not only voted for it, but he co-sponsored the damn thing with Lieberman!

And then the two of them insult everyone's intelligence by apologizing more than two years too late....after the polls indicated they would be safe to do so, politically.

[IndianaGreen]

26. But Kerry has more than redeemed himself. Did Hillary vote for Kerry/Feingold? No!

Did Hillary express any kind of support for John Murtha when he came out against the war and called for troop withdrawals? No! Not only Hillary did not give any support to Murtha, but she publicly excoriated him by saying that Murtha did not speak for Democrats.

Hillary did not begin to shift her stance on Iraq until after the 2006 elections, when polls showed that 60-percent of the public wanted out of Iraq.

[mtnsnake]

33. Maybe he has to you.

He or any of them who voted for it haven't redeemed themselves and never will be able to, even with any politcally late self-serving apologies.

Hillary did not begin to shift her stance on Iraq until after the 2006 elections, when polls showed that 60-percent of the public wanted out of Iraq.

Thank you, I'm glad you brought that up. That's about the same time most of these IWR apologists decided to apologize....when the polls told them it was politically safe to do so, just as what's backed up by your post.

[hijinx87]

54. redemption is a pretty subjective thing. n/t

[Evergreen Emerald]

23. nuance is lost on many

Come on people you are all adults with the ability to think. This is a complicated issue, more so for her, because she saw first hand what happened to a president who was not supported. So, she gave her support to the presidency thinking that if the US was united, Saddam would be more likely to follow the rules.

She was right, it worked. (although we were not told it worked, and Bush took us to war anyway). What she and others did not count on was that Bush would abuse that vote for his own agenda.

I think for people to continue to say she voted for the war, either have an agenda that they want to pursue, and refuse to believe her because it is not in their best interest, or do not get it.

[oasis]

29. "...bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely,

and therefore, war less likely".Yes, that's what Hillary said.:headbang:

[ShortnFiery]

46. I find it hard to believe that any knowledgeable person truly believed that Bush gave a DAMN

about the United Nations, he was going to get his war on, and The Senate gave him permission. :grr:

[oasis]

55. The Libby trial will uncover the many Bush lies and deceptions that took

America to war. The senate will be exonerated.

[ShortnFiery]

72. No, The Senate has to share responsibility as a Co-Equal Branch of Government. n.t

[SOS]

58. She must have been completely unfamiliar

with the positions of France, Russia, Germany, China and nearly every other country on the UNSC in 2002.

[SaveElmer]

34. Very well put...

Concise and accurate....a quality I sometimes lack!

on edit: The concise part of course...I am always accurate ;-)

[Clarkie1]

65. You are 100% wrong! This was no time for "nuance"; it was a time for principle!

What you call "nuance" is nothing but slick politicians like Hillary and Edwards trying to cover there own weak, pathetic political asses!

SENATOR BYRD: ELOQUENTLY RESISTING THE RUSH TO WAR -- (Senate - October 10, 2002)

GPO's PDF
--- Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome this opportunity to commend our outstanding colleague, Senator ROBERT BYRD, for his thoughtful and eloquent op-ed article in The New York Times this morning. In his article, Senator BYRD rightfully condemns the failure of Congress to take adequate time to exercise our all-important constitutional responsibility in deciding WHETHER OR NOT AMERICA SHOULD GO TO WAR WITH IRAQ.

Instead of fairly assessing the full consequences of the administration's proposal, Congress is allowing itself to be rushed into a premature DECISION TO GO TO WAR. Many of us agree with Senator BYRD, and so do large numbers of Americans across the country.

We owe the Senate and the Nation a more thoughtful deliberation about war. Senator BYRD'S article is a powerful statement urging Congress not delegate our constitutional power to the President, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:



Congress Must Resist the Rush to War

(By Robert C. Byrd)
WASHINGTON.--A sudden appetite for war with Iraq seems to have consumed the Bush administration and Congress. The debate that began in the Senate last week is centered not on the fundamental and monumental questions of whether and why the United States should go to war with Iraq, but rather on the mechanics of how best to wordsmith the president's use-of-force resolution in order give him virtually unchecked authority to commit the nation's military to an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation.

How have we gotten to this low point in the history of Congress? Are we too feeble to resist the demands of a president who is determined to bend the collective will of Congress to his will--a president who is changing the conventional understanding of the term ``self-defense''? And why are we allowing the executive to rush our decision-making right before an election? Congress, under pressure from the executive branch, should not hand away its Constitutional powers. We should not hamstring future Congresses by casting such a shortsighted vote. We owe our country a due deliberation.

I have listened closely to the president, I have questioned the members of his war cabinet. I have searched for that single piece of evidence that would convince me that the president must have in his hands, before the month is out, open-ended Congressional authorization to deliver an unprovoked attack on Iraq. I remain unconvinced. The president's case for an unprovoked attack is circumstantial at best. Saddam Hussein is a threat, but the threat is not so great that we must be stampeded to provide such authority to this president just weeks before an election.

Why are we being hounded into action on a resolution that turns over to President Bush the Congress's Constitutional power to declare war? This resolution would authorize the president to use the military forces of this nation wherever, whenever and however he determines, and for as long as he determines, if he can somehow make a connection to Iraq. It is a blank check for the president to take whatever action he feels ``is necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posted by Iraq.'' This broad resolution underwrites, promotes and endorses the unprecedented Bush doctrine of preventive war and pre-emptive strikes--detailed in a recent publication, ``National Security Strategy of the United Staets''--against any nation that the president, and the president alone, determines to be a threat.

We are at the gravest of moments. Members of Congress must not simply walk away from their Constitutional responsibilities. We are the directly elected representatives of the American people, and the American people expect us to carry out our duty, not simply hand it off to this or any other president. To do so would be to fail the people we represent and to fall woefully short of our sworn oath to support and defend the Constitution.

We may not always be able to avoid war, particularly if it is thrust upon us, but Congress must not attempt to give away the authority to determine when war is to be declared. We must not allow any president to unleash the dogs of war at his own discretion and for an unlimited period of time.

Yet that is what we are being asked to do. The judgment of history will not be kind to us if we take this step.

Members of Congress should take time out and go home to listen to their constituents. We must not yield to this absurd pressure to act now, 27 days before an election that will determine the entire membership of the House of Representatives and that of a third of the Senate. Congress should take the time to hear form the American people, to answer their remaining questions and to put the frenzy of ballot-box politics behind us before we vote. We should hear them well, because while it is Congress that casts the vote, it is the American people who will pay for a war with the lives of their sons and daughters.


http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r107:2:./temp/~r1 ... ::

[Evergreen Emerald]

66. Look Clarkie1

Bush sucks. We can all agree. Bush lied us into war. He lied to us, to Congress, to the world. Should we have known better? Damn right. Bush should not be in office doing what he did to this country.

Clinton stated that she did not vote for war. I believe her. Her vote was not for war. Neither was Kerry's. Was it a mistake? After knowing everything we now know, it was a mistake. But the mistake was trusting Bush to do the right thing.

It was a bluff that Clinton wanted Bush to be able to make. That is what bush told them, that is what she believed. And she was right--to an extent. The bluff worked. Saddam folded. Clinton was right. It worked, except for the criminals in office.

I get that you wished she had taken Byrd's stance or Kennedy's stance. I get that. And she may well have agreed with them, that there was not enough information to go to war. She did not think they were going to war. She did not vote for war. We do not know what assurances she received behind closed doors. She thought it was a united front.

I am not wrong. I am not pathetic. I get it.

[Clarkie1]

68. Clinton stated that she did not vote for war. I do not believe her.

I believe Byrd, and I believe Kennedy. They knew it was a vote for war and so did Hillary.

SENATOR BYRD: ELOQUENTLY RESISTING THE RUSH TO WAR -- (Senate - October 10, 2002)

GPO's PDF
--- Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome this opportunity to commend our outstanding colleague, Senator ROBERT BYRD, for his thoughtful and eloquent op-ed article in The New York Times this morning. In his article, Senator BYRD rightfully condemns the failure of Congress to take adequate time to exercise our all-important constitutional responsibility in deciding WHETHER OR NOT AMERICA SHOULD GO TO WAR WITH IRAQ.

Instead of fairly assessing the full consequences of the administration's proposal, Congress is allowing itself to be rushed into a premature DECISION TO GO TO WAR. Many of us agree with Senator BYRD, and so do large numbers of Americans across the country.

We owe the Senate and the Nation a more thoughtful deliberation about war. Senator BYRD'S article is a powerful statement urging Congress not delegate our constitutional power to the President, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:



Congress Must Resist the Rush to War

(By Robert C. Byrd)
WASHINGTON.--A sudden appetite for war with Iraq seems to have consumed the Bush administration and Congress. The debate that began in the Senate last week is centered not on the fundamental and monumental questions of whether and why the United States should go to war with Iraq, but rather on the mechanics of how best to wordsmith the president's use-of-force resolution in order give him virtually unchecked authority to commit the nation's military to an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation.

How have we gotten to this low point in the history of Congress? Are we too feeble to resist the demands of a president who is determined to bend the collective will of Congress to his will--a president who is changing the conventional understanding of the term ``self-defense''? And why are we allowing the executive to rush our decision-making right before an election? Congress, under pressure from the executive branch, should not hand away its Constitutional powers. We should not hamstring future Congresses by casting such a shortsighted vote. We owe our country a due deliberation.

I have listened closely to the president, I have questioned the members of his war cabinet. I have searched for that single piece of evidence that would convince me that the president must have in his hands, before the month is out, open-ended Congressional authorization to deliver an unprovoked attack on Iraq. I remain unconvinced. The president's case for an unprovoked attack is circumstantial at best. Saddam Hussein is a threat, but the threat is not so great that we must be stampeded to provide such authority to this president just weeks before an election.

Why are we being hounded into action on a resolution that turns over to President Bush the Congress's Constitutional power to declare war? This resolution would authorize the president to use the military forces of this nation wherever, whenever and however he determines, and for as long as he determines, if he can somehow make a connection to Iraq. It is a blank check for the president to take whatever action he feels ``is necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posted by Iraq.'' This broad resolution underwrites, promotes and endorses the unprecedented Bush doctrine of preventive war and pre-emptive strikes--detailed in a recent publication, ``National Security Strategy of the United Staets''--against any nation that the president, and the president alone, determines to be a threat.

We are at the gravest of moments. Members of Congress must not simply walk away from their Constitutional responsibilities. We are the directly elected representatives of the American people, and the American people expect us to carry out our duty, not simply hand it off to this or any other president. To do so would be to fail the people we represent and to fall woefully short of our sworn oath to support and defend the Constitution.

We may not always be able to avoid war, particularly if it is thrust upon us, but Congress must not attempt to give away the authority to determine when war is to be declared. We must not allow any president to unleash the dogs of war at his own discretion and for an unlimited period of time.

Yet that is what we are being asked to do. The judgment of history will not be kind to us if we take this step.

Members of Congress should take time out and go home to listen to their constituents. We must not yield to this absurd pressure to act now, 27 days before an election that will determine the entire membership of the House of Representatives and that of a third of the Senate. Congress should take the time to hear form the American people, to answer their remaining questions and to put the frenzy of ballot-box politics behind us before we vote. We should hear them well, because while it is Congress that casts the vote, it is the American people who will pay for a war with the lives of their sons and daughters.


http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r107:2:./temp/~r1 ... ::

[Evergreen Emerald]

69. you see, that's the difference

I believe all three.

[Clarkie1]

70. You can't.

You can't believe all three. Someone is obviously not telling the truth...either it was a vote for war it it wasn't.

Everyone with half a brain knew it was a vote for war, because that was the President's intent. Some senators speak of the vote as a vote for war...the ones who use nuance and equivocation knew it was a vote for war, but wanted to cover their asses.

If you say you believe all three you are not being honest with yourself.

[Evergreen Emerald]

73. That is what I meant by nuance

Some get it. Some don't. We have now come full circle with the discussion.

I understand you are adamant in your opinion and are unwilling to stop. and think. 1/2 brain? Not being honest? Whatever...clarkie1

[Clarkie1]

76. No, I'm not going to let you get away with that.

I'm not the one who "doesn't get it."

[karynnj]

77. Your logic is wrong - it is possible for two reasonable people to believe

different things. In Edwards' case he believed in the need to remove Saddam. He now says that was wrong - but that doesn't mean he didn't believe what he said he believed. You can believe something that is untrue. The question is are all his statements consistent with each other. If they aren't, then you can claim he's lying. Pointing out that others were right, doesn't make a "wrong answer" a lie - or a lot of us lied on most tests we had a school.

What I can't believe is any person saying that he/she believed two opposing things at the same point in time or if the actions that follow are inconsistent with the stated belief. For example, if your reason is you agreed that Bush needed the strength of the Congress behind him to get the tough the inspections, then the question is did you speak out in fall 2002 or early 2003 when the inspections were productive and Bush was still speaking of war?

[enough already]

39. If you listen very closely....

....you can hear the pukes warming up the 'flip flop' call for their convention.

[Clarkie1]

71. I can hear that. nt

[SOS]

79. This guy's getting ready to order more...

[DonkeyInChinaShop]

45. Didn't work in 2004, won't work in 2008

Bye-bye Hillary.

[The Backlash Cometh]

50. If we all knew then what we know now.

Not only did he not have them, but didn't we try to plant them? When is that gem going to hit the mainstream media? It's been about three years, so hasn't the time come to release it to the public?

[bluenydem]

51. Hillary dissapoints me.

I see 2008 as an opportunity to nominate someone who proudly endorses the core values of our party. I think Clinton sees them as assets to trade away for positive press coverage.

And I think we'll have the Nader factor in spades if "centrist" (read: right-wing democrat) Clinton wins the nomination.

We need to have a united party. Wall Street and the beltway right-wing democrats need to let Democracy happen and not shove thier candidate down our throat and tell us that we have no other choice and we need to just fall in line.

Liberals have been asked to do that far too long, isn't it the right-wing democrats turn?

I really fear that with the cooked "media" and "money" primaries and with the Clinton machine weilding so much power we might have Clinton forced on us. I hope the Netroots and the grassroots can win a la David V Goliath.

[Clarkie1]

53. Hillary's attempt to cover her ass uncovered! Bravo! K&R. nt

[welshTerrier2]

56. thanks, Clarkie1

i really appreciate your feedback.

[suziedemocrat]

80. Conventional wisdom at the time was that Americans didn't want cowardly Dems.

She did what she thought she had to do politically. I'm not sure she gave her vote ANY thought, except how it would look politically. The conventional wisdom at the time was that since we were attacked on 9/11, Americans wanted a strong defense, would be willing to go to war to defend America against any perceived threat, and would not support cowards.

But.....conventional wisdom is sometimes wrong. It took Howard Dean to show the Establishment Democrats that 9/11 may have made Americans willing to invade Afghanistan, but most were unwilling to support an endless war in Iraq.

Hillary followed her political gut, and it was wrong. God, I hope she isn't our next President.

[election_2004]

94. And if you think that's bad....

Just wait until the wingnuts go running around the South and Middle America shouting, "Hillary Clinton voted to keep partial-birth abortion legal!"

[EndElectoral]

95. She needs to acknowledge she was wrong. Period! Kudos to Edwards for doing that.

[The Count]

103. Kudos? Edwards never recanted SPONSORING IWR

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SJ00046:@@@P
and now he's on the next one


Edwards: 'Iran must know world won't back down'

Ron Brynaert
Published: Tuesday January 23, 2007
Print This Email This
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Edwards_Iran_must_know_world_wont_0123.html

So, I'm saving my kudos for the ones who opposed war/wars.

[AtomicKitten]

96. Her IWR vote and subsequent explanation

is no more or less egregious than the other 27 Senators, and singling her out for it is employing gratuitously unfair tactics to trash her.

[Skittles]

101. "I will take the President at his word"

after the bastard stole a presidential election, then did NOTHING to prevent 9-11. Ya, good going there Hillary. :puke:

[The Count]

102. You're right, but why is a Kerry supporter suddenly saying this?

How is this different from kerry - who actually had the Democratic response after the 2003 SOTU (or 2002?) and praised the preemptive doctrine?
That's what puzzles me.
Other than that, right on about Hillary.

[welshTerrier2]

104. Kerry supporter?

go ask the Kerry group on DU if they think i'm a Kerry supporter.

Kerry's vote for the IWR was a tragic mistake too. I can't tell you how many posts I've written about it.

I called Kerry's office the day before the IWR vote (I live in MA) and was told his calls were running 20-1 against the IWR. He still voted for it. Had anyone but bush been in the WH, I would have voted 3rd party in 2004. I ended up voting for Kerry for President. BTW, i did not vote for him when he ran for his Senate seat. I abstained.

Of course, Kerry is NOT a candidate now; Clinton is. Hence, this thread focusses on her hideous vote and the hideous reasons she gave for it. And, of course, in all fairness, Kerry teamed up with Feingold to play an active role in trying to set a deadline. Clinton has shown ZERO LEADERSHIP on the issue at all.

[The Count]

105. Then, my bad. We agree on that.

I get a bit defensive when I see the former kerry group attacking Hillary.
I guess I got in the habit of defending her of baseless/hypocritical attacks.

[Radical Activist]

106. Will we learn from our mistakes in '04?

We were told Kerry was more electable but people vote for CONVICTION. Nominating Clinton would repeat the mistake we made in '04 and '68.