Bernie Sanders Demagoguery against Hillary Clinton on the Iraq War Resolution

[BlueStateLib]

Steve Leser: "There is so much revisionist history pushed regarding that vote that I bet most folks don’t even know they are engaging in revisionism."

The Iraq War Resolution vote, like UN Security Council Resolution 1441 that occurred within a few weeks of each other were efforts to pressure Iraq to allow UN Weapons Inspectors back into the country. Allowing UN Weapons Inspectors into the country for a continuous inspection regime was part of a deal that Iraq struck in order for a cease fire to be put into effect at the end of the first Gulf War in 1991. This deal was enshrined in several UN Security Council Resolutions and were imposed on Iraq because Iraq had engaged in an unprovoked war of aggression against Kuwait and attempted to annex that small country.

In case anyone is unaware, engaging in an unprovoked war of aggression is a war crime.

So the Iraq War Resolution and UN Security Council 1441 were part of enforcing international law against a dictator and country that had engaged in a serious war crime.
http://steveleser.blogspot.com/2015/10/will-bernie-sanders-demagogue-hillary.html

Hillary Clinton Floor Speech A.U.M.F. Use of Force Vote
October 10, 2002

While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq.

Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, 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.

If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise
http://aumf.awardspace.com/

[thereismore]

1. Uhm. OK. People died. Many people died. nt

[beam me up scottie]

2. Hillary on the Iraq war:

"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."

In March 2003 she fully endorsed the invasion:

There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, and 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 have followed for more than a decade.

For now nearly 20 years, the principal reason why women and children in Iraq have suffered, is because of Saddam's leadership.

The very difficult question for all of us, is how does one bring about the disarmament of someone with such a proven track record of a commitment, if not an obsession, with weapons of mass destruction.

I ended up voting for the Resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision, and it is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution. That is not my preference, it would be far preferable if we had legitimate cooperation from Saddam Hussein, and a willingness on his part to disarm, and to account for his chemical and biological storehouses.

With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I 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 United States leadership.

She even claimed that what we did to Iraq was a gift:

Hillary Goes Orwellian on Iraq

Hillary Clinton may fancy she opposes the war in Iraq, but she has a funny way of showing it. On Monday night in Austin, she had this to say about what the United States military has done over the past five years:

"We have given them the gift of freedom, the greatest gift you can give someone. Now it is really up to them to determine whether they will take that gift."

There was nothing accidental about this line. She delivered it in response to two Iraq veterans introduced at a town hall meeting at the Austin Convention Center by her friend and campaign surrogate Ted Danson. She liked the line enough that she delivered it again a couple of hours later, at a campaign-closing rally at a basketball arena in south Austin.

"The gift of freedom" is, of course, a curious way to describe an unprovoked invasion and occupation causing hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths and leaving just about every aspect of life chaotic and fraught with daily dangers. To then lay responsibility for the mess on the Iraqis -- we did our bit, now you do yours -- is the worst kind of dishonesty, a complete abdication of moral principles. It's the sort of thing George Bush has said to justify his decision both to launch the invasion in the first place and then stay the course -- a course Hillary Clinton has spent many months telling primary and caucus voters she thinks was misconceived from the start.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-gumbel/hillary-goes-orwellian-on_b_89729.html

[cherokeeprogressive]

3. steve is no stranger to evolution... I guess.

"Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq war and has a horrific record of voting to continue to support and fund it at nearly every opportunity. During the campaign, she has been the least decisive on ending the war and bringing home the troops making me doubt if she really intends to do either in the first years of her Presidency."

Sooo... you'll excuse me if I find his current opinion to be nothing more than currying favor.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_080202_obama_endorsement__96_.htm

[Oilwellian]

27. LOL

Oops.

[BlueCaliDem]

4. You're not going to convince the Faithful around here.

In fact, by now they must believe that Hillary is personally responsible for the war. Bush and Cheney were just standbys.

[Avalux]

5. Steve Leser is the one practicing revisionist history.

Hillary's own unabridged words make her culpable. She stood on the floor of the Senate and bloviated about how her vote was probably the toughest decision she's ever made and had decided to vote yes, trusting Bush would do the right thing. Then she conflated Saddam Hussein with 9/11, and repeated the neocon lies used to scare people into war.

As Bernie has stated many times - she had the same intelligence information he had been given, and he knew it was wrong to vote yes. Why didn't she?

It's one of two reasons:

1. She either knew the reasons for war were neocon lies and voted yes anyway

2. Or she was clueless, and really believed them.

Either way, Hillary went along with the march to war, something I can't forgive.

[BlueCaliDem]

8. Lost on Bernie supporters, is the fact that Bush had ALL he needed in the 2001 AUMF Against

Terrorists that Sanders voted for, too. So, he trusted Bush wouldn't use it to start a war then? So will you admit that Sanders also falls under those two reasons you've noted when he voted YEA to the 2001 AUMF Against Terrorists?

The 2001 AUMF Against Terrorists literally gave Bush a blank check to launch a war whenever, wherever he saw fit, just as long as he could conflate any country with terrorism. Case in point: it's even being used today to fight ISIS.

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists
The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Pub. L. 107-40, codified at 115 Stat. 224 and passed as S.J.Res. 23 by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizes the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The AUMF was signed by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001. As of December 2015, the AUMF remains in effect and provides Congressional authorization for the use of force against ISIS and other Islamic militant groups.[1]

So if you're going to accuse Hillary for going "along with the march to war" then you'll have to accuse Bernie of the same thing.

[Uncle Joe]

11. There is and was absolutely no evidence that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. In fact Saddam

was opposed to having Al Qaeda in Iraq because they threatened his power.

[BlueCaliDem]

13. Again, the bill Bernie voted for, the 2001 AUMF Against TERRORISTS, gave Bush a blank

check to launch a war against anyone, any country, any place HE deemed to harbor, help, or fund terrorists. It didn't matter to him that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with terrorism. He and his Neo Con pals were going to have their war in Iraq with or without the 2002 AUMF Against Iraq. It was why he began proselytizing about the "Axis of Evil" at the SOTU address on January 29, 2002 - just two months after the bill that Bernie also voted for - was signed into law.

The 2002 AUMF Against Iraq was to slow him down. If you don't believe that, then you also believe that Tom Harkin is a warmonger because he voted YEA on the 2002 AUMF Against Iraq, too.

[Uncle Joe]

14. If that bill gave Bush the Least a "blank check," why did he seek for the Senate to pass the IWR?

[BlueCaliDem]

20. Compromise? He wasn't selling the Axis of Evil to neither Congress nor the U.N. Security Counsel?

I don't know. What I do know was, he was pushing hard for war and Congress knew it.

He began pushing for war long before the 2002 AUMF Against Iraq was thought about - he began making the case for use of force against Iraq in January 29, 2002, two months after the AUMF Against Terrorists was signed into law, citing for the first time in that State of the Union Address the "Axis of Evil".

The 2001 AUMF Against Terrorist had no preconditions before the president could engage in military force.

The 2002 AUMF Against Iraq did.

The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "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."

There are no such provisions in the 2001 AUMF - the one Sanders voted YEA for.

As an aside - and to remind us how contentious it was to go look like a dove back then, the ONLY Congressman to vote against the 2001 AUMF Against Terrorists, was Democrat Barbara Lee.
She wrote:

“Last week, filled with grief and sorrow for those killed and injured and with anger at those who had done this, I confronted the solemn responsibility of voting to authorize the nation to go to war. Some believe this resolution was only symbolic, designed to show national resolve. But I could not ignore that it provided explicit authority, under the War Powers Resolution and the Constitution, to go to war.

“It was a blank check to the president to attack anyone involved in the Sept. 11 events — anywhere, in any country, without regard to our nation’s long-term foreign policy, economic and national security interests, and without time limit. In granting these overly broad powers, the Congress failed its responsibility to understand the dimensions of its declaration. I could not support such a grant of war-making authority to the president; I believe it would put more innocent lives at risk.”

Her courage and wisdom were approved by her constituents, but they also brought a deluge of vilification, angry charges of treason, and enough death threats that the Capitol Police assigned her and her family round-the-clock plainclothes bodyguards.

Look, I realize that those who want to blame Hillary for the Iraq War will do so despite any and all evidence that prove the contrary. I just hope that they'll at least read both AUMFs secretly and quietly and in private at least understand that nothing happens in a vacuum.

[Uncle Joe]

21. Bush pushed for the IWR because he knew the AUMF was not an authorization to invade Iraq

plain and simple.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Hillary gave Bush what he needed, she "trusted" Bush's judgment, Bernie didn't.

[BlueCaliDem]

23. Well, if that's the story you wanna believe, have at it.

I'll stick with the facts.

[Uncle Joe]

24. Well here are some facts.

The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1] Pub.L. 107–243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing military action against Iraq.[2]

(snip)

An authorization by Congress was sought by President George W. Bush soon after his September 12, 2002 statement before the U.N. General Assembly asking for quick action by the Security Council in enforcing the resolutions against Iraq.[5][6]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

[BlueCaliDem]

26. Here are some more:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#Contents

The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "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."

The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

But you knew that.

[Uncle Joe]

30. And here are some more.

BERKELEY – Speaking on the anniversary of the United States' invasion of Iraq, originally declared as a pre-emptive strike against a madman ready to deploy weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), the man first charged with finding those weapons said that the U.S. government has "the same mind frame as the witch hunters of the past" — looking for evidence to support a foregone conclusion.

"There were about 700 inspections, and in no case did we find weapons of mass destruction," said Hans Blix, the Swedish diplomat called out of retirement to serve as the United Nations' chief weapons inspector from 2000 to 2003; from 1981 to 1997 he headed the International Atomic Energy Agency. "We went to sites [in Iraq] given to us by intelligence, and only in three cases did we find something" - a stash of nuclear documents, some Vulcan boosters, and several empty warheads for chemical weapons. More inspections were required to determine whether these findings were the "tip of the iceberg" or simply fragments remaining from that deadly iceberg's past destruction, Blix said he told the United Nations Security Council. However, his work in Iraq was cut short when the United States and the United Kingdom took disarmament into their own hands in March of last year.

Blix accused U.S. President George W. Bush and U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair of acting not in bad faith, but with a severe lack of "critical thinking." The United States and Britain failed to examine the sources of their primary intelligence - Iraqi defectors with their own agendas for encouraging regime change - with a skeptical eye, he alleged. In the buildup to the war, Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis were cooperating with U.N. inspections, and in February 2003 had provided Blix's team with the names of hundreds of scientists to interview, individuals Saddam claimed had been involved in the destruction of banned weapons. Had the inspections been allowed to continue, Blix said, there would likely be a very different situation in Iraq today. As it was, America's pre-emptive, unilateral actions "have bred more terrorism there and elsewhere."

(snip)


The important thing to remember, Blix said repeatedly, was that Saddam was cooperating with the inspections, despite the difficulties they create for a leader. "No one likes inspectors, not tax inspectors, not health inspectors, not any inspectors," Blix chuckled. Not only did Saddam have to endure the indignity of submitting to searches of his palaces, he explained, but the dictator also harbored the valid fear that the inspectors would pass on their findings of conventional weapons to foreign intelligence agencies, providing easy future targets.

(snip)

What Blix's inspectors had needed was more time, he emphasized. The Bush administration should have halted its military buildup in the area at 50,000 troops, the point at which the Iraqis had become much more cooperative, providing the lists of scientists and bureaucrats to Blix's team. "Given time, we would have been able to interview the many people who destroyed weapons of mass destruction after 1991," he told Amanpour.

(snip)

In a press conference held at Eshlemann Hall shortly before his interview with Amanpour, Blix had elaborated on this topic, citing the need to use the "carrot as well as the stick." Ironically, the man whose name is synonymous with the world's fears of nuclear, biological, or chemical annihilation says he has other concerns on his mind.

"Part of the hype is that proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is the 'greatest existential threat' - as I think Tony Blair put it," he said. "But to my mind, the north-south divide [between developed and emerging countries], the fact that hundreds of millions of people go hungry, the effects on the global environment, are just as big a threat," said Blix. "I personally am more worried about global warming than I am about WMDs.


http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/03/18_blix.shtml

But you knew that.

[BlueCaliDem]

6. Duhbya was hellbent on war (or, rather, Cheney and the Neo Cons were). He was going to launch a war

against Iraq using the powers vested in him via the 2001 AUMF Against Terrorists - which Sanders also voted for - that gave President Cheney Bush a blank check for unending war.

It was why, in January 29, 2002, just two months after Bush signed the AUMF Against Terrorists into law, he began beating the drums for war in his 2002 SOTU speech, proselytizing the "Axis of Evil", and Iraq was part of it.

The 2002 AUMF Against Iraq was a desperate attempt by Democrats, including Senator Clinton but excluding Senator Sanders, to cut off the path to war that Cheney and the Neo Cons were steadily matching toward and, as we know, it didn't work because Cheney and the Neo Cons were hellbent to use military force in Iraq one way of the other.

An important note: we didn't go to war. Congress has not declared war since 1942.

[SheenaR]

7. Holy shit

I have heard it all now...

Her 2002 vote was to STOP war.

And tell the families of the thousands we lost that we didn't "go to war"

I am repulsed by you.

[BlueCaliDem]

10. Facts matter and they cleverly hid it in the PUBLIC LAW. I'm sorry if that's not your forte.

To accuse Hillary of wanting war is to accuse Tom Harkin of the same thing because, guess what? He voted for the AUMF Against Iraq, too. Want to nail him on the war wall alongside Hillary? Yeah. Didn't think so.

People who go kneejerk without knowing the facts are what repulse ME.

[SheenaR]

12. Why does Harkin get a pass?

Yes.. They all get nailed on the same wall. Nobody gets a pass. For any reason.

[BlueCaliDem]

17. You don't know Tom Harkin, do you? Read up on his legislative past and then

get back to me.

Here, being a Liberal Democrat, I'll help you get started: http://www.thenation.com/article/what-we-will-lose-when-tom-harkin-leaves-senate/

[SheenaR]

19. I am aware of who Tom Harkin is

and his record. Thanks for your condescension. You don't get to tell me what issue matters to me. This was the single biggest vote of the century thus far. And he got it wrong. I do NOT care about anything else he did before or after.

Sorry.

Have you been graveside for any of the funerals for those lost in Iraq? If so, how quickly you have forgotten and forgiven. If not, don't tell me about Tom effing Harkin.

[BlueCaliDem]

22. My baby sister served two tours in Iraq. She's suffering PTSD and has to take strong

anti-depressants for the rest of her life. She can't have children. She has nightmares of the convoy that blew up in front of her, sending body parts of young men she just had coffee with, flying through the air and over her. She's no longer the happy-go-lucky girl I raised when my mother bailed on us when she was just five years old. She's the last sister I have since our other sister died at 30, five months after our father passed away.

So I know sacrifice and heartache. I know pain. But despite that, I won't let my grief and sorrow blind me for the facts. I won't let anything blind me for the facts. I want to place blame where it belongs and it belongs with a Republican Admin.

Bush stole the presidency because of too many Americans believing in the lie that Gore was the same as Bush and felt inclined to "experiment" and for a more liberal candidate who never held office in his life. They failed to protect this country from yet another war-hungry Republican administration.

For the record, I voted for Gore even though he never enamored me, because I understood then what I understand now: we can't let another Republican in the White House, and we can only accomplish that by electing a strong Democratic president to succeed President Obama who's still cleaning up the mess of the Bush Admin.

Among many other reasons, that's one of the chief reasons why I'm supporting Hillary Clinton.

[H2O Man]

9. Respectfully disagree.

Too many of us remember that era for it to be re-written.

[bullwinkle428]

15. When one charges that "historical revisionism" is taking place, there is

an implication that there has been a significant enough passage of time that details of a specific event or period have become fuzzy in the eyes of most if not nearly everyone. The passage of time, in this case, isn't anywhere near significant.

[ViseGrip]

16. Please don't try to spin this while people are dying.....still in Iraq eom

[cali]

18. Leser goes beyod historical revisionism. It is shocking

This is an old thread on the issue. Hillary is discussed in the thread. Who to believe, Steve or the Senator?




The bottom line about the IWR. Here it is:


"Mr. President, declaring war, or providing the authority to wage war, is the single most important responsibility given to Congress under the Constitution. As history has shown, wars inevitably have unforeseen, terrible consequences, especially for innocent civilians.

Blank-check resolutions, such as the one the President proposes, can likewise be misinterpreted or used in ways that we do not intend or expect. It has happened before, in ways that many people, including Members of Congress, came to regret. That is why a thorough debate is so necessary. And that is also why this Vermonter will not vote for a blank check for this President or any President. My conscience and the Constitution do not allow that."

this is just a snippet. read the whole speech in which Leahy compares this resolution to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, and accurately forecasts the future of the Iraq debacle, here:

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200209/092602a.html

[Cheese Sandwich]

25. Some "jouralists" are actually political hacks

[oasis]

28. Bush did not allow Hans Blix and his inspection team to complete

their search for WMD.

I put this question to the DU anti-Hills: How many senators would have signed on to IWR if they knew Bush would chase Blix out of Iraq?

[Warren DeMontague]

29. Keep trying to polish that turd!

14 years on, and it still stinks.

[pnwmom]

31. Thank you for this!