I am so disgusted with Hillary's lies...she repeated the worst one today in NH.

[Clarkie1]

Repeatedly, in response to voter's questions on her vote for war, she claims she did not vote for war. That is a lie. An outright lie!

I've got news for you Hillary, no matter how many times you repeat a lie, or how many $$$ you raise to repeat it, it won't make it true and you will not brainwash the American people of absolving you of responsibility!

You will be held accountable!


Senator Kennedy made clear exactly what the IWR vote was about on an appearance on Larry King Live. It was not about "Bush lying," or "misusing his authority" as Hillary claims; it was about the Senate voting for war.

KING: You called Iraq the overriding issue. You voted to go there or not?

KENNEDY: No. The best vote I cast in the United States Senate was...

KING: The best?

KENNEDY: The best vote, best vote I cast in the United States Senate (INAUDIBLE).

KING: In your life?

KENNEDY: Absolutely.

KING: Was not to go to Iraq?

KENNEDY: Yes, not to go to Iraq.

KING: Why did you vote against?

KENNEDY: Well, I'm on the Armed Services Committee and I was inclined to support the administration when we started the hearings in the Armed Services Committee. And, it was enormously interesting to me that those that had been -- that were in the armed forces that had served in combat were universally opposed to going.

I mean we had Wes Clark testify in opposition to going to war at that time. You had General Zinni. You had General (INAUDIBLE). You had General Nash. You had the series of different military officials, a number of whom had been involved in the Gulf I War, others involved in Kosovo and had distinguished records in Vietnam, battle-hardened combat military figures. And, virtually all of them said no, this is not going to work and they virtually identified...

KING: And that's what moved you?

KENNEDY: And that really was -- influenced me to the greatest degree. And the second point that influenced me was in the time that we were having the briefings and these were classified. They've been declassified now. Secretary Rumsfeld came up and said "There are weapons of mass destruction north, south, east and west of Baghdad." This was his testimony in the Armed Services Committee.

And at that time Senator Levin, who is an enormously gifted, talented member of the Armed Services Committee said, "Well, we're now providing this information to the inspectors aren't we?" This is just before the war. "Oh, yes, we're providing that." "But are they finding anything?" "No."

Because the answer was because they're moving things, because when we tell the team they're all infiltrated by Saddam's people and they're leaking that so that's the reason we're not finding anything.

They started giving all the places where we said there were places and they still couldn't find any. And at the end of now, history will show we never gave any information to the inspection team at all.

But I kept saying, "Well, if they're not finding any of the weapons of mass destruction, where is the imminent threat to the United States security?" It didn't make sense.

There were probably eight Senators on the Friday before the Thursday we voted on it. It got up to 23. I think if that had gone on another -- we had waited another ten days, I think you may have had a different story.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/20/lkl.01.html

[bdrube]

1. Just like Bush, she'll say ANYTHING to get elected.

No self-respecting progressive or antiwar activist has any
business supporting her.

[bigdarryl]

7. Why do you think the republicans want her as the nominee. my question is....

are the democrats going to BLOW this presidential election once again by picking the wrong candidate. at least Edwards admits his vote on the war was a mistake and he takes full responsibility for it.Hillary is all over the place on Iraq.

[bdrube]

32. The sad part is...Hillary might just win.

In every election since 1980, corporate America's candidate
has won the presidency (with the exception of 1992 when Perot
threw a monkey wrench in the process).  It looks as though the
corporatistas are now switching from McCain to Hillary.

All of this means progressives are not likely to be happy with
the outcome in 2008, regardless of which party wins.

[ProudDad]

43. Actually, my theory is that

the corporatists abandoned poppy bush and signed on with Bill in '92

(And I sure WISH Bill Hicks was still with us. He'd have probably quit smoking and would be tearing bush a new asshole every night)

[bdrube]

58. I think the corporatistas switched to Bill in '96...

...when he proved to be a reliable commodity during his first
term.


BTW - There's a great recent book out called "What Would
Bill Hicks Say?" in which modern comedians and others try
to imagine what he would say if he were still alive. 
Personally, I'd love to hear his take on "American
Idol."

[creeksneakers2]

112. I don't believe the corporatists like Hillary Clinton

The corporatists have spent countless millions trying to destroy Bill and Hillary.

[fuzzyball]

120. I owe my good living to "corporatists"...so I am solidly in HRC camp

[Morgana LaFey]

139. What a shame

ANd even more a shame you find it something laudable, apparently.

[fuzzyball]

150. What is so wrong in having a good job in a larger corporation?

I worked hard through college and at the job where I am.
If it was'nt for the "corporation", I don't know how I
could earn $40/hour.

[PLF]

170. go tell the that to the piles of dead bodies spread across the planet

[Lone_Wolf]

134. Just certain segments...

The fringe segments dominated by people like Scaifee, Coors, and DeVos. The financial and high tech sectors loved Clinton

[SOS]

147. This Republican corporation likes her alot:

The New York Times, April 12, 2006

Corning Finds Clinton Useful, And Vice Versa

By MIKE MCINTIRE AND RAYMOND HERNANDEZ
Corning Inc., one of upstate New York's largest and oldest employers, has supported Republican candidates for so long that its chairman once joked that it had not raised money for a Democrat since 1812.

But since Hillary Rodham Clinton was elected to the Senate in 2000, Corning and its mainly Republican executives have become one of her largest sources of campaign contributions. And in that time, Mrs. Clinton has become one of the company's leading champions, delivering for it like no other Democratic lawmaker.

In April 2003, a month after Corning's political action committee gave $10,000 to her re-election campaign, Mrs. Clinton announced legislation that would provide hundreds of millions in federal aid to reduce diesel pollution, using, among other things, technology pioneered by Corning. It was one of several Congressional initiatives Mrs. Clinton has pushed that benefit the company.

And in April 2004, Mrs. Clinton began a push to persuade the Chinese government to relax tariffs on Corning fiber optics products, inviting the Chinese ambassador to her office and personally asking President Bush for help in the matter. One month after the beginning of that ultimately successful effort, Corning's chairman, James Houghton, held a fund-raiser at his home that collected tens of thousands of dollars for her re-election campaign.

[Lone_Wolf]

151. I used to live there in Corning

The Houghton family founded Corning Inc. In fact, former Congressman Amo Houghton was a very liberal Republican who often clashed with the Bushies before retiring from Congress a few years ago. It was rumored that he didn't like the neo-conservatives that were taking over the Republicans. BTW, he was one of the few Republicans that did not vote to impeach Clinton. I would say he was socially liberal and economically moderate.

That said, Corning is a high tech industry that would do well under a Democratic President. Right now, most government subsidies are going to military contractors instead funding the government research and development that the high tech industries depend on.

[creeksneakers2]

157. Corning was in financial trouble

and laid off thousands of workers. Hillary was doing her job by seeking to save the jobs of her constituents.

[happydreams]

174. Her husband and Poppy Bush are both members of

the Trilateral Commission, a Bilderbergeresque think tank with a Neoliberal agenda.
The subtitle of the book on it by Holly Sklar is: "Elite Planning for World Management".

The fascists are just shock troops, the neo-liberal democrats are the placaters and facilitators.

BTW Jimmy Carter was also a member, but I don't think he really knew what the real deal was all about. He joined when the TC was in its infancy and he was soon at odds with Big Oil for trying to develop alternative, sustainable energy. Big Oil needless to say is thekey player in "Elite Planning"


That being said I dont' think the OP makes the case that H. Clinton lied about supporting the war. Voting for the IWR was simply giving the president the backing of use of military force if, and this is vital, if and when it was justified. Her vote was not a good one.

Ted Kennedy and the others who voted no are the real cajones carriers IMO.

[BenDavid]

156. I think many of you should read

her Senate speech and I believe you will come away with a different opinion. One in which what she has been saying is right in line to what she said prior to the Iraq invasion....
"My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world."
Just a short quote but if you take the time to read it you will come away with a better understanding of what she actually said...

[bvar22]

176. Yes. Read the speech!

Hillary SAID very clearly that she was AGAINST it before she voted FOR it!

Hillary is not an idiot. She KNEW what she was voting for.

Just as these Democrats KNEW what they were voting AGAINST!

The Democratic Party Honor Roll
These Democrats should be remembered for their principled stand against the WAR Machine.

IWR

United States Senate

In the Senate, the 21 Democrats, one Republican and one Independent courageously voted their consciences in 2002 against the War in Iraq :

Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii)
Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico)
Barbara Boxer (D-California)
Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia)
Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota)
Jon Corzine (D-New Jersey)
Mark Dayton (D-Minnesota)
Dick Durbin (D-Illinois)
Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin)
Bob Graham (D-Florida)
Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
Jim Jeffords (I-Vermont)
Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)
Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
Carl Levin (D-Michigan)
Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland)
Patty Murray (D-Washington)
Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island)
Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland)
Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan)
The late Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota)
Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)

Lincoln Chaffee (R-Rhode Island)


United States House of Representatives

Six House Republicans and one independent joined 126 Democratic members of the House of Represenatives:

Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii)
Tom Allen (D-Maine)
Joe Baca (D-California)
Brian Baird (D-Washington DC)
John Baldacci (D-Maine, now governor of Maine)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin)
Xavier Becerra (D-California)
Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon)
David Bonior (D-Michigan, retired from office)
Robert Brady (D-Pennsylvania)
Corinne Brown (D-Florida)
Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)
Lois Capps (D-California)
Michael Capuano (D-Massachusetts)
Benjamin Cardin (D-Maryland)
Julia Carson (D-Indiana)
William Clay, Jr. (D-Missouri)
Eva Clayton (D-North Carolina, retired from office)
James Clyburn (D-South Carolina)
Gary Condit (D-California, retired from office)
John Conyers, Jr. (D-Michigan)
Jerry Costello (D-Illinois)
William Coyne (D-Pennsylvania, retired from office)
Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland)
Susan Davis (D-California)
Danny Davis (D-Illinois)
Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon)
Diana DeGette (D-Colorado)
Bill Delahunt (D-Massachusetts)
Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut)
John Dingell (D-Michigan)
Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas)
Mike Doyle (D-Pennsylvania)
Anna Eshoo (D-California)
Lane Evans (D-Illinois)
Sam Farr (D-California)
Chaka Fattah (D-Pennsylvania)
Bob Filner (D-California)
Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts)
Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas)
Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois)
Alice Hastings (D-Florida)
Earl Hilliard (D-Alabama, retired from office)
Maurice Hinchey (D-New York)
Ruben Hinojosa (D-Texas)
Rush Holt (D-New Jersey)
Mike Honda (D-California)
Darlene Hooley (D-Oregon)
Inslee
Jackson (Il.)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E.B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Maloney (CT)
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller
Mollohan
Moran (Va)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Udall (CO)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Woolsey
Wu

Hillary's speech was for the fools back home.
Hillary's vote FOR the WAR was payback for AIPAC and Corporate campaign contributions!

[cboy4]

2. I'm not saying I'm a big fan of Senator Clinton, but don't you

think your language is inappropriate (or at least too harsh) on a Democratic discussion board?

Frankly, your friend Joe LIEberman disgusts me ten times more than Sen. Clinton

[Clarkie1]

3. Joe Lieberman is no friend of mine!

And I think my language is absolutely appropriate!

If you disagree, tough!

[cboy4]

23. Oh please....you were one of his biggest supporters on this

board up against Lamont.

Don't force me to dig up those threads.

I'd vote for Hillary ANY DAY over Lieberman who continues to support the slaughter in Iraq.

[Clarkie1]

25. That's not true.

I donated to Lamont's campaign.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JNelson6563]

158. I can't help but wonder

if they have the responsiblities of trashing all the Clark competition meted out or something. "Ok so-and-so, you go after Hillary, so-and-so you go after Obama and the rest of us hammer on Edwards. Go team!"

Oy.

Julie

[enough already]

177. I find them both utterly repulsive n/t

[SaveElmer]

4. You are incorrect...nt

[Clarkie1]

5. Save your breath. nt

[SaveElmer]

36. The quit spouting the same ridiculous drivel over and over again...nt

[Clarkie1]

48. .

KENNEDY: The best vote, best vote I cast in the United States Senate (INAUDIBLE).

KING: In your life?

KENNEDY: Absolutely.

KING: Was not to go to Iraq?

KENNEDY: Yes, not to go to Iraq.

KING: Why did you vote against?

KENNEDY: Well, I'm on the Armed Services Committee and I was inclined to support the administration when we started the hearings in the Armed Services Committee. And, it was enormously interesting to me that those that had been -- that were in the armed forces that had served in combat were universally opposed to going.

I mean we had Wes Clark testify in opposition to going to war at that time. You had General Zinni. You had General (INAUDIBLE). You had General Nash. You had the series of different military officials, a number of whom had been involved in the Gulf I War, others involved in Kosovo and had distinguished records in Vietnam, battle-hardened combat military figures. And, virtually all of them said no, this is not going to work and they virtually identified...

KING: And that's what moved you?

KENNEDY: And that really was -- influenced me to the greatest degree. And the second point that influenced me was in the time that we were having the briefings and these were classified. They've been declassified now. Secretary Rumsfeld came up and said "There are weapons of mass destruction north, south, east and west of Baghdad." This was his testimony in the Armed Services Committee.

And at that time Senator Levin, who is an enormously gifted, talented member of the Armed Services Committee said, "Well, we're now providing this information to the inspectors aren't we?" This is just before the war. "Oh, yes, we're providing that." "But are they finding anything?" "No."

Because the answer was because they're moving things, because when we tell the team they're all infiltrated by Saddam's people and they're leaking that so that's the reason we're not finding anything.

They started giving all the places where we said there were places and they still couldn't find any. And at the end of now, history will show we never gave any information to the inspection team at all.

But I kept saying, "Well, if they're not finding any of the weapons of mass destruction, where is the imminent threat to the United States security?" It didn't make sense.

There were probably eight Senators on the Friday before the Thursday we voted on it. It got up to 23. I think if that had gone on another -- we had waited another ten days, I think you may have had a different story.

[SaveElmer]

50. ...

“…I commend President Bush for taking his case against Iraq to the American people…and I agree with the President that Saddam is a despicable tyrant who must be disarmed.” -Ted Kennedy

[Clarkie1]

57. It's only the vote that counts.

KENNEDY: The best vote, best vote I cast in the United States Senate (INAUDIBLE).

KING: In your life?

KENNEDY: Absolutely.

KING: Was not to go to Iraq?

KENNEDY: Yes, not to go to Iraq.

KING: Why did you vote against?

KENNEDY: Well, I'm on the Armed Services Committee and I was inclined to support the administration when we started the hearings in the Armed Services Committee. And, it was enormously interesting to me that those that had been -- that were in the armed forces that had served in combat were universally opposed to going.

I mean we had Wes Clark testify in opposition to going to war at that time. You had General Zinni. You had General (INAUDIBLE). You had General Nash. You had the series of different military officials, a number of whom had been involved in the Gulf I War, others involved in Kosovo and had distinguished records in Vietnam, battle-hardened combat military figures. And, virtually all of them said no, this is not going to work and they virtually identified...

KING: And that's what moved you?

KENNEDY: And that really was -- influenced me to the greatest degree. And the second point that influenced me was in the time that we were having the briefings and these were classified. They've been declassified now. Secretary Rumsfeld came up and said "There are weapons of mass destruction north, south, east and west of Baghdad." This was his testimony in the Armed Services Committee.

And at that time Senator Levin, who is an enormously gifted, talented member of the Armed Services Committee said, "Well, we're now providing this information to the inspectors aren't we?" This is just before the war. "Oh, yes, we're providing that." "But are they finding anything?" "No."

Because the answer was because they're moving things, because when we tell the team they're all infiltrated by Saddam's people and they're leaking that so that's the reason we're not finding anything.

They started giving all the places where we said there were places and they still couldn't find any. And at the end of now, history will show we never gave any information to the inspection team at all.

But I kept saying, "Well, if they're not finding any of the weapons of mass destruction, where is the imminent threat to the United States security?" It didn't make sense.

There were probably eight Senators on the Friday before the Thursday we voted on it. It got up to 23. I think if that had gone on another -- we had waited another ten days, I think you may have had a different story.

[SaveElmer]

59. Looks like Kennedy is the inconsistent one...

“…I commend President Bush for taking his case against Iraq to the American people…and I agree with the President that Saddam is a despicable tyrant who must be disarmed.” -Ted Kennedy

[Clarkie1]

69. What part of the quote is inconsistent with voting against the IWR?

The more pertinent question is, why are you unable to defend Hillary and instead look for false inconsistencies in Ted Kennedy's speech?

Is there a reason you don't defend her vote?

[SaveElmer]

76. I have discussed Hillary's vote on the IWR many times...

Your characterization of her motivation is a lie...

And the implication that opponents knew Bush was lying about WMD's is also not factual...

[Clarkie1]

83. She was poltically motivated, not patriotically motivated. No lie.

KENNEDY: The best vote, best vote I cast in the United States Senate (INAUDIBLE).

KING: In your life?

KENNEDY: Absolutely.

KING: Was not to go to Iraq?

KENNEDY: Yes, not to go to Iraq.

KING: Why did you vote against?

KENNEDY: Well, I'm on the Armed Services Committee and I was inclined to support the administration when we started the hearings in the Armed Services Committee. And, it was enormously interesting to me that those that had been -- that were in the armed forces that had served in combat were universally opposed to going.

I mean we had Wes Clark testify in opposition to going to war at that time. You had General Zinni. You had General (INAUDIBLE). You had General Nash. You had the series of different military officials, a number of whom had been involved in the Gulf I War, others involved in Kosovo and had distinguished records in Vietnam, battle-hardened combat military figures. And, virtually all of them said no, this is not going to work and they virtually identified...

KING: And that's what moved you?

KENNEDY: And that really was -- influenced me to the greatest degree. And the second point that influenced me was in the time that we were having the briefings and these were classified. They've been declassified now. Secretary Rumsfeld came up and said "There are weapons of mass destruction north, south, east and west of Baghdad." This was his testimony in the Armed Services Committee.

And at that time Senator Levin, who is an enormously gifted, talented member of the Armed Services Committee said, "Well, we're now providing this information to the inspectors aren't we?" This is just before the war. "Oh, yes, we're providing that." "But are they finding anything?" "No."

Because the answer was because they're moving things, because when we tell the team they're all infiltrated by Saddam's people and they're leaking that so that's the reason we're not finding anything.

They started giving all the places where we said there were places and they still couldn't find any. And at the end of now, history will show we never gave any information to the inspection team at all.

But I kept saying, "Well, if they're not finding any of the weapons of mass destruction, where is the imminent threat to the United States security?" It didn't make sense.

There were probably eight Senators on the Friday before the Thursday we voted on it. It got up to 23. I think if that had gone on another -- we had waited another ten days, I think you may have had a different story.

[SaveElmer]

85. Not a shred of evidence for that assertion...

Typically what one makes when evidence is lacking...

[Clarkie1]

91. LOL. As you you have evidence for yours.

My assertion is based on observation of her behavior.

[xkenx]

165. Not so! Carl Levin voted against IWR. I heard from his own mouth that all dems. in Congress had all

the intelligence info. necessary to vote against IWR, that the intel being promoted by Bushco was some combination of bogus/unverified. That is why he, Ted Kennedy, and others voted NO at a time when there was lots of pressure to go along with Bush. Those who voted YES did so out of political calculation, lack of moral courage, wanting to put on a "Tough-on-Terra" face, or..... IMO the lack of judgement and courage raises the question of how such an individual will handle the next crisis to come along.

[SaveElmer]

172. So the following were Lying when they said...

There is no question that Saddam Hussein is ignoring the will of the United Nations and that he has not honored the agreements he made following the Gulf War. Saddam Hussein is a dangerous force in the world.” -Kent Conrad

“Saddam Hussein’s regime has chemical and biological weapons and is trying to get nuclear capability.” -Bob Graham

“Saddam Hussein’s desire to obtain weapons of mass destruction is of grave concern.” -Jim Jeffords

“…I commend President Bush for taking his case against Iraq to the American people…and I agree with the President that Saddam is a despicable tyrant who must be disarmed.” -Ted Kennedy

Iraq has grim and ghoulish weapons to carry out its evil plans. As part of the Gulf War cease-fire agreement, Saddam Hussein committed to destroying its chemical and biological and nuclear weapons programs…instead, Saddam Hussein is trying to add nuclear weapons to an arsenal that already includes chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missiles.” -Barbara Mikulski

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


“With regard to Iraq, I agree, Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological, and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the President argues. And I support the concept of regime change.” -Russ Feingold

[xkenx]

173. You have cherry-picked those statements from different times and contexts.

Everyone agreed that Saddam was a really bad guy who would like to really hurt us, and who deserved lots of attention to help prevent that from happening. Those who opposed the IWR stressed that nothing was imminent (as has been proven) and the way to go was to pressure Saddam, work with the UN and allies, and not engage in a pre-emptive war. Most or all of those you quoted, when it came to the crucial moment, voted NO!!! because they knew nothing was imminent or even close. Hillary voted YES, and no amount of revisionist spin can change that. And she knew all the bogus intel. that the others knew. You are entitled to support Hillary, but you can't get away with spinning her out as she tried to do.

[SaveElmer]

175. Simply not true...

Most of those Senators would have voted for a stronger IWR, and would have supported military action if it came to that...every one of them accepted the intelligence being presented as being largely true...

The fact is, the lies told by Bush were not widely known until after the IWR vote...that is a fact...

[xkenx]

183. You contradict yourself; you are delusional.

If those senators would have voted for a stronger IWR, why did they not vote for this one? And as I said, the horse's mouth here, so to speak, is Carl Levin who clearly stated that they ALL knew BEFORE the vote that the intel. was bogus, hence his (and the others') NO votes. What part of that do you not understand? But spin away in defense of the indefensible. You sound like Bush with his revisionist history. You have apparently drunk the Hillary Kool Aid.

[enough already]

180. To lie about where the great Paul Wellstone stood and VOTED on the war is beyond contempt

God help us all if Hillary and her ilk win.

[SaveElmer]

181. Grow up...

Where's the lie...

[Pachamama]

153. What came before and after that sentence/quote?

Seriously - where is the full transcipt of when Kennedy said that? I ask because the statement would be made to have a completely different context if the next thing said after that was something such as "but, I'm not convinced by any of the information provided to me, both in classified meetings and non-classified meetings that the evidence supports going to war".

Please provide the entire transcript this statement came from...

[enough already]

179. This from the same Hillary lemming who lied about Paul Wellstone's IWR vote

[enough already]

178. Teddy knew how to do the right thing

Hillary was a coward. And now she's resorted to lying about it. Shameful.

[David Dunham]

6. Hillary, Kerry, and other Dems did NOT vote to authorize the Iraq war

The lie here is spouted by the extreme left and right. It is the false claim that Hillary, John Kerry, and other Dems voted in 2002 to authorize the Iraq war. Wrong!!! They voted in October 2002 for the resolution to put more pressure on Saddam so that he would readmit weapons inspectors. Their vote worked. Saddam did readmit the inspectors. But then Bush in March 2003 craftly claimed the inspections were being impeded and started the war.
The bottom line is that Hillary, John Kerry, and other Dems are correct in saying they did not vote to authorize the war. We should not be fooled by the fringe whackos on the left and right who say they did.

[Clarkie1]

10. You are incorrect.

KENNEDY: The best vote, best vote I cast in the United States Senate (INAUDIBLE).

KING: In your life?

KENNEDY: Absolutely.

KING: Was not to go to Iraq?

KENNEDY: Yes, not to go to Iraq.

KING: Why did you vote against?

KENNEDY: Well, I'm on the Armed Services Committee and I was inclined to support the administration when we started the hearings in the Armed Services Committee. And, it was enormously interesting to me that those that had been -- that were in the armed forces that had served in combat were universally opposed to going.

I mean we had Wes Clark testify in opposition to going to war at that time. You had General Zinni. You had General (INAUDIBLE). You had General Nash. You had the series of different military officials, a number of whom had been involved in the Gulf I War, others involved in Kosovo and had distinguished records in Vietnam, battle-hardened combat military figures. And, virtually all of them said no, this is not going to work and they virtually identified...

KING: And that's what moved you?

KENNEDY: And that really was -- influenced me to the greatest degree. And the second point that influenced me was in the time that we were having the briefings and these were classified. They've been declassified now. Secretary Rumsfeld came up and said "There are weapons of mass destruction north, south, east and west of Baghdad." This was his testimony in the Armed Services Committee.

And at that time Senator Levin, who is an enormously gifted, talented member of the Armed Services Committee said, "Well, we're now providing this information to the inspectors aren't we?" This is just before the war. "Oh, yes, we're providing that." "But are they finding anything?" "No."

Because the answer was because they're moving things, because when we tell the team they're all infiltrated by Saddam's people and they're leaking that so that's the reason we're not finding anything.

They started giving all the places where we said there were places and they still couldn't find any. And at the end of now, history will show we never gave any information to the inspection team at all.

But I kept saying, "Well, if they're not finding any of the weapons of mass destruction, where is the imminent threat to the United States security?" It didn't make sense.

There were probably eight Senators on the Friday before the Thursday we voted on it. It got up to 23. I think if that had gone on another -- we had waited another ten days, I think you may have had a different story.

[SaveElmer]

41. Why the discrepancy in Kennedy's statement here...and his floor statement...

WHen he said...

“…I commend President Bush for taking his case against Iraq to the American people…and I agree with the President that Saddam is a despicable tyrant who must be disarmed.” -Ted Kennedy

[Clarkie1]

49. .

KENNEDY: The best vote, best vote I cast in the United States Senate (INAUDIBLE).

KING: In your life?

KENNEDY: Absolutely.

KING: Was not to go to Iraq?

KENNEDY: Yes, not to go to Iraq.

KING: Why did you vote against?

KENNEDY: Well, I'm on the Armed Services Committee and I was inclined to support the administration when we started the hearings in the Armed Services Committee. And, it was enormously interesting to me that those that had been -- that were in the armed forces that had served in combat were universally opposed to going.

I mean we had Wes Clark testify in opposition to going to war at that time. You had General Zinni. You had General (INAUDIBLE). You had General Nash. You had the series of different military officials, a number of whom had been involved in the Gulf I War, others involved in Kosovo and had distinguished records in Vietnam, battle-hardened combat military figures. And, virtually all of them said no, this is not going to work and they virtually identified...

KING: And that's what moved you?

KENNEDY: And that really was -- influenced me to the greatest degree. And the second point that influenced me was in the time that we were having the briefings and these were classified. They've been declassified now. Secretary Rumsfeld came up and said "There are weapons of mass destruction north, south, east and west of Baghdad." This was his testimony in the Armed Services Committee.

And at that time Senator Levin, who is an enormously gifted, talented member of the Armed Services Committee said, "Well, we're now providing this information to the inspectors aren't we?" This is just before the war. "Oh, yes, we're providing that." "But are they finding anything?" "No."

Because the answer was because they're moving things, because when we tell the team they're all infiltrated by Saddam's people and they're leaking that so that's the reason we're not finding anything.

They started giving all the places where we said there were places and they still couldn't find any. And at the end of now, history will show we never gave any information to the inspection team at all.

But I kept saying, "Well, if they're not finding any of the weapons of mass destruction, where is the imminent threat to the United States security?" It didn't make sense.

There were probably eight Senators on the Friday before the Thursday we voted on it. It got up to 23. I think if that had gone on another -- we had waited another ten days, I think you may have had a different story.

[SaveElmer]

“…I commend President Bush for taking his case against Iraq to the American people…and I agree with the President that Saddam is a despicable tyrant who must be disarmed.” -Ted Kennedy

[Clarkie1]

54. .

KENNEDY: The best vote, best vote I cast in the United States Senate (INAUDIBLE).

KING: In your life?

KENNEDY: Absolutely.

KING: Was not to go to Iraq?

KENNEDY: Yes, not to go to Iraq.

KING: Why did you vote against?

KENNEDY: Well, I'm on the Armed Services Committee and I was inclined to support the administration when we started the hearings in the Armed Services Committee. And, it was enormously interesting to me that those that had been -- that were in the armed forces that had served in combat were universally opposed to going.

I mean we had Wes Clark testify in opposition to going to war at that time. You had General Zinni. You had General (INAUDIBLE). You had General Nash. You had the series of different military officials, a number of whom had been involved in the Gulf I War, others involved in Kosovo and had distinguished records in Vietnam, battle-hardened combat military figures. And, virtually all of them said no, this is not going to work and they virtually identified...

KING: And that's what moved you?

KENNEDY: And that really was -- influenced me to the greatest degree. And the second point that influenced me was in the time that we were having the briefings and these were classified. They've been declassified now. Secretary Rumsfeld came up and said "There are weapons of mass destruction north, south, east and west of Baghdad." This was his testimony in the Armed Services Committee.

And at that time Senator Levin, who is an enormously gifted, talented member of the Armed Services Committee said, "Well, we're now providing this information to the inspectors aren't we?" This is just before the war. "Oh, yes, we're providing that." "But are they finding anything?" "No."

Because the answer was because they're moving things, because when we tell the team they're all infiltrated by Saddam's people and they're leaking that so that's the reason we're not finding anything.

They started giving all the places where we said there were places and they still couldn't find any. And at the end of now, history will show we never gave any information to the inspection team at all.

But I kept saying, "Well, if they're not finding any of the weapons of mass destruction, where is the imminent threat to the United States security?" It didn't make sense.

There were probably eight Senators on the Friday before the Thursday we voted on it. It got up to 23. I think if that had gone on another -- we had waited another ten days, I think you may have had a different story.

[ProudDad]

47. If this is true

why haven't they sent the federal marshalls to arrest bush and cheney?

[Clarkie1]

55. Bravo! nt

[wiggs]

137. If it was a only a ploy to put more pressure on Hussein, I think you would

have gotten 100% support from all congressmen. That's not what we saw. There were clearly those who suspected or knew that this vote had the potential, at least, to be a problem.

Other points:

The IWR had CONDITIONS attached: the administration had to demonstrate that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 and that there was imminent danger. These conditions had to be satisfied prior to any use of force. As I remember from reading Worse Than Watergate, a very brief, weak statement was given to Congress shortly before the invasion supposedly fulfilling the condition. I don't remember ANYONE objecting to the letter verbally, or taking it to court, or trying to nullify the IWR via resolution. Plenty of blame to go around there. IWR never should have been valid because its conditions of approval were not satisfied.

Kerry had made statements at the time about his reluctance to vote aye. He made it clear that he expected that force would be a last resort and that every effort should be made to avoid war. Was this honesty or CYA? I don't know anymore....

I find it easy to believe that congressmen could not have foreseen the extent to which this ruthless, unique, rogue administration would lie and mislead. They were given specific, secret briefings that included dire warnings (now known to be untrue) but at the time it would have been hard to know that the administration was actively engaged in propaganda. We know now that they lie getting out of bed in the morning, but then I think most people still trusted at least some of what the administration said.

I find the IWR vote (who did and who didn't) interesting because I'm still trying to put the puzzle pieces together in terms of why dems and well meaning republicans have, over the last 6 years, apparently abandoned us in almost every policy area. I can believe that there may be varying reasons why any one congressperson may have voted for or against IWR...it may not be simple. However, put together with a history of other votes, actions, and inactions over the last 5 years I think the overall picture is clarified somewhat.

[Zhade]

148. Uh, it was called the "IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION".

It's not like it was called the "Iraq Inspections Resolution".

It was TITLED as a war resolution, yet people ignore that fact to somehow bizarrely argue that it wasn't a war resolution.

That's insane.

[zulchzulu]

185. Agreed...a vote for the IWR was not a vote for the war that Bush wanted

There is one part of the IWR where it reiterates that the President is commander in chief and can send troops as needed if a REAL threat to the country is occurring...the IWR brought about inspections, which if had not been allowed, would still not have stopped Bush's preemptive plans to attack as per the Downing Street Memos.

For Mrs. Clinton to honestly answer the question about her vote for the IWR, she needs to boil it down to a one-liner. If she flails with more than two sentences, she is doomed.

I'm not going to suggest what she should say, but it would be pretty obvious where she needs to go with it.

[Whoa_Nelly]

8. Took me less than 5 seconds to look up her YEA vote

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

Damn! Sure hope Edwards gets the Dem nomination

[Clarkie1]

12. Edwards voted for the war as well.

He co-sponsored it.

[bigdarryl]

22. and at least he admits he was wrong. and takes full responsibility

[SaveElmer]

73. Bull...

Meet the Press:

MR. RUSSERT: Why were you so wrong?

SEN. EDWARDS: For the same reason a lot of people were wrong. You know, we—the intelligence information that we got was wrong. I mean, tragically wrong. On top of that I’d—beyond that, I went back to former Clinton administration officials who gave me sort of independent information about what they believed about what was happening with Saddam’s weapon—weapons programs. They were also wrong. And, based on that, I made the wrong judgment.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16903253/

[Clarkie1]

75. And yet....

KENNEDY: ...And the second point that influenced me was in the time that we were having the briefings and these were classified. They've been declassified now. Secretary Rumsfeld came up and said "There are weapons of mass destruction north, south, east and west of Baghdad." This was his testimony in the Armed Services Committee.

And at that time Senator Levin, who is an enormously gifted, talented member of the Armed Services Committee said, "Well, we're now providing this information to the inspectors aren't we?" This is just before the war. "Oh, yes, we're providing that." "But are they finding anything?" "No."

Because the answer was because they're moving things, because when we tell the team they're all infiltrated by Saddam's people and they're leaking that so that's the reason we're not finding anything.

They started giving all the places where we said there were places and they still couldn't find any. And at the end of now, history will show we never gave any information to the inspection team at all.

But I kept saying, "Well, if they're not finding any of the weapons of mass destruction, where is the imminent threat to the United States security?" It didn't make sense.

There were probably eight Senators on the Friday before the Thursday we voted on it. It got up to 23. I think if that had gone on another -- we had waited another ten days, I think you may have had a different story.


Seems like Edwards and Hillary are both liars on this issue to me. Either liars or fools. It's amusing seeing supports of the two go after one another.

[SaveElmer]

80. ANd yet...

Ted Kennedy can't seem to remember he agreed Saddam Hussein needed to be disarmed...

If there were no WMD's why disarm him...

[Clarkie1]

88. What was the date of the testimony you posted? nt

[SaveElmer]

89. October 2002...it is his floor statement on the IWR....t

[Clarkie1]

92. The date, please. nt

[SaveElmer]

94. October 10,2002...

www.thomas.gov if you want to look it up

[Clarkie1]

I see.

"The power to declare war is the most solemn responsibility given to Congress by the Constitution. We must not delegate that responsibility to the president in advance."

[SaveElmer]

98. SO the argument then...

Was not over the existence of WMD's...but what authority to give the President?

[Clarkie1]

100. I'm still trying to find a link to the full text. Please provide one. nt

[SaveElmer]

103. Cannot link directly to search results on Thomas...

Go to Thomas.gov

Link to the COngressional record

107th congress...select Edward Kennedy

Unclick everything but "Senate"

And put in a date range of 10/10/2002 and 10/12/2002


That should pull it up...you will have to scroll through it at that point to find it

Search on Kennedy in the text

[Clarkie1]

117. I don't see the words you ascribed to Senator Kennedy...

but I did find this and it's worth posting here:

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/~r107WhATXs::

Edit: And it turns out you can link directly to thomas.gov, so I'll ask you again...when did Kennedy say those words and where is your link?

[SaveElmer]

119. Here...

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend President Bush for taking his case against Iraq to the American people last evening, and I agree with the President that Saddam is a despicable tyrant who must be disarmed. As many of us had hoped, the President has now clearly given the Iraqi regime an opportunity to avoid war. The President himself says he has not yet decided war will be necessary. In this situation, it would be wrong for Congress to act now to authorize the President to go to war before the steps the President has outlined are exhausted.
The most solemn responsibility any Congress has is the responsibility given the Congress by the Constitution to declare war. We would violate that responsibility if we delegate that responsibility to the President in advance before the President himself has decided the time has come for war.
The President acknowledged last night there are major risks in going to war. I do not believe these risks have been adequately described to the American people.
General Wesley Clark, the former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, told the Armed Services Committee on September 23 if you are talking to the mothers and the loved ones of those who die in that operation in Iraq, you
GPO's PDF
want to be sure using force and expending American blood and lives and treasure is the ultimate last resort, not because of the sense of impatience with the arcane ways of international institutions or frustrations from the domestic political process of allies.
As the Senate continues to debate the use of military force against Iraq, we must do all we can to assess the potential costs of such a war in blood and treasure. The American people deserve to know what a conflict in Iraq might be like. They deserve to know how many casualties there might be. They deserve to know the true preparedness of our troops to fight in a chemical or biological environment. If they are in the National Guard or Reserves, they deserve to know how a conflict in Iraq will affect them and whether they are likely to be called up for duty.
Many Reservists who were initially recalled for the war in Afghanistan have been either demobilized or extended for a second year. They are concerned about what the impact of war against Iraq will have on their families and on their jobs. Many employers, who are struggling in the current sagging economy, are also deeply concerned about the stability of their workforce. These patriotic Americans are willing to sacrifice, but they deserve to know all reasonable alternatives to war have been exhausted.
None of us can foresee the course of events that will unfold if we go to war. Before Congress acts, the administration has an obligation to explain to the Congress and the American people the potential consequences of war. As of now, it has not.
The President is asking Congress to delegate its constitutional power to declare war before he has decided we need to go to war, but he has not adequately explained what this war will look like. How many ground troops will be required? How many casualties can we expect to suffer? How well can we respond to the use of chemical or biological weapons against our troops? How will postwar occupation and reconstruction in Iraq be conducted? How will our ongoing military operation in Afghanistan be affected, and what will the impact be on the overall war against terrorism?
Today, our service men and women are helping to combat terrorism in Afghanistan, the Philippines, the Nation of Georgia, and elsewhere around the world.
Our purpose is clear; defend our country against the clear and compelling threat to our security posed by al-Qaida. I strongly support the President in the war against al-Qaida and the al-Qaida terrorists. I am proud of the achievement of our Armed Forces in the war against terrorism.
Some argue that America's vastly superior military force can easily defeat the Iraqi army, but many of us are concerned that the very strength and success of our Armed Forces in the gulf war and in Afghanistan will lull America into thinking if war with Iraq becomes necessary, it will be a bloodless war with few casualties.
The gulf war was fought in the desert a decade ago with an overwhelming superiority of forces in a strong coalition of the United States and other nations. They achieved one of the most decisive victories in the history of warfare. The experts I have consulted believe that a new war with Iraq will not be as easy, especially if we do not have the support of a coalition of nations.
Some defense analysts contend the Iraqi regular army is plagued with low morale and poor equipment and may well surrender at the first sight of American might. Other experts believe, however, that unlike the regular Iraqi army, up to 100,000 Republican Guard and special Republican Guard troops of Iraq will defend Baghdad and remain fiercely loyal to Saddam Hussein.
Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution believes the Iraqi Republican Guard forces could make a U.S. military attack very difficult. He estimates that our military casualties could be as high as 5,000. By comparison, in the gulf war, just under 400 U.S. service members lost their lives.
Many believe our Armed Forces may need to occupy Baghdad, which has over 5 million residents. Testifying before the Armed Services Committee on September 23, GEN Joseph Hoar, former commander in chief of the U.S. Central Command, discussed the potential horrors of urban warfare. He said in urban warfare you could run through battalions a day at a time. All of our advantages of command and control, technology and mobility are, in part, given up and you are working with corporals, sergeants, and young men fighting street to street. It looks like the last 15 minutes of the movie ``Saving Private Ryan.''
Despite the risks of urban warfare, the administration has avoided questions about how a military operation in Iraq may unfold. We have not been told how many ground troops we will need or, again, how many casualties we can expect. The Joint Chiefs should provide Congress with casualty estimates for a war in Iraq as they have done in advance of every past conflict. These estimates should consider Saddam's possible use of chemical or biological weapons against our troops.
Unlike the gulf war, many experts believe Saddam would resort to chemical and biological weapons against our troops in a desperate attempt to save his regime if he believes he and his regime are ultimately threatened.
In the September 19 hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, General Myers, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, cited a long list of improvements that have dramatically increased the combat effectiveness of our forces since the gulf war. He said our troops now have improved ability to protect themselves against chemical or biological attacks.
However, the General Accounting Office published a report on October 1 which clearly suggests that our forces are not
adequately prepared for a chemical or biological attack. The report concluded that although the Defense Department has taken significant actions to provide such protection, serious problems persist. This is what the GAO report found: Chemical and biological defense training continues to be a problem; medical readiness of some units to conduct operations in a contaminated environment remains questionable; some units are critically short of required protective gear.
One Air Force wing has only 25 percent of the protective masks required and only 48 percent of required patient decontamination kits.
If Prime Minister Blair is correct in saying that Iraq has the capability to launch chemical or biological warheads in 45 minutes, what sense does it make to put our soldiers in the path of that danger without exhausting every reasonable means to disarm Iraq short of war?
We do not know whether the military will be able to adequately protect our service men and women from a chemical or biological attack, and this issue should be explained to the American people.
The Wall Street Journal reported last week that in addition to chemical and biological chemical deficiencies, there are other notable gaps in the Pentagon's planning. Civilians working at port facilities in the Persian Gulf region, where our forces will be unloading warfighting equipment, have not all received the proper protective gear or training for a chemical and biological attack.
The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs have not adequately answered such questions about the military operation in Iraq. They both say there will be risks to a conflict, but they have not adequately and fully discussed those risks with Congress and the American people.
The Bush administration has also repeatedly claimed that we can fight a war in Iraq without undermining the war against terrorism, but last year, on June 21, 2001, testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Secretary Rumsfeld cited significant problems in military readiness. He said we have underfunded and overused our forces, and we are steadily falling below acceptable readiness standards. Yet last month, on September 19, when asked about military readiness in the Armed Services Committee hearing, Secretary Rumsfeld said recent defense budget increases, coupled with the recall of reservists and shifts in the assignment of existing personnel, have reduced the stress on our forces.
He did not explain how the budget increases, which only recently took effect, could have reversed the starkest estimate of readiness he provided to the Armed Services Committee last year. In fact, experts say that most of the growth in operations and maintenance spending over the past decade
GPO's PDF
have been for infrastructure-related programs, not military readiness.
General Myers, in his September 19 testimony, agreed that the U.S. military was stretched in some key areas. He said if our operations on the war on terror are expanded, we will be required to prioritize the deployment of unique units in high demand such as special operation forces and combat rescue forces. He also said our coalition partners may facilitate our combined operations by having similar units of forces. That, of course, assumes we will have a coalition in terms of a potential conflict.
Before the Senate Armed Services Committee 2 weeks ago, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs admitted that because of the high
demand placed on some of our forces that coalition partners are necessary to mitigate the risk of war in Iraq.
Two weeks ago, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs admitted that because of the high demand on some of our forces that coalition partners are necessary. The way we are going to get the coalition forces is by going to the United Nations and gaining their support for the disarming of Saddam, and if action is necessary in the future.
War against Iraq may well undermine the ongoing war against al-Qaida and our continuing operation in Afghanistan by draining resources from our Armed Forces that are already stretched thin. In Afghanistan, U.S. forces continue to search villages, caves, and potential hideouts. The searches are now being conducted by the 82nd Airborne, not the elite special operation forces which are being recalled in preparation for a potential invasion of Iraq.
Many of us in the Senate are aware of these concerns with the Reserves and National Guard. We have heard them firsthand. Already, the Nation has mobilized and demobilized thousands of reservists and National Guardsmen to support the current war on terrorism. Massachusetts reservists and reservists from across the country are providing training, intelligence, and security support around the world.
Almost 1,500 National Guardsmen from Massachusetts alone are deployed to support the war on terror. Citizen soldiers are now serving in critical security positions throughout the United States and in Afghanistan. They have distinguished themselves for their patriotism and superior service. They have proven ready to meet the challenge of fighting the war on terrorism, despite outdated equipment and funding shortfalls.
The phenomenal performance of our forces in the war on terrorism attest to their resolve. But how long can we sustain this high level of operation? Approximately 11,000 of our reservists from across the Nation have been recalled for a second year to support the war on terror. This is the first time in decades that we have needed to take this measure to enhance our military strength.
Not even in the gulf war did we recall reservists for over a year. If we open a second front in Iraq, we may be forced to recall even more.
Additionally, due to critical shortages of special operations personnel, pilots, intelligence specialists, and security personnel, another 22,000 service members, a number about as high as the entire gulf war, have been involuntarily retained on active duty as part of the current war on terrorism. If we embark upon a premature or unilateral military campaign against Iraq or a campaign with only Great Britain as our ally, our forces will have to serve in even greater numbers for longer periods of time with graver risks.
There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein is a despicable tyrant. The international community must work together to disarm him. But the war against terrorism and our wider interests in the region and the world demand a course that relies on war only as a last resort after all reasonable alternatives have been fairly tried.
I have no doubt our forces will prevail in any conflict with Iraq. But Congress and the American people deserve to know the true risk of war with Iraq. The administration has the responsibility to state what the real costs of such a war may be. We need that information now, before--not after--Congress exercises its constitutional responsibility to declare war.

[Clarkie1]

121. Disarming him does not mean war!

And still you have not provided a link and a date.

I fail to comprehend how in your view this Kennedy to be contradicting himself or more importantly how it defends Hillary's lying about her vote and the roll of her vote in taking the country to war.

I believe Senator Byrd and Kennedy!

Your argument is bankrupt; you have no defense and neither does she!

That is all...I'm done with you and will not respond to your posts here. I will no longer waste my time in your endless failures at attempting to defend the indefensible.

[SaveElmer]

124. Jeezus...

This is a verbatim transcript of his floor statement...made on the floor of the United States Senate on October 10, 2002...

I retrieved it on www.thomas.gov and posted it here for your convenience...

Are you implying that I made up his statement...


Your welcome btw for retrieving this for you...

[cboy4]

129. He's renown for taking his ball and going home when you pin

him into the corner with facts.

Because he's always right, and everyone else is always wrong. :eyes:

[Nomasdm]

113. Thank you! Does anyone see a trend here?

They supported it.

[FrenchieCat]

87. But now I am confused on the Reason Edwards voted Yes....

Cause Edwards states something different from that MTP quote.

Here's what he said on 1/17/07:

John Edwards, meanwhile, wants to set the record straight - he was not fooled by the administration into supporting the war. And, he adds, neither was any other senator.

In an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg in the latest issue of The New Yorker, Edwards said: "I was convinced that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and was doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons. There was some disparity in the information I had about how far along he was in that process. I didn't rely on George Bush for that. And I personally think there's some dishonesty in suggesting that members of the United States Senate relied on George Bush for that information, because I don't think it's true. It's great politics. But it's not the truth."

Edwards refused to single out anyone, but Goldberg wrote that he appeared to be referring to John Kerry, who chose Edwards as his 2004 presidential running mate. Like Nelson, Kerry claims he was misled and "given evidence that was not true."

"I was on the intelligence committee," Edwards went on, "so I got direct information from the intelligence community. And then I had a series of meetings with former Clinton administration people. And they were all saying the same thing. Everything I was hearing in the intelligence committee was the same thing I was hearing from these guys. And there was nary a dissenting voice."

For Edwards, the question at the time was not whether the information he was getting was accurate but whether to trust George Bush. "I decided to do it, and I was wrong."
http://www.ocala.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070117/OPINION/201170311/1030/OPINION01

So which is it? :shrug:

[ElizabethDC]

141. Hillary has said that she takes full responsibility for her vote n/t

[Whoa_Nelly]

35. That's not the point

He isn't lying about his vote, and admits openly it was a wrong choice.

On the other hand, Clinton is out-and-out lying.

[bigdarryl]

16. looks like that is a vote for war to me. shes flipping and flopping all over the place on war

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

106. Gotta say, the title does not mention

anything but allowing Shrubby to play war...

from the link

Measure Number: H.J.Res. 114
Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Vote Counts: YEAs 77
NAYs 23

Ted is looking to be correct on this.

[bling bling]

138. Let's see how long it takes you to look up who sponsored the bill....

That ought to be interesting.

[Whoa_Nelly]

162. Didn't take long at all

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HJ00114:@@@P

and here:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hj107-114

Introduced: Oct 2, 2002
Sponsor: Rep. Dennis Hastert

Cosponsors
Rep. Gary Ackerman
Rep. Todd Akin
Rep. Robert Andrews
Rep. Richard Armey
Rep. Spencer Bachus
Rep. Cass Ballenger
Rep. Joe Barton
Rep. Howard Berman
Rep. Judy Biggert
Rep. Roy Blunt
Rep. John Boehner
Rep. John Boozman
Rep. Kevin Brady
Rep. Henry Brown
Rep. Dan Burton
Rep. Stephen Buyer
Rep. L. Callahan
Rep. Ken Calvert
Rep. Christopher Cannon
Rep. Eric Cantor
Rep. Saxby Chambliss
Rep. Michael Collins
Rep. Larry Combest
Rep. Christopher Cox
Rep. Robert Cramer
Rep. Ander Crenshaw
Rep. Barbara Cubin
Rep. John Culberson
Rep. Randall Cunningham
Rep. Jo Ann Davis
Rep. Thomas Davis
Rep. Thomas DeLay
Rep. Jim DeMint
Rep. Peter Deutsch
Rep. Calvin Dooley
Rep. John Doolittle
Rep. David Dreier
Rep. Jennifer Dunn
Rep. Thomas Edwards
Rep. Terry Everett
Rep. Eni Faleomavaega
Rep. Michael Ferguson
Rep. Jeff Flake
Rep. Ernest Fletcher
Rep. Harold Ford
Rep. Vito Fossella
Rep. Jonas Frost
Rep. Elton Gallegly
Rep. Greg Ganske
Rep. Richard Gephardt
Rep. James Gibbons
Rep. Wayne Gilchrest
Rep. Paul Gillmor
Rep. Benjamin Gilman
Rep. Lindsey Graham
Rep. Felix Grucci
Rep. Ralph Hall
Rep. James Hansen
Rep. Melissa Hart
Rep. John Hayworth
Rep. Joel Hefley
Rep. Van Hilleary
Rep. Tim Holden
Rep. Stephen Horn
Rep. Henry Hyde
Rep. Steve Israel
Rep. Darrell Issa
Rep. William Jenkins
Rep. Samuel Johnson
Rep. Ric Keller
Rep. Brian Kerns
Rep. Jack Kingston
Rep. Mark Kirk
Rep. Joseph Knollenberg
Rep. James Kolbe
Rep. Tom Lantos
Rep. Jerry Lewis
Rep. John Linder
Rep. Kenneth Lucas
Rep. James McCrery
Rep. John McHugh
Rep. Scott McInnis
Rep. Howard McKeon
Rep. Michael McNulty
Rep. Dan Miller
Rep. Gary Miller
Rep. Jeff Miller
Rep. Sue Myrick
Rep. Robert Ney
Rep. Anne Northup
Rep. Thomas Osborne
Rep. Michael Oxley
Rep. Mike Pence
Rep. John Peterson
Rep. David Phelps
Rep. Charles Pickering
Rep. Joseph Pitts
Rep. Todd Platts
Rep. Richard Pombo
Rep. Robert Portman
Rep. Deborah Pryce
Rep. Adam Putnam
Rep. George Radanovich
Rep. Bob Riley
Rep. Timothy Roemer
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
Rep. Mike Ross
Rep. Marge Roukema
Rep. Edward Royce
Rep. Jim Ryun
Rep. Max Sandlin
Rep. James Saxton
Rep. Edward Schrock
Rep. Peter Sessions
Rep. John Shadegg
Rep. Christopher Shays
Rep. William Shuster
Rep. Michael Simpson
Rep. Joseph Skeen
Rep. Christopher Smith
Rep. Nick Smith
Rep. Charles Stenholm
Rep. Robert Stump
Rep. John Sweeney
Rep. Thomas Tancredo
Rep. William Thornberry
Rep. John Thune
Rep. James Turner
Rep. David Vitter
Rep. Watts
Rep. David Weldon
Rep. Roger Wicker
Rep. Addison Wilson
Rep. Bill Young
Rep. Donald Young
Cosponsorship information sometimes is out of date.
Last Action: Oct 16, 2002: Became Public Law No: 107-243.

[msongs]

9. except for your rant there is NOTHING in your post at all about Hillary Clinton nt

[Clarkie1]

18. Yes there is....she repeated the lie today in NH. nt

[mzteris]

11. I'm confused - your header says

Hillary - and your post is quoting Kennedy.

???

[Clarkie1]

14. Hillary says she did not vote for war.

It is clear from Kennedy's words he believed he was voting against the war.

So someone is lying.

[karynnj]

115. The contradiction is that their believes can be different

Kennedy may have believed it was a vote for war

while

Hillary may have believed it was a vote to back Bush at the UN

Both statements can be true. I would find it easy to believe if there are Jan - March 2003 Hillary statements when it became clear that Bush would not let the inspectors continue their work.

[Clarkie1]

15. Hillary says she did not vote for war.

It is clear from Kennedy's words he believed he was voting against the war.

So someone is lying.

[TheDebbieDee]

13. The IWR gave the pResident the authority

to use war as a LAST resort in an effort to get Sadam Hussein to surrender his WMDs.

Our dip$hit pResident had intended to use war as a FIRST resort all along..........

[David Dunham]

19. Don't be fooled by the far left claim Hillary, John Kerry voted for the war

The far left has done a great deal of harm to the Democratic party with this false claim.

[Clarkie1]

24. It's not a claim.

It's the truth.

[David Dunham]

29. There was NO mention of war in the resolution Kerry and Hillary supported

Once again, the far lefties are accepting the far right's lie and are wrong.

[Clarkie1]

46. .

KENNEDY: The best vote, best vote I cast in the United States Senate (INAUDIBLE).

KING: In your life?

KENNEDY: Absolutely.

KING: Was not to go to Iraq?

KENNEDY: Yes, not to go to Iraq.

KING: Why did you vote against?

KENNEDY: Well, I'm on the Armed Services Committee and I was inclined to support the administration when we started the hearings in the Armed Services Committee. And, it was enormously interesting to me that those that had been -- that were in the armed forces that had served in combat were universally opposed to going.

I mean we had Wes Clark testify in opposition to going to war at that time. You had General Zinni. You had General (INAUDIBLE). You had General Nash. You had the series of different military officials, a number of whom had been involved in the Gulf I War, others involved in Kosovo and had distinguished records in Vietnam, battle-hardened combat military figures. And, virtually all of them said no, this is not going to work and they virtually identified...

KING: And that's what moved you?

KENNEDY: And that really was -- influenced me to the greatest degree. And the second point that influenced me was in the time that we were having the briefings and these were classified. They've been declassified now. Secretary Rumsfeld came up and said "There are weapons of mass destruction north, south, east and west of Baghdad." This was his testimony in the Armed Services Committee.

And at that time Senator Levin, who is an enormously gifted, talented member of the Armed Services Committee said, "Well, we're now providing this information to the inspectors aren't we?" This is just before the war. "Oh, yes, we're providing that." "But are they finding anything?" "No."

Because the answer was because they're moving things, because when we tell the team they're all infiltrated by Saddam's people and they're leaking that so that's the reason we're not finding anything.

They started giving all the places where we said there were places and they still couldn't find any. And at the end of now, history will show we never gave any information to the inspection team at all.

But I kept saying, "Well, if they're not finding any of the weapons of mass destruction, where is the imminent threat to the United States security?" It didn't make sense.

There were probably eight Senators on the Friday before the Thursday we voted on it. It got up to 23. I think if that had gone on another -- we had waited another ten days, I think you may have had a different story.

[Captain Hilts]

Correct. The IWR talked about enforcing UN sanctions.

The Iraq War is President Bush's fault.

He would have invaded Iraq no matter what the senate did.

[martymar64]

168. Wrong, it was Hillary that accepted far-right lies

She was the one that took Bush at his word and accepted the lie that their were WMD's in Iraq and that Saddam was connected with Al-Qaeda. We on the left knew that it was bullshit from the beginning. That is why we were out marching in the street protesting against going to war.

So it seems that us "far-lefties" were right and you and the rest of the right wingers here on DU were wrong. Hillary was either in active collusion with Bush or horribly naive and gullible to believe him.

If you don't like lefties, maybe Free Republic is more your cup of tea. You'll find good company with the other warmongers.

[enough already]

182. Thank you!

It's mind-boggling how many people knew that Bush was never to be trusted, yet Hillary says she did and now wants us to trust her own judgment. Sorry, ain't getting my vote ever.

[papau]

37. war as a LAST resort authority is seen as a vote to go to war by the Obama supporters ?

OK -

OK - Obama read Bush and all his staff as liars - and was right - and he deserves points for that.

But vote to go to war is not what IWR was trying to do.



October 10, 2002

Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

As Delivered

Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.

I am honored to represent nearly 19 million New Yorkers, a thoughtful democracy of voices and opinions who make themselves heard on the great issues of our day especially this one. Many have contacted my office about this resolution, both in support of and in opposition to it, and I am grateful to all who have expressed an opinion.

I also greatly respect the differing opinions within this body. The debate they engender will aid our search for a wise, effective policy. Therefore, on no account should dissent be discouraged or disparaged. It is central to our freedom and to our progress, for on more than one occasion, history has proven our great dissenters to be right.

Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.

In 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait, losing the support of the United States. The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab states, and threw Saddam out after forty-three days of bombing and a hundred hours of ground operations. The U.S.-led coalition then withdrew, leaving the Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to Saddam's revenge.

As a condition for ending the conflict, the United Nations imposed a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to do the work. Saddam Hussein agreed, and an inspection system was set up to ensure compliance. And though he repeatedly lied, delayed, and obstructed the inspections work, the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities.

In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated "sovereign sites" including the so-called presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.

In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.

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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

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 affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?

Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.

Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it. This too has great appeal for different reasons. The UN deserves our support. Whenever possible we should work through it and strengthen it, for it enables the world to share the risks and burdens of global security and when it acts, it confers a legitimacy that increases the likelihood of long-term success. The UN can help lead the world into a new era of global cooperation and the United States should support that goal.

But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto, on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act. In Kosovo, the Russians did not approve NATO military action because of political, ethnic, and religious ties to the Serbs. The United States therefore could not obtain a Security Council resolution in favor of the action necessary to stop the dislocation and ethnic cleansing of more than a million Kosovar Albanians. However, most of the world was with us because there was a genuine emergency with thousands dead and a million driven from their homes. As soon as the American-led conflict was over, Russia joined the peacekeeping effort that is still underway.

In the case of Iraq, recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve force against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons.

So, Mr. President, the question is how do we do our best to both defuse the real threat that Saddam Hussein poses to his people, to the region, including Israel, to the United States, to the world, and at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations?

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. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.

If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.

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.

If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls for Saddam's compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving some nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose any Security Council action. They will say we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only support the United Nations when it does exactly what we want.

I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein's biological and chemical weapons. Today he has maximum incentive not to use them or give them away. If he did either, the world would demand his immediate removal. Once the battle is joined, however, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and to give what he can't use to terrorists who can torment us with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed by this possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it. And according to recent reports, the CIA agrees with this analysis. A world united in sharing the risk at least would make this occurrence less likely and more bearable and would be far more likely to share with us the considerable burden of rebuilding a secure and peaceful post-Saddam Iraq.

President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. 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.

Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.

This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.

And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them.

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.

And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am.

So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.

Thank you, Mr. President.

[Clarkie1]

61. She even lied when she was giving her testimony..."it is not a vote to rush for war."

KENNEDY: The best vote, best vote I cast in the United States Senate (INAUDIBLE).

KING: In your life?

KENNEDY: Absolutely.

KING: Was not to go to Iraq?

KENNEDY: Yes, not to go to Iraq.

KING: Why did you vote against?

KENNEDY: Well, I'm on the Armed Services Committee and I was inclined to support the administration when we started the hearings in the Armed Services Committee. And, it was enormously interesting to me that those that had been -- that were in the armed forces that had served in combat were universally opposed to going.

I mean we had Wes Clark testify in opposition to going to war at that time. You had General Zinni. You had General (INAUDIBLE). You had General Nash. You had the series of different military officials, a number of whom had been involved in the Gulf I War, others involved in Kosovo and had distinguished records in Vietnam, battle-hardened combat military figures. And, virtually all of them said no, this is not going to work and they virtually identified...

KING: And that's what moved you?

KENNEDY: And that really was -- influenced me to the greatest degree. And the second point that influenced me was in the time that we were having the briefings and these were classified. They've been declassified now. Secretary Rumsfeld came up and said "There are weapons of mass destruction north, south, east and west of Baghdad." This was his testimony in the Armed Services Committee.

And at that time Senator Levin, who is an enormously gifted, talented member of the Armed Services Committee said, "Well, we're now providing this information to the inspectors aren't we?" This is just before the war. "Oh, yes, we're providing that." "But are they finding anything?" "No."

Because the answer was because they're moving things, because when we tell the team they're all infiltrated by Saddam's people and they're leaking that so that's the reason we're not finding anything.

They started giving all the places where we said there were places and they still couldn't find any. And at the end of now, history will show we never gave any information to the inspection team at all.

But I kept saying, "Well, if they're not finding any of the weapons of mass destruction, where is the imminent threat to the United States security?" It didn't make sense.

There were probably eight Senators on the Friday before the Thursday we voted on it. It got up to 23. I think if that had gone on another -- we had waited another ten days, I think you may have had a different story.

[papau]

142. her speech made clear what the President had promised he would do before war was the

reason she voted yes.

The President lied and did none of what was promised - ignoring the inspection results, saying they could not find weapons because Saddam moved those WMD just before we inspected a given location - a Colin P lie, as you may recall, to the UN.

Ted saw that the President was lying and voted no.

Obama and Clark did not vote no, but Obama spoke out against the vote.

Obama and Hillary had more or less the same position, the difference being Hillary voting for war as a last resort based on that nuke threat that was "imminent", and Obama in the post vote interview 11/25/02 saying he did not want to give Bush "carte Blanc" as to the decision making on whether the extent of Saddam's post vote actions or inactions justified war.

He did indeed declare in the 11/25/2002 television interview that he would have voted against the Iraq Resolution for the above reason - so he should get points for that wisdom.

Obama video of 11/25/2002 = http://www.brightcove.com/title.jsp?title=481520374&channel=353512239

But I still do not see the Hillary lie. Could you or anyone paraphrase her speech in NH today where she lied?

[CTLawGuy]

161. Hillary's speech is not the law, the text is the law.

this was the resolution ASKED FOR BY BUSH. It was SIGNED by him as all laws must be unless passed by 2/3 majority. Do you think he would ask for a resolution other than one that gave him limitless power, especially in the wake of 9-11?

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

109. Where does it say "Last resort?"

Measure Number: H.J.Res. 114
Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Vote Counts: YEAs 77
NAYs 23

I know that is what we were told, but I sure don't see it anywhere. That title sure says it all.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

[tuvor]

17. What does Edward Kennedy have to do with this?

Maybe I can't read between your lines very well...?

EDIT: Never mind. Saw your other post.

[Clarkie1]

21. Kennedy made it clear his vote was against the war.

Yet Hillary says her vote was not for the war.

[David Dunham]

26. Hillary, John Kerry did not believe they were voting for the war.

The far left claims that they voted for the war play right into Republican hands.

[Clarkie1]

27. Then they were fools.

And fools have no business running for President.

[ProudDad]

52. Then they are idiots

and should be disqualified from office....

Oooops, bush proved that idiots aren't disqualified from the pResidency...never mind...

[ccpup]

28. Like many right wing whackos

your abrasive attitude and language completely turned me away from your message. I could have been further educated about something potentially very important, but instead lost interest when I could almost see the foaming at your mouth and your eyes rolling around in your head as you yammered away incoherently complete with ear-shattering expletives ... much like the Talking Heads who shout each other down every Sunday morning (who I also studiously ignore and do my best to avoid)!

Just FYI.

[Clarkie1]

39. Ignore me. Just read this.

KENNEDY: The best vote, best vote I cast in the United States Senate (INAUDIBLE).

KING: In your life?

KENNEDY: Absolutely.

KING: Was not to go to Iraq?

KENNEDY: Yes, not to go to Iraq.

KING: Why did you vote against?

KENNEDY: Well, I'm on the Armed Services Committee and I was inclined to support the administration when we started the hearings in the Armed Services Committee. And, it was enormously interesting to me that those that had been -- that were in the armed forces that had served in combat were universally opposed to going.

I mean we had Wes Clark testify in opposition to going to war at that time. You had General Zinni. You had General (INAUDIBLE). You had General Nash. You had the series of different military officials, a number of whom had been involved in the Gulf I War, others involved in Kosovo and had distinguished records in Vietnam, battle-hardened combat military figures. And, virtually all of them said no, this is not going to work and they virtually identified...

KING: And that's what moved you?

KENNEDY: And that really was -- influenced me to the greatest degree. And the second point that influenced me was in the time that we were having the briefings and these were classified. They've been declassified now. Secretary Rumsfeld came up and said "There are weapons of mass destruction north, south, east and west of Baghdad." This was his testimony in the Armed Services Committee.

And at that time Senator Levin, who is an enormously gifted, talented member of the Armed Services Committee said, "Well, we're now providing this information to the inspectors aren't we?" This is just before the war. "Oh, yes, we're providing that." "But are they finding anything?" "No."

Because the answer was because they're moving things, because when we tell the team they're all infiltrated by Saddam's people and they're leaking that so that's the reason we're not finding anything.

They started giving all the places where we said there were places and they still couldn't find any. And at the end of now, history will show we never gave any information to the inspection team at all.

But I kept saying, "Well, if they're not finding any of the weapons of mass destruction, where is the imminent threat to the United States security?" It didn't make sense.

There were probably eight Senators on the Friday before the Thursday we voted on it. It got up to 23. I think if that had gone on another -- we had waited another ten days, I think you may have had a different story.

[creeksneakers2]

Posting that over and over again

is annoying.

[Evergreen Emerald]

30. this language "voting for the war" is part of the right-wing talking points

that stuck because the media used it again and again. It was not a vote FOR the war. It was a vote to give the president the backing to threaten, knowing that with that power, Hussien would be more likely to back down....and he did, (but that is another story, as we were not told he did because Bush wanted the war).

[David Dunham]

31. Correct. The far left and right are WRONG in claiming it was a war vote.

[Clarkie1]

34. Wrong. nt

[ProudDad]

60. I can understand why you hate the right-wingers

their ideas and world view totally suck.

What's your problem with those of us on the left?

Is it our stupid ideas like one person, one vote? Is it our strange ideas like the 8 hour day and the weekend? Is it our stupid ideas like Social Security and Health Care for ALL? Is it our bizarre ideas like worker's Unions? How about our weird notion of taxing those who are well off to help out our less fortunate brothers and sisters? Maybe it's our philosophy that everyone has a right to basic housing, enough food, fulfilling work and leasure and decent health care?

What part of the left-wing humanist "agenda" do you have a problem with?

[patrice]

135. Thank You!!

I was waiting for someone to say something like that.

All of this talk about how the "far lefties" have bought the RW language "vote for war" is buying RW language.

[SaveElmer]

42. Exactly...nt

[Clarkie1]

44. .

KENNEDY: The best vote, best vote I cast in the United States Senate (INAUDIBLE).

KING: In your life?

KENNEDY: Absolutely.

KING: Was not to go to Iraq?

KENNEDY: Yes, not to go to Iraq.

KING: Why did you vote against?

KENNEDY: Well, I'm on the Armed Services Committee and I was inclined to support the administration when we started the hearings in the Armed Services Committee. And, it was enormously interesting to me that those that had been -- that were in the armed forces that had served in combat were universally opposed to going.

I mean we had Wes Clark testify in opposition to going to war at that time. You had General Zinni. You had General (INAUDIBLE). You had General Nash. You had the series of different military officials, a number of whom had been involved in the Gulf I War, others involved in Kosovo and had distinguished records in Vietnam, battle-hardened combat military figures. And, virtually all of them said no, this is not going to work and they virtually identified...

KING: And that's what moved you?

KENNEDY: And that really was -- influenced me to the greatest degree. And the second point that influenced me was in the time that we were having the briefings and these were classified. They've been declassified now. Secretary Rumsfeld came up and said "There are weapons of mass destruction north, south, east and west of Baghdad." This was his testimony in the Armed Services Committee.

And at that time Senator Levin, who is an enormously gifted, talented member of the Armed Services Committee said, "Well, we're now providing this information to the inspectors aren't we?" This is just before the war. "Oh, yes, we're providing that." "But are they finding anything?" "No."

Because the answer was because they're moving things, because when we tell the team they're all infiltrated by Saddam's people and they're leaking that so that's the reason we're not finding anything.

They started giving all the places where we said there were places and they still couldn't find any. And at the end of now, history will show we never gave any information to the inspection team at all.

But I kept saying, "Well, if they're not finding any of the weapons of mass destruction, where is the imminent threat to the United States security?" It didn't make sense.

There were probably eight Senators on the Friday before the Thursday we voted on it. It got up to 23. I think if that had gone on another -- we had waited another ten days, I think you may have had a different story.

[SaveElmer]

45. ...

“…I commend President Bush for taking his case against Iraq to the American people…and I agree with the President that Saddam is a despicable tyrant who must be disarmed.” -Ted Kennedy

[Clarkie1]

64. Hillary lied when she said "it was not a vote to rush to war." Only the vote counts.

You can post Kennedy's floor statement all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that he voted against premtive war and Hillary voted for it.

KENNEDY: The best vote, best vote I cast in the United States Senate (INAUDIBLE).

KING: In your life?

KENNEDY: Absolutely.

KING: Was not to go to Iraq?

KENNEDY: Yes, not to go to Iraq.

KING: Why did you vote against?

KENNEDY: Well, I'm on the Armed Services Committee and I was inclined to support the administration when we started the hearings in the Armed Services Committee. And, it was enormously interesting to me that those that had been -- that were in the armed forces that had served in combat were universally opposed to going.

I mean we had Wes Clark testify in opposition to going to war at that time. You had General Zinni. You had General (INAUDIBLE). You had General Nash. You had the series of different military officials, a number of whom had been involved in the Gulf I War, others involved in Kosovo and had distinguished records in Vietnam, battle-hardened combat military figures. And, virtually all of them said no, this is not going to work and they virtually identified...

KING: And that's what moved you?

KENNEDY: And that really was -- influenced me to the greatest degree. And the second point that influenced me was in the time that we were having the briefings and these were classified. They've been declassified now. Secretary Rumsfeld came up and said "There are weapons of mass destruction north, south, east and west of Baghdad." This was his testimony in the Armed Services Committee.

And at that time Senator Levin, who is an enormously gifted, talented member of the Armed Services Committee said, "Well, we're now providing this information to the inspectors aren't we?" This is just before the war. "Oh, yes, we're providing that." "But are they finding anything?" "No."

Because the answer was because they're moving things, because when we tell the team they're all infiltrated by Saddam's people and they're leaking that so that's the reason we're not finding anything.

They started giving all the places where we said there were places and they still couldn't find any. And at the end of now, history will show we never gave any information to the inspection team at all.

But I kept saying, "Well, if they're not finding any of the weapons of mass destruction, where is the imminent threat to the United States security?" It didn't make sense.

There were probably eight Senators on the Friday before the Thursday we voted on it. It got up to 23. I think if that had gone on another -- we had waited another ten days, I think you may have had a different story.

[SaveElmer]

70. That is false.....

And a deliberate distortion of the facts...worthy of a freeper!!!

[Clarkie1]

72. Nice try. But that won't fly.

Try again...defend her.

[SaveElmer]

78. I have on many occasions...

A quick search will reveal the answer...if you want a more full description...feel free to visit my blog...link on my sig line.

[Clarkie1]

82. I've already revealed the answer to this "debate."

KENNEDY: The best vote, best vote I cast in the United States Senate (INAUDIBLE).

KING: In your life?

KENNEDY: Absolutely.

KING: Was not to go to Iraq?

KENNEDY: Yes, not to go to Iraq.

KING: Why did you vote against?

KENNEDY: Well, I'm on the Armed Services Committee and I was inclined to support the administration when we started the hearings in the Armed Services Committee. And, it was enormously interesting to me that those that had been -- that were in the armed forces that had served in combat were universally opposed to going.

I mean we had Wes Clark testify in opposition to going to war at that time. You had General Zinni. You had General (INAUDIBLE). You had General Nash. You had the series of different military officials, a number of whom had been involved in the Gulf I War, others involved in Kosovo and had distinguished records in Vietnam, battle-hardened combat military figures. And, virtually all of them said no, this is not going to work and they virtually identified...

KING: And that's what moved you?

KENNEDY: And that really was -- influenced me to the greatest degree. And the second point that influenced me was in the time that we were having the briefings and these were classified. They've been declassified now. Secretary Rumsfeld came up and said "There are weapons of mass destruction north, south, east and west of Baghdad." This was his testimony in the Armed Services Committee.

And at that time Senator Levin, who is an enormously gifted, talented member of the Armed Services Committee said, "Well, we're now providing this information to the inspectors aren't we?" This is just before the war. "Oh, yes, we're providing that." "But are they finding anything?" "No."

Because the answer was because they're moving things, because when we tell the team they're all infiltrated by Saddam's people and they're leaking that so that's the reason we're not finding anything.

They started giving all the places where we said there were places and they still couldn't find any. And at the end of now, history will show we never gave any information to the inspection team at all.

But I kept saying, "Well, if they're not finding any of the weapons of mass destruction, where is the imminent threat to the United States security?" It didn't make sense.

There were probably eight Senators on the Friday before the Thursday we voted on it. It got up to 23. I think if that had gone on another -- we had waited another ten days, I think you may have had a different story.

[Evergreen Emerald]

111. why, because Kennedy bought into the right-wing talking points?

Clinton has been consistent in describing her reasons for the vote. I believe that she underestimated the evilness of Bush and his cohorts, which of course many Americans did.

She thought that America would never needlessly engage in a preemptive war, and so she had his back, thinking it was a threat, a bluff, that had the power of Congress behind it. And it worked. Hussien backed down. Bush should have done what Kennedy did in the Bay of pigs: claimed victory, and ended the talk of invasion. That was what she thought would happen, that is what he promised. He lied. He lied about everything.

[Clarkie1]

122. Did Byrd buy the talking points too? Unbelievable!

The woman lied!

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... ::

[Clarkie1]

53. .

KENNEDY: The best vote, best vote I cast in the United States Senate (INAUDIBLE).

KING: In your life?

KENNEDY: Absolutely.

KING: Was not to go to Iraq?

KENNEDY: Yes, not to go to Iraq.

KING: Why did you vote against?

KENNEDY: Well, I'm on the Armed Services Committee and I was inclined to support the administration when we started the hearings in the Armed Services Committee. And, it was enormously interesting to me that those that had been -- that were in the armed forces that had served in combat were universally opposed to going.

I mean we had Wes Clark testify in opposition to going to war at that time. You had General Zinni. You had General (INAUDIBLE). You had General Nash. You had the series of different military officials, a number of whom had been involved in the Gulf I War, others involved in Kosovo and had distinguished records in Vietnam, battle-hardened combat military figures. And, virtually all of them said no, this is not going to work and they virtually identified...

KING: And that's what moved you?

KENNEDY: And that really was -- influenced me to the greatest degree. And the second point that influenced me was in the time that we were having the briefings and these were classified. They've been declassified now. Secretary Rumsfeld came up and said "There are weapons of mass destruction north, south, east and west of Baghdad." This was his testimony in the Armed Services Committee.

And at that time Senator Levin, who is an enormously gifted, talented member of the Armed Services Committee said, "Well, we're now providing this information to the inspectors aren't we?" This is just before the war. "Oh, yes, we're providing that." "But are they finding anything?" "No."

Because the answer was because they're moving things, because when we tell the team they're all infiltrated by Saddam's people and they're leaking that so that's the reason we're not finding anything.

They started giving all the places where we said there were places and they still couldn't find any. And at the end of now, history will show we never gave any information to the inspection team at all.

But I kept saying, "Well, if they're not finding any of the weapons of mass destruction, where is the imminent threat to the United States security?" It didn't make sense.

There were probably eight Senators on the Friday before the Thursday we voted on it. It got up to 23. I think if that had gone on another -- we had waited another ten days, I think you may have had a different story.

[Lerkfish]

56. er...is the board hiccupping, or are you too being needlessly repetitive?

if the latter, maybe move it to a private room?

[AtomicKitten]

33. Well, that depends on what the definition of IS is.

Technically she is correct. However, and that's a BIG however, what she and 27 other Senators did do is abdicate their collective constitutionally-mandated war-declaring powers to a moron, someone EVERYBODY knew was going to go to war. What they did was put a Democratic seal of acquiescence on the war. In my view, you can't have it both ways.

I definitely agree that that vote should make those running for president ineligible, however, that said, I will vote for the Democratic nominee. I will support Gore, Obama, or Clark in the primary and work my ass off to make sure one of those brilliant, brave, and RIGHT when it comes to the war men becomes our nominee.


Spread the love:

Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)

[LittleClarkie]

38. If she's a liar, then so was Kerry

He's apologized for his part in starting the war. She's sorta half apologized or at least said she was wrong.

But it has been said that Kerry, and perhaps Clinton too, voted to get the inspectors back in.

But it has also been said that Clinton told Kerry he needed that IWR vote or he would be in trouble come election time.

Don't know if that was true.

But my impression of her has often been that she does things for political reasons, so i guess I could see her voting for the IWR because she thought it was politically expedient.

But, just as I am with Kerry, I'd be open to explanations to the contrary.

Lies, or interpretations of the vote. Dunno if I'd call it an outright lie.

[Clarkie1]

40. You said it, not me.

The vote for war is also a reason why I could never have supported a Kerry 08' run.

We need someone with integrity of the highest order in the White House, not another calculating poltician.

My vote will be for Clark, Obama, Richardson, or Gore...depending.

[LittleClarkie]

62. None of whom had to meet that test

The least you could do is pick someone who voted no.

[Clarkie1]

66. I don't buy that argument.

It wasn't rocket science.

[Miss Chybil]

131. Good. Vote for who you like. That's the wonderful thing about this

country. We get to vote for whoever we want.

[Lerkfish]

51. I don't like Clinton's war stand, but even so, I think this thread is over the top

we should still be civil,IMHO

[ProudDad]

65. I just read the entire thread

and Clarkie1 was entirely civil.

Not so some of those attacking him/her though. Some of those weren't civil at all...

[David Dunham]

68. Clarkie1's statements about Hillary, my senator, were not civil.

She's also the likely Democratic nominee in 2008. We should be blasting the Republicans, not our frontrunner

[Clarkie1]

74. I will not remain silent in the face of a lie.

Whether you deem that civil or not is immaterial to me.

[ccpup]

101. and this attitude

is oftentimes how people "lose" debates. In fact, you're "I'm right and you're wrong and what you think is 'immaterial' to me" is highly reminescent of a certain White House squatter I can think of.

Consider it a low-blow, but the lack of civility you're displaying just hocks me off. Again, as I read your responses I think more and more of those right wing talking heads on the Sunday morning talk shows who yell -- actually, it's more like scream -- at anyone who disagrees with them. But that's probably immaterial to you as well.

I prefer having a conversation with someone who can teach me something and not just yell at me, tell me I'm wrong and force their "facts" down my throat.

Looking forward to the rants you'll give about the other Senators who also "voted for the war".

Understand that I'm not a "supporter" of Hillary by any means. I do support reasoned debate and respect, though.

[patrice]

136. "likely Democratic nominee"?

You just did her great harm.

Honestly, I don't know why the rest of us even bother to show up.

[Lerkfish]

71. um...ok, you have a valid point.

my bad.

[cboy4]

77. Yea, calling another Democrat a liar is being civil

:eyes:

[creeksneakers2]

130. Repeatedly posting the same

long excerpt is uncivil.

[Clarkie1]

67. When someone lies, should we remain silent? nt

[David Dunham]

81. Calling the Democratic frontrunner a lier is not civil. It helps the Repugs

[Clarkie1]

86. O.K. she's not a liar. She lied.

That better?

Hope so, because that's as much slack as I'm willing to give her.

[David Dunham]

90. Calling the Dem frontrunner a liar only helps Bush, McCain, and other Repugs

Any Dem who starts a circular firing squad, by charges such as calling the party's frontrunner a "liar," only helps the Republican right.

[Clarkie1]

93. Did you read my post? I said she lied.

I'm granting her the benefit of the doubt now that she is not a liar, she merely lied.

[A Simple Game]

96. There is something perhaps you don't realize about the IWR.

It was written so vaguely that anyone that voted on it can say their vote meant for when it was against, or their vote was against when it was for.

And yes they are written that way on purpose.

The truth is, no one is lying, they are all correct!

If you don't like Hillary, fine, channel your energy into being positive for someone you like, don't waste your time being negative.

Why should I vote for Clark, Obama, Gore, or Richardson. Educate me.

[flyarm]

63. if i remember correctly..and i can't say i am 100% on this but..

i remember in the days before * started this war..Kerry going on TV and on the floor of the senate saying ..in the resolution it was stipulated that * had to go back to congress in 60 days from issuing the resolution for reauthorization..and * did not do that..it could have been 90 days ..but 60 days is stuck in my memory bank!

i want no part of this dog snd pony argument..but i do specifically remember Kerry stating that as a fact of the resolution.

fly

[Pachamama]

155. I remember that too and it still to this day remains to me one of the most upsetting and unanswered

issues that our congress never went back and required bush to not only come back to Congress for a "review" but also that Bush never was held accountable for the requirement I recall that the Congress stated in the IWR which was that Bush had to go back to the UN for a second vote...Maybe I'm wrong on that, but like you, I remember those details and I've never heard a good answer on this....

[flyarm]

169. * never went back to congress until 3 days "after " he started this war of lies!

he violated the IWR..and i will never understand why dems don't beat that into the ground!!

fly

[William769]

79. Do you have proof?

I have yet to hear her say that.

ON EDIT: At least she's not a quitter like Wesley Clark.

[Clarkie1]

84. Watch the evening news tonight. nt

[MethuenProgressive]

95. More proof the Right Wing's Hate Machine works on Dems too

I suggest DUers would do better spending more time promoting their own candidates and less time bashing other Democrats. You're teaming up with the Republicans - and they don't really need your help.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

97. k/r #5

thanks

don't you just love the way King tries to pin people on stupid things?

[Barack_America]

99. I think that it is just a FOOLISH thing to say...

I think that her response was that she voted to give the President "certain powers" or something, but that she had no idea how much he would abuse them. That just makes her look naive.

My message to Hillary:
Just admit that you made a mistake when you voted for the war and that you are fallible. It might even soften this "hardass bitch" image that so many people have of you.

ETA: I don't think that she is a "hardass bitch", well, at least not in the bad way. But when I ask people why they wouldn't vote for her, this is a common response I get.

[ccpup]

104. unfortunately,

you're wrong about that. If she admits she's fallible and "made a mistake", people who are prone to hate her no matter what she says will jump on that and scream "can we have someone be a leader who makes a mistake and actually admits it?! No! We need a strong, wise leader who doesn't make mistakes!" She can't win in some people's eyes. Of course, these people who hate someone regardless aren't usually prone to thoughtful debate and nuance, but that's another story.

[Barack_America]

108. I happen to disagree...

I think that it makes her look too much like Bush and his approval ratings went down the toilet in large part because he wouldn't admit that he made mistakes in Iraq. A lot of people happen to feel that admitting your mistakes and taking responsibility for them is a sign of strength and leadership.

[ccpup]

110. actually, I agree with you.

But you have to admit that there are people out there who will be unhappy with Hillary no matter what she does. She can say the sky is blue and people will yell at her and then she can say wait, no the sky actually is blue with white clouds and people will attack her for changing her mind and being a "flip-flopper" and a "liar". In some people's minds, she just can't win.

I do agree with you original statement, though.

[mtnsnake]

102. It's pathetic that you don't even supply any quote by her, nor do you know the difference

between what voting for the war is and what voting for granting Bush the authorization is, so even if what you said she said is true, you're technically not correct. All the senators who voted aye, voted to give Bush the authorization to go to war if he deemed it that Iraq was as evil as he lied it was. Were they smart to give him that right? No they weren't. They were played for fools, but they didn't simply vote to go to war.

Hillary...just like Biden, Edwards, Kerry, and the majority of other senators, voted to give Bush the AUTHORIZATION.

This is worse than being on some RW posting board.

[ccpup]

107. you're right!

I just don't expect this kind of mindless, hormonely charged, foaming-at-the-mouth, I'm-right-and-you're-all-wrong stupidity on a place like DU. I guess it just goes to show that you can't always be right.

[MrSlayer]

105. What do you really expect from her?

She's a neo-lib. Same corporate agenda as the Republics with a more sane approach to social issues. Although I believe she'd sell those out in a second. I've never liked or trusted her.

[ccpup]

114. can you explain this?

from bleedingheartpatriot's new Post in the DU LBN forum:

At a town hall meeting of about 300 people in the city of Berlin, the New York senator was asked by one participant to repudiate her 2002 Senate vote for a measure that cleared the way for the March 2003 invasion.

"Knowing what we know now, I would never have voted for it," she responded. "I gave him the authority to send inspectors back in to determine the truth. I said this is not a vote to authorize pre-emptive war."

Later at a high school gym packed with about 3,000 people in the state capital, Concord, she was asked if she wanted to "have it both ways" by calling for the war's end after voting for the measure five years ago.

"I do not believe that most of us who voted to give the president authority thought he would so misuse the authority we gave him," she replied. "He said he was going to the United Nations to put inspectors in. He did, but then he didn't let them complete their mission and he rushed to war."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16720712

did clarkie1 choose to omit this info to help his own argument or ... ? just curious.

[Bitwit1234]

116. You know people the republics smear enough

If you are going to post a message from the news get it correct.

Senator Hillary Clinton said that she did not vote for bush to invade Iraq. She said the resolution that they voted on was for bush to enforce the sanctions the UN had voted on. Go to RAW STORY and read the exact words.

I don't like any of the democrats who have filed for the presidential nomination but I would never smear or slur any of them. The republics do a number on them, they don't need the democrats to do the same thing.

Obama might be a viable candidate in 5 or 6 years. Kunich does not have the charisma to take a campaign forward. Edwards had his chance and the public will look at him for that. Hillary Clinton can not overcome the smear campaign that the republics have waged against her for they last 16 years, altho she is trying. And the rest of the democrats who have filed are blah. Right now we don't have a candidate. I hope one pops out soon.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

118. If you're so "disgusted" with Hillary's statements in N.H., why post a transcript of Kennedy's

interview on Larry King Live? :shrug:

My response...



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3106020 MKJ

[Clarkie1]

123. She voted 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... ::

[Catherine Vincent]

125. Even if she did lie as you say,

wouldn't you and others get that info out by sending your entire post to Wes Clark for him to use against Hillary before the Democratic nomination?

[suston96]

126. Check what Hillary said when she voted.....

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

"............I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.

*********

So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed. "

[SaveElmer]

127. He doesn't care...nt

[Barack_America]

132. "disarm or be disarmed"

Sounds to me like she definitely knew that war was on the table...

ETA: Furthermore, it sounds to me like she definitely knew that she might be voting for a war.

[Clarkie1]

152. I don't care what she said; I only care what she does. nt

[AJH032]

128. Actually, what you're saying is the lie

Because technically she did not vote for the waqr, she voted for the resolution giving war powers to the president of the United States. Criticize her for that all you want, but don't call her a liar for saying something that's actually true.

[ccpup]

133. I'm disapointed.

I've yet to see from Clarkie1, the originator of this Thread, the actual quotes from NH today that so incensed him to begin this conversation tonight. I've seen the other quotes (from BleedingHeartPatriot) from her remarks today in NH that seem to contradict Clarkie1's assertion, but would like to see a rebuttal other than "she voted for war". If she DID say something specific -- and I mean Hillary herself; not Kennedy or anyone else -- today in NH, I'd like to see the quote.

If you're going to attack someone successfully, at least do it with their actual quotes from the day in question. We'll believe and trust you more the next time you have something important to share.

[SaveElmer]

140. Those are the quotes...

His reasoning is thus:

Hillary voted for the IWR...

The IWR was a vote for preemptive war...

Therefore anything she says to contradict these two assumptions is a lie...


Motivation, context etc have no meaning for him

[ccpup]

143. so, are you saying

I have a better chance of meeting Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy down at my local A&P than I do of hearing anything substantive from the originator of this thread about what Hillary actually said in NH that so angered him?

Okay. Maybe I can finally get that dollar for the front tooth I lost when I was 5. :-)

[CTLawGuy]

163. The Constitution

gives Congress the authority to declare war. The founders did NOT intend for war making decisions to be left to one person.

The IWR, while not a declaration of war in FORM, is one in substance. It enabled Bush to go to war by delegating the Congress' Constitutional authority to go to war to the president. By doing that, Congress takes vicarious responsibility for what Bush does. They can't disclaim responsibility becuase they gave the choice to someone else.

If you are against the war, you DON'T give the president the opportunity to go to war. If you want UN action, you have a resolution that actually REQUIRES UN action and not one that does not.

[xkenx]

166. Exactly....well put. Courage would have been to vote NO

[bonito]

144. DLC flack attack, lol

They think everyone drinks the cool aid, much of it here about lately.

[patrice]

145. "far lefties say it was a vote for war" sounds like a RW talking point

to me.

Give us some credit. We know that the YEAS voted to let the pResident decide. We are angry because they passed the buck and took a gamble with our lives. In other words, with the possibility that * would choose War, the possible loss of thousands of lives was an acceptable price to pay for ___________________.

We need to hear some specific explanation of how they evaluated the possible loss of lives in war relative to the possible loss of lives from WMD. How was it determined that one was more likely than the other?

P.S. Clarkie1, it does nothing for your argument to call HC a liar, except alienate her supporters and make you look **very suspicious** to those who have not decided yet.

[Imagevision]

146. Hillary defies to admit she made a mistake voting for the war, she may end up regretting it

[dsc]

149. I know this is off topic

but I really get bugged by this interview. Kennedy was in the Senate, and voted for the Civil Rights Act and all the War on Poverty legislation. I really think that it is ridiculous to say his vote against the Iraq War Resolution was better than those. It is one thing when we lose perspective but quite another when people who were there do. I also don't think it is fair to call this a war vote. Bush claimed he would do so as a last resort.

[Pachamama]

154. Personally, I think all the votes were important that you refer to from Kennedy - that said, I think

while we can all debate whether it should have been called a war vote, I am angry as hell that the Senators weren't speaking up to require Bush to have been in compliance with the terms of the IWR that Bush had to go back to the UN for a second vote. Bush never went back to the UN...I've always wondered why our Congress didn't call that out...unless they were so afraid...of Bush?

[oasis]

159. Kennedy, Kerry, Edwards and Hillary have four of the many differing viewpoints on IWR.

So what?

[FreeStateDemocrat]

160. Lies, spin, corp money and being related to ex-prez - the Chimp's formula to trick voters.

Another phony member of the ruling class with "name recognition" pretends by lying that they are qualified to lead our country. The dissolution of American democracy accelerates with the emergence of the corporate whore politicians being the ones who can buy the nominating (coronation) process with the full support of corporate controlled media.

[spanone]

164. Hillary said if she knew then what she knows now she would have voted differently.

Thats what she said. I saw it. I heard it.

[xkenx]

167. She knew then. See my post #179. Revisionist spin cannot help Hillary.

[oasis]

171. That's good enough for most voters. Those who insist on an apology wouldn't vote for her

anyway, and she knows it.

[AZBlue]

184. Do you have a link to substantiate your claim - from NH and elsewhere?

You stated "repeatedly" she lies - I'd expect at least three instances of that? Please provide links.

[TheFarseer]

186. Damn right it didn't make any sense, Senator Kennedy

Teddy is a bit liberal for me personally, but I respect that he says what he means and does what he thinks is right. Hillary tries to triangulate everything and try to be all things to all people. The pandering is disgusting. The half-truths are nauseating. Hillary is almost in that Bush category where she couldn't do anything at this point to make me happy. If she handed me a million dollars I'm sure I'd find some way to be pissed off about it.

[The Magistrate]

187. Locking

This has become a flame-war.