Everybody should read Hillary's IWR floor speech

[Lone_Wolf]

I am by no means a fan of hers, but this helps put her recent comments in proper context. Judge for yourselves.

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

[JeffR]

1. I've already read it and I've judged

:thumbsdown:

[LoZoccolo]

3. Thanks for letting us know why.

So we can make the same informed judgment you did and all.

[JeffR]

7. LZ, if I had to get into that

I wouldn't be able to get the DUzies together. A guy's gotta have priorities, ya know.;)

But briefly, her speech about the IWR reads well, but doesn't say much. And much more distressing is her failure to say much about the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq since the IWR. I'm not a huge Edwards fan, but even he has recanted, in clear language. Clear language doesn't seem to be something Senator Clinton indulges in except when she's fighting the dread scrouge of video games. That's just not what I'm looking for in a candidate, personally.

[cui bono]

19. Yep. And today or yesterday, when questioned about her vote and not

having addressed it, she got defensive and angry with her response saying she had addressed it and something else, I forgot what she said I was so struck with the angry way in shich she answered it. Not going to vote for her.

[JeffR]

26. There would have been a time I would proudly have voted for her

Unfortunately, at the time her husband was in charge. I rue the day she became a politican; she was once a policy strategist - and an unfairly malinged one - and now she seems to think realpolitik trumps her record, and her public statements, and her deep entanglements with an outmoded but still overpowering party fifth-column infrastructure.

She will not get my primary vote. If she is the nominee, she'll get my vote, but the stench of soulless expedience will hang heavily over the experience.

[Blue_In_AK]

32. I agree JeffR

and please get back to work on those DUzies. :)

[wakeme2008]

46. DUzies DUzies DUzies DUzies DUzies DUzies DUzies

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

And posting some photos too :evilgrin:

[Lone_Wolf]

4. Technically speaking, I think she told the truth...

...but still, she should have known Bush was going to go to war no matter what.

[rodeodance]

8. perhaps. It is hard to know why.

[JeffR]

9. Whenever she tells the truth, there seems to be a technicality involved

That's one reason why she disappoints me so much.

[AtomicKitten]

2. thank you for posting this

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.

****

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.

It is clear Hillary Clinton in no war hawk, and I'm really glad that gratuitous BS has been dispelled tonight.

However, using "President" and "wise" in the same sentence was her first mistake.

[Lone_Wolf]

5. Like I said I am no fan of hers, but I think she told the truth...

The question really is should she have known better than to trust Bush?

[cui bono]

15. Yes, of course. Didn't we all know the intelligence was cooked?

Didn't we all know there were no WMD? Didn't we all know Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and terrorists? If we knew it there's no way in hell she didn't know it.

If she didn't want to authorize a military solution she shouldn't have voted on this resolution, she should have introduced another or tried to amend it and voted no to this one.

Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely...

What? She knew damn well he was gunning for war, we all did. I don't trust her.

[regnaD kciN]

31. Exactly...!

I am so tired of pro-IWR Democrats who now excuse themselves because "we had no way of knowing that the intelligence was cooked," or "we had no way of knowing Bush would rush into war."

Look at the results of that vote, folks. Plenty of Democrats voted against it, including (among others) Kennedy, Levin, Durbin, Byrd, Inouye, Sarbanes, Boxer, Leahy, Conrad, and Murray. Even Lincoln Chaffee on the Republican side. Senators across the political spectrum. Some not only voted against it, but spoke out strongly in opposition. Many of them were high-ranking leaders; some were on the committees that would have gotten a full look at the intel provided by the White House. If the evidence was so overwhelming, how come they weren't convinced?

In fact, if you look at who was "fooled" by the Bush administration, and who wasn't, you find a striking pattern: those who signed on to the IWR were often either those caught in a tight re-election bid that year (i.e. Clelland) or those with presidential aspirations in 2004 or later (Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, Hillary, Lieberman). In other words, those whose best interests lay in being able to avoid looking "weak on defending America." The facts didn't matter -- no matter how flimsy the evidence, if the lives of tens of thousands of noncombatants were balanced against their own political advancement, well, no one in America cares about nig...I mean Ay-rabs anyway.

I think it's proof of the craven nature of these "CYA" Democrats that a) they didn't start complaining that they had been misled into war until after the war itself was shown to be highly unpopular among the American people, and b) that, at that time, they immedately and universally switched into "how could I have known?" mode, wherein their only emotion was posturing, self-righteous anger (anger that was strangely silent, even as the truth about WMDs was known, as long as the majority of Americans approved of the war) at the Bush administration for fooling them, and not a hint of remorse for being so fooled, even though (if their claims were genuine) it's a telling mark against their judgement that they could be so gulled even as their Democratic congressional compatriots, not to mention most of us here, could see through Bush and his claims as if he were made of glass.

:grr:

[bling bling]

10. "using "President" and "wise" in the same sentence was her first mistake."

I don't know whether to laugh at that because it's so true or get bummed out and disappointed about it because *it's so true*.

Good point, regardless of how I decide to react to it.


"Life is a comedy for those who think and a tragedy for those who feel."
-Chinese proverb.

[cui bono]

16. Amen. She knew exactly to who mshe was handing over her power.

And how arrogant and ignorant he is.

[AtomicKitten]

21. you'll get no argument from me on that

and that is the PRECISE reason why the IWR was such a POS vote -- but don't forget that dumbass vote was made by 27 other Senators -- spread the love

[EndElectoral]

18. The problem with her quote is she abrogated her responsiblity to Bush.....

[Lone_Wolf]

23. That might be fair to say...

However, according to the IWR, Chimp was suppose to exhaust all diplomatic solutions before force was to be used.

[regnaD kciN]

27. Same old same old...

Just like every other "CYA" Democrat on that day -- they were voting to give Bush unlimited authority with the understanding that he would limit his authority. :crazy:

It's been said before, but is no less true now: the sort of rationale expressed by Hillary, Kerry, et. al. was akin to giving a known-to-be-irresponsible family member a blank check, while telling them you expect them to only use it for emergencies, and for no more than $50. If/when you find your bank account cleaned out the next day, you have only yourself to blame.

[Lone_Wolf]

29. Here is part of the IWR

I don't think they gave Bush a blank check to go to war. Did Bush really use diplomacy as stated in Section 2? Was Iraq an imminent threat and possess WMDs that justified using military force in Section 3?

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002''.

<[Page 116 STAT. 1501>]

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

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

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this
joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) <<NOTE: President.>> Reports.--The President shall, at least
once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant
to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the
exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning
for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are
completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq
Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107

[AtomicKitten]

34. this is the sticky part and the crux of the matter

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary ...

This in essence abdicated all war-declaring power to dumbass who has since not only used it to illegally invade Iraq but also has extrapolated that power to cover spying on Americans without a warrant and to engage in torture and the rendition of untried suspects for torture.

It was in fact and without a doubt a BLANK CHECK.

[Lone_Wolf]

36. Good point

n/t

[regnaD kciN]

37. You're not reading that very carefully...

Did Bush really use diplomacy as stated in Section 2?

Section 2 only "supports" diplomatic efforts. It does not mandate them as a prerequisite for permission to use military force. In short, that section is clearly irrelevant to the main goal of the IWR -- giving Bush approval in advance to "use the Armed Forces of the United States as HE determines to be necessary and appropriate." (Emphasis mine -- in other words, from the time the IWR was adopted, Bush had sole authority to determine whether and how we used military force. Congress from henceforth had no way of stopping him, thus the "blank check" nature of the resolution.)

Was Iraq an imminent threat and possess WMDs that justified using military force in Section 3?

Once again, it matters not at all, since Section 3 states that the President alone could henceforth make those determinations, and only had to notify Congress that, in accordance with his own determination, diplomatic measures had been tried and failed. There was no place for Congress to question that determination, and no way to retract their approval when that time came. In other words, the only thing Congress could do was to receive the President's written determination, file it away, and get out of the way while the bombs and bullets flew. Once again...a blank check.

[Lone_Wolf]

38. I see where you are coming from

you have a point.

[truedelphi]

50. Not a war hawk? You shoulda heard Chris Matthews

attempting to diss her for her rush to war just 3 or four days ago - her campaign manager started defending her by saying that she has to be one of the Big Boys to play with the Big Boys - can't appear soft if her eyes are on the Prize, ya know

That is the whole problem with her - she will do whatever she needs to do - I can't remember her having any principled stand on any issue unless it was a very safe issue indeed

[oasis]

6. "...bipartisn support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely,

and therefore, war less likely..."

[rodeodance]

11. on face value --yes. (then Powell et al balled over the UN)

[oasis]

12. Condi was tapping phones at the UN to see which nations stood in the way of the

2nd resolution that would give Tony Blair cover. They found out they didn't have the votes, then Bush lowered the boom.

[rodeodance]

13. She speaks of being a Senator from NY-----which had to weigh heavily

on her yes vote.
I, for one am not asking for her to apologize.



........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.

[Tellurian]

24. Good on ya! rodeodance..

and thanks for stating something we all know is the Truth-

But more than some find it an excuse of convenience to bash our Dem candidates.

[regnaD kciN]

39. So, in other words...

...because of 9/11, we had to attack a nation that had nothing to do with it. (And, if Hillary really thought that Iraq was involved in 9/11, she's far too stupid to be President.)

This is merely another case of playing the "9/11 card," as Bush and members of the Republic Party are all-too-ready to do at the drop of a hat, in order to justify anything they want, whether it was connected or not. :grr:

[mtnsnake]

14. Good job, Lone_Wolf

The truth is the truth.

[Lone_Wolf]

17. I believe it is unfair to say she is lying...

I read the other threads about her and the IWR and was curious enough to do some research about it. Before doing the research, I must admit I thought she was lying. To my surprise, her explanation for her vote on the IWR is entirely reasonable to me. IMO, she made a fair statement in NH today.

[cui bono]

20. Okay, how about she's not being honest?

She knew damn well who she was giving the car keys to and that all his excuses about Saddam and Iraq were false.

[Lone_Wolf]

25. I can only condemn her based on what she has said...

so I honestly don't know if she knew Bush was going to strike Iraq or not. I do know that the IWR stated that Bush had to use diplomacy first and force as a last resort.

I think she should have known better, but that very different than saying she voted for it knowing that Bush would strike Iraq.

[Pachamama]

44. The term I come up with to describe it is "Intellectually Dishonest"

And, after reading her statement on the IWR, I ask myself, what did Hillary do after that? Did she hold the President responsible for meeting the requirements regarding UN inspections and disarming Saddam?? Did she speak out against that early on when it was obvious? Could she challenge Bush more on the fact that he misused that awesome power she voted to give him? I think so.

That is the part I have a hard time reconciling on this issue with Hillary. So every time I hear her say "Had we known then, what we know now", I cringe. I want, no, rather I need, to hear her flat out say, "I regret that vote, it was a mistake". I wish that she would also call Bush a liar and call out on all the falsified and cherry-picked intelligence.

I have seen so many on the DU tonight argue and fight about this topic....I've seen people on DU accuse those that don't like what Hillary has done or said as giving the equivalent of aid and comfort to the Republicans. I think its important for us to discuss this and while we may not agree on this issue, we can't attack those that don't agree with our opinion. I know lots of people support Hillary. I have supported her financially in the past for Senate. She might be a good President, but there are so many things with her I have a hard time reconciling such as this particular issue and she in my opinion keeps blowing it with her refusal to admit the vote was a mistake. I also think she is so devisive - and from the looks on the DU tonite, not just among Republicans.

[JeffR]

22. indeed it is

and the truth some of us perceive is that Hillary Rodham Clinton is not the "corpo-whore warmongering neo-fascist" some on DU would have everyone believe. Neither is she, in the opinion of at least one DUer, fit to occupy the Oval Office.

Bill Clinton, his faults aside, had convictions. Since the senator was sworn in, she seems to be exerting herself strenously to telegraph to every segment of the voting bloc that she has convictions, their convictions. Thus it seems she is either to be taken at her self-defined face-value as all-things-to-all-people or she is to be taken as I see her: brains, ambitions and experience at the highest levels of the Executive Branch all rendered comatose through the dated early-90s gambit of focus-grouped, polls-parsing, made-for-TV-just-as-soon-as-they-stop-talking-about-poor-Anna-Whozits political porridge.

[longship]

28. Hillary on IWR -- One equivocation after another.

This is numero uno reason why Hillary will never get the nomination.

She'll not place in Iowa. She'll not place in NH. Nevada will pass her by. She may fool the media right now, but she's not fooling the people. They are asking her about this and she is failing to respond in anything that remotely resembles coherence.

Screw her. We need a leader, not an equivocator.

[Lone_Wolf]

30. I agree with that...

Gore is my choice if he runs. Otherwise, I'm voting for Kucinich in the primaries.

[sandnsea]

33. Where was she in 2003??

Was she giving speeches calling for him to change his war mongering? Was she opposing the invasion, or calling for regime change in America?? No. She supported this damn war, no matter what triangulating language she used then and now. She says she'll end the war as president, but she won't support the resolutions that would set a deadline or even move in that direction. Gads. How can people not see right through this woman.

"I admire your willingness to speak out on behalf of women and children in Iraq," she said. "The only way to change this is for Saddam Hussein to disarm, and I don't think he will. We are in a very difficult position right now. I'd love to agree with you, but I can't."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0307-01.htm

[AtomicKitten]

35. NONE of the 28 Senators re-thought their 'yes' vote in 2003

because it was leading into an election. CYA first, doncha know? To blame HRC for this alone without mention of the others is convenient blaming.

[sandnsea]

40. "Do Not Rush To War"

Oh yes, at least one candidate stood up and called on Bush's pre-emptive unilateral bloviating war bullshit. Hillary didn't. That's a fact.

[AtomicKitten]

41. "A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war ..."

Oh yes, at least one candidate stood up and called on Bush's pre-emptive unilateral bloviating war bullshit. Hillary didn't. That's a fact.

Your response is rather strident considering this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52839-2004Aug9.html

Hillary was just as cautious in 2002. That's a fact; see below.

Yet all 28 Senators made the breathtaking mistake of putting monolithic power into the hands of a moronic war-mongering shithead. ALL 28 SENATORS. That's also a fact.

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

"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."

****

"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."

[sandnsea]

42. 2003

Did you miss my reference to her comments regarding the actual invasion?? What she said in 2002 doesn't matter because she didn't follow it up in 2003 or 2004 or 2005 and wouldn't be now if the war hadn't gone so disastrously wrong.

[Major Hogwash]

45. Exactly! She's upset with how the war was managed, not against the war at all ever.

And she acts like we should expand the war into Iran these days.

Just like Edwards has been saying lately.

[BenDavid]

43. I read her comments and I

agree that her statements since then about Iraq are in line to what she said on the senate floor. I concur with what she said Saturday in N.H. and here is aquote from her floor speech...
"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"

[welshTerrier2]

48. classic Clinton equivocation

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

you've already posted one of the two statements. i'll repeat it here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[JNelson6563]

47. I watched her deliver it

and it made me physically ill. Thanks but no thanks.

Julie

[smoogatz]

49. Her speech is irrelevant. What matters are the effects of her vote--

the disaster she enabled. What she says she voted for is not, in fact, what we got. What we got is Deja Nam all over again, and a "war president" who thinks he's a king. Thanks, Hillary. Thanks a whole fucking lot.