Why does Hillary’s vote on Iraq weigh more than other Senators?

[blueinindiana]

If she had voted no on IWR the invasion and occupation of Iraq still would have taken place.

I am not making excuses for her and her vote I just think it is unfair to paint her in the same colors as Dick Cheney.

[Bonobo]

1. Who painted her the same color?

[asthmaticeog]

2. Her IWR vote counts exactly as much as any other Senator's.

And any other Senator who's A) running for President and B) voted for the IWR is equally on my shit list along with Senator Clinton.

[Ninja Jordan]

3. Because she's running for president (thus her jusdgment is an issue)

[Webster Green]

4. Goes with the territory..

She wants to be president.

[The Count]

5. Edwards actually sponsored the IWR, she merely voted for it.

That being said, all who voted for it go to the same circle in hell for that, the sponsors - one deeper. Bush& Cheney - to the center of hell.
That being said, Hillary always will be subjected to more scrutiny than all others.

[Rabrrrrrr]

6. Because a lot of DUers have unhealthy "purity" issues

[blueinindiana]

7. No viable Presidential Candidate is 'pure' NT

[Rabrrrrrr]

21. No, they aren't, but a lot of DUers insist upon it anyway.

And usually have a rather bizarre set of purity litmus tests.

[pnwmom]

8. You're right. Even if every single Democrat voted against the IWR,

Bush would have attacked Iraq -- under the authority of a NEW war resolution. And under that new resolution, we might well already be in Iran.

The IWR was passed in October 2002, with the help of some Democrats who voted in favor of the resolution, in exchange for requiring that certain compromise language was inserted. According to Chuck Hagel, the original Republican version of the bill would have allowed Bush to attack anywhere in the Middle East, even in Greece!

If the Democrats had voted en masse against the compromise bill, Bush wouldn't have given up. All he would have had to do is wait for the new Congress in January, when a majority were Republicans -- and then he could have resubmitted his original, preferred war resolution: the one that would have allowed him to attack anywhere, without restriction.

Because Sen. Clinton and some others voted for the Oct IWR, that's the one that Bush is forced to operate under now. And that's why Pelosi and Reid can state very clearly that the resolution does not allow Bush to attack Iran.

[blueinindiana]

10. This Invasion and Occupation is the GOP's and the GOP's alone NT

[Carolina]

16. wrong

Those Democrats -- all of them -- who voted for IWR enabled Bush and his lock-step GOPers.

Clinton's Omnibus Budget Bill of 1993 passed WITHOUT A SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTE (they know how to stick together) and ushered in the prosperity and deficit reduction of the 90s!

By contrast, many Dems foolishly ceded war power to an unelected moron, and anyone with the smallest amount of common sense knew exactly what he'd do with it. Noe, there has been too much destruction, too much loss in life and limb, in capital, in good will ... for aye-voting Dems to disavow themselves of their culpability.

I blame the GOP surely but also all the wimpocrats who, with fingers in the wind, went along to get along. We need real leadership, new leadership, not me-too-ers.

[SOS]

22. That would have been the case

If the Senate Democrats (forget Lieberman, add Chaffee and Jeffords) had all voted no.
The House Dem majority voted no.
As it is, the war is authorized by the US Congress.
Yes, Bush would have invaded under his "constitutional executive power" just like Nixon continued Vietnam after the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was repealed in 1970.
But the Democrats would now be free of this disaster and that would simplify our situation going in to 2008.

[illinoisprogressive]

9. For me she has alot more wrong than just a vote. many thing.s

[snowbear]

11. If she's your candidate Blue Indiana....

Don't worry about what anyone else thinks.

She comes in as my 8th favorite out of our 8 (announced) candidates..

But then again.. I never talk about her Iraq vote -- or any of the others who voted to give Mr. BOOOoosh authorization.

As a presidential candidate, I just don't happen to care for her.

[rhett o rick]

12. It is simple. She voted to give the neocon nazi's complete power to invade

iraq. Sorry, can't forgive that for her or any other Senator.

[Carolina]

17. Exactly

While the GOP is surely responsible for this fiasco of a war (which should never have been waged), so are all the Wimpocrat Dems who, with fingers in the wind, went along to get along and foolishly ceded war power to an unelected moron. Dems did so in haste even when one of their own -- Sen Robert Byrd -- cautioned them about the assault on the Constitution of such votes and tried to encourage debate. Haste and fear have led to regret and disaster.

We need real leadership, NEW leadership, not me-too-ers. There has been too much destruction, too much loss in life and limb, in capital, in good will ... for aye-voting Dems to disavow themselves of their culpability. That's why I blame them, especially those that now seek the presidency.

[patrice]

13. She's running for President and she told us those care about this

don't matter to her.

Aside from that her vote on the IWR isn't greatly heavier than the other votes to give Bush a BLANK CHECK, which, apparently, we can do little or nothing about at this point.

She doesn't need to apologize, but it would help if she'd explain herself. I will never forget.

[AtomicKitten]

14. Her vote was the same as the other 27 Senators.

And I am not impressed by the apologies/excuses/explanations. I oppose all of them in the primary election. And, you are right, it is unfair that Hillary takes the brunt of that vote, but between you and me, I think it's just an excuse used by people that just don't like her and can't be honest about it.

[Forkboy]

15. I think all of the people who voted for it are idiots.

[Ethelk2044]

18. Vote

Because she refuse to admit her vote was a mistake. Others have come out stated their vote was a mistake. She dances around the issue instead of admitting it was a mistake.

[MGD]

20. There's something to be said for floating along in the currents I suppose

but in Washington D.C., the political jellyfish is all too common and has been for hundreds of years. Hillary isn't a spineless political jellyfish floating along on the most favorable politcal currents. She is swimming against the current on this one and I have to respect her for that. That being said, I find it difficult to respect politicians who apologize for their votes and beliefs when they perceive a change in American sentiments. Take Sen. Byrd for example. He was one of the most vocal opponents of civil rights legislation in the Senate but, now that the currents have changed, he apologizes for his behavior and calls it a mistake and he continues tobe reelected. Is John Edwards any different for calling his IWR vote a mistake? I don't think so. Look at Zell Miller for an even more recent example of the Washington political jellyfish floating along in the current. Will Lieberman be any different? He is poised to pick his current when it becomes abundantly clear to him which one will be the most favorable. I have zero respect for these career politicans who have no convictions beyond reelection. Hillary has a spine. Good for her.

[zulchzulu]

19. It's a pretty big piece in each candidates' puzzle...some don't have that piece

Much like you weigh your options, your pluses and minuses in any decision, you see that a candidate may have something you don't care about or philosophically.

Balance it out.

The IWR is not a single issue vote for me personally. I looked at how some voted for it with the intent of getting inspections in Iraq. When those people later said that they regret the vote, that at least gave it some closure.

Would Bush have attacked Iraq without the the IWR passing? I doubt it. It would have been too obvious a breach in executive power. He knew what he was doing...and those that voted for the IWR were making a choice. Historically, I think it will be Bush and Cheney who will be seen as lying to Congress with faulty evidence and no clear exit strategy (if there even is one).