Hillary's hardly enthusiastic vote to authorize force ...

[sjdnb]

I am not a Hillary supporter and I was against the war from the start. But, I can understand that not everyone is/was not as cynical and suspicious of the President and his gang as I, and many others were. And, I understand the make up of the Congress and the mood/fears/beliefs of many in the country at the time - including politicians. If only she/everyone who supported the war knew then, what they know now, this human tragedy might have been avoided. But, I don't think any of the Dems in Congress cast this vote lightly.

From her statement made at the time - many other Dems who voted the same way made similar statements. I don't think any believed, at the time, Bush/Cheney and Co. could actually be as ignorant, arrogant inhumane, and exploitive as it turns out they are.

"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.

...

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.

...

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.

...

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.

...

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."

[NJSecularist]

1. If only we could use hindsight

And not relinquish that "awesome responsibility" to the president. It would have saved many lives.

[never_get_over_it]

2. I'm sure her less than enthusiastic vote

really means a lot to the 100,000s of dead Iraqis, the dead Americans and troops of the coalition of the willing and oh lets not forget the KAZILLION $$$$ that has been pissed away over there.

She voted the way she did, not because she wasn't suspicious enough of the freak in chief, but because she knew eventually she would be running for President and that is what her freak advisers told her and so many of her fellow Democrats did the same. But I've sort of gotten past the actual vote - what I haven't gotten over is her COMPLETE lack of leadership during her entire term in office up until she announced she was running

AND THIS is why I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR HER IN THE PRIMARY and actually may not vote for her in the general - FUCK YOU HILLARY CLINTON AND YOUR ASS HOLE HUSBAND - I am so sick of the Clintons I could PUKE....

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1016-20.htm

"My bottom line is that I don't want their sons to die in vain... I don't believe it's smart to set a date for withdrawal... I don't think it's the right time to withdraw."

By the way this is almost an exact quote of what the idiot in chief had said a few days before -

I wonder how many have died since this quote - real people real lives - while these ASS HOLES play political games - their level of enthusiasm doesn't make these people any less DEAD.

[sjdnb]

3. Well then, here's the only folks (in the Sen) you can support

These are the only Senators who voted Nay (removed those out of office) and Obama wasn't there so is moot.

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wyden (D-OR)

Additionally, many of the troops also believed the President at his word and supported/went because they believed what the Admin told them. They didn't know what we all know now either. I don't believe they died in vein ... I think Bush and Co. LIED to everyone and they are the criminals.

[DiamondJay]

4. If Ted Kennedy didn't vote for it, why should Hillary have?

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

5. The Clinton Administration's official position was pro "regime change" in Iraq

Hillary Clinton stated as much in her speech on the Senate floor preceding the vote on the IWR. Bill Clinton himself wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein, but not necessarily through a military invasion. I don't think the war itself was that much of a surprise to Hillary Clinton or an unwelcomed event, since regime change and nation building was her husband's own policy and goal. In her own words:

"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."

Her husband and, supposedly, herself as well opposed mere containment of Saddam and mere inspections and was defintely in favor of upsetting the stability of Iraq and seeing that new leadership was imposed, although not necessarily through overt U.S. military means.

At another point in her speech on the Senate floor, Hillary Clinton again spoke in favor of regime change as a goal of hers towards Iraq. And it should be noted that even if Saddam fully complied with the UN, allowed full inspections and disarmed, she still would have favored somehow deposing him in the end and changing Iraq's government, although in the latter case, she said it would take more time:

"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."

In May, 2005, according to articles I have read on anti-war websites, Hillary Clinton gave a speech to a meeting of AIPAC in which she supposedly ratified her vote for the war by indicating that U.S. troops must stay in Iraq "as long as it takes". I wish I could find a copy of that speech to see the full context. If I'm mistaken or casting those words in a false light, I apologize in advance. I would greatly appreciate seeing the complete speech at the AIPAC conference of 2005 and seeing some explanation of what she meant by "as long as it takes", after more than 2 years of bloody war and nation-building. I don't want to be unfair to Hillary Clinton or any candidate and I only want to know the truth. But if she did say that our troops must stay in Iraq "as long as it takes" in May, 2005, then that's really troubling to me because it seems to confirm her position on the IWR vote (that regime change and not just disarmament and containment of Iraq was a valid goal and that the occupation of Iraq after the war was also a good thing). It also causes me to wonder whether regime change in such countries as Iran, Syria and elsewhere will continue to be an official policy of a Clinton White House. I also wish such a question could be posed at an official debate.

[sjdnb]

6. So was everyone, it was called the Iraq Liberation Act

Passed in the House 360 - 38; Senate Unanimously Passed on Oct 7, 1998.

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/11/01/981101-in.htm

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

7. But 23 Senators and 133 Representatives redeemed themselves on the IWR

by voting "no". The others must live with their shame.

[sjdnb]

8. Yes, agreed, both times the MAJORITY of members of both bodies failed to

understand the criminal intent of the Bush Administration.

[cali]

12. Of course the vast majority of repukes voted for war, but it's laughable

to say they voted for it because they didn't understand the intent of the bush admin. Do some reading, please. Many repukes had been hungering for war for years and years. The mojority of dems in the House voted against the IWR.

[sjdnb]

21. This was referring to the Iraq Liberation Act

You seem to have confused the two.

[ArfDogMNO]

9. This is an example of Triangulation

She knew she would be running for President in 2008 or possibly 2004 when she did this, so this vote allowed her to take credit for voting for whatever was done (it was pretty clear Bush&Co wanted to hit iraq) while having some text that pretty much spoke against her vote to give to the elements of her own party that would not like this vote.

What counts more, the vote or the disclaimer language attached to the vote partially repudiating it?

I will add that her own previous co-administration had used Iraq as a whipping boy/diversionary bombing site for years, and steadfastly maintained that they believed Iraq had WMD's present (WJClinton even gave an interview and said that clearly after the 2003 invasion, something which has been conveniently forgotten).

[Evergreen Emerald]

18. I am sorry in advance

BULLSHIT. This is an example of unpacking an extremely complicated decsion.

[ArfDogMNO]

19. Sorry, but

she has been running for President for the last 8 years, in terms of positioning and planning. If you think she was not looking forward to her eventual presidential race when she had that statement put together you are likely in serious error.

I don't see why people idealize politicians (of either party) - their job, first and foremost, is to be re-elected/elected to whatever they are after, but the voters time and time again fall for it.

[cali]

10. It was a blank check for war. And Pat Leahy said that over and over

and over again. Pretty simple stuff. I'm convinced that she voted for it out of political expedience, same as JK. At least Edwards seemed to genuinely believe that Iraq was a threat.

[rodeodance]

11. The fact that she was a Senator from New York was a big factor for her--as I

read it.

[moondust]

13. Sorry. That exam was pass-fail.

I consider it the professional responsibility of professional politicians to know and understand tbe character of their fellow professional politicians, particularly those squatting in the White House. GeorgeDick and the neocons did not suddenly pop up out of nowhere in 2002 and drum up a war.

The elder Democratic statesmen (Byrd, Kennedy, et al.) passed with flying colors on that most important of tests. Only the fools failed.

[still_one]

14. Why do you suppose she also voted for the Kyle/Lieberman amendment?

If it walks like a duck, qwacks like a duck, its a duck

[IndianaGreen]

16. One Clintonian trait is that they do naughty things, then claim they weren't.

In Bill's case, it involved sex (depends on what the definition of "is" is). In Hillary's case, it involves politics, a vote for war in Iraq and Iran is not a vote for war.

For Hillary, giving the keys of the car to a drunk, twice, is okay.

[still_one]

17. It goes to the heart of the matter, TRUST, and I DON'T trust the Clintons /nt

[BeyondGeography]

15. Poor Hillary, snookered by GOP dumbshits

:cry:

[sjdnb]

22. As were a majority of the Democrats in the Senate

the Senate Dems voted 29-21 to authorize.

And, again, I was against it from the start -- however, I was not privy to the information being fed them at the time. They were getting it from high level sources, while I got most from the media - which I tend never to trust at face value.

All I am saying is, I was not there - you were not there - Obama was not there, no one knows what they heard to make them vote the way they did. And, even the 29 who voted for it, I believe, did so believing that the Admin would never act without absolute proof of imminent danger/failure to secure WMDs. No one knew, for certain, until much later that it was all a pack of lies.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. Either she was stoopid or she was playing politics.

In either case it makes her unfit for public office.