IWR = Hillary's downfall

[subsuelo]

She's stammering on Iraq vs Obama - how do you think she's going to handle Iraq questions in the face of Republican pressure?

Better to let her fall NOW rather than picking her for the Democratic Party nomination when we might just all lose down the road because of her vote.

IWR is Hillary's downfall, let's not let it be the downfall for the rest of us.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

1. her IWR vote is a positive in the GE. She says invasion is because of shithead R president

McCain will say it's a good war

[subsuelo]

7. hard to say

I think Republicans will chew her up for making the mistake she can't admit to

[Tellurian]

20. Not really..

Republicans have to deal with admitting we've all been living with Bush's LIE and it is Bush who should apologize!

[unkachuck]

26. or 'usurp' her....

....'why settle for a pseudo-hawk-female-Dem when you can have the real-thing with mcCain'....she'll piss everybody off....

[ErnestoG]

45. Nice try, Lee Atwater!

But that won't fly. Not only did she make a stupid vote, she refuses to acknowledge it was stupid EVEN TODAY.

How conservative of her!

[ErnestoG]

65. Horseshit as usual

Only a cultist would call this disaster of a position for her, a "positive"

[goldcanyonaz]

2. Maybe on this forum, but the majority of Americans were also behind the war.

We just know now that we have to get out without leaving a bigger mess than there was when we entered.

[DJ13]

4. "the majority of Americans were also behind the war. "

But, unlike Hillary, they admit they were wrong.

Look at all the polls, the American people are deadset against the war, and that issue will damage her when running in a GE.

[goldcanyonaz]

8. Americans in general vote for a President who is more hawkish than dovish.

[subsuelo]

9. They also want someone with the foresight to make the right decision

Particularly a decision to go to war or not, where lives of sons and daughters are involved.

[CyberPieHole]

16. But Obama didn't vote on that decision...he was busy working for the Syrian slum~lord Rezko...

at the time. Besides, he would probably have voted "present" if given the chance.

[subsuelo]

22. oh please

:eyes:

[CyberPieHole]

27. We have to base our assumption on past experience and his "experience" is lack~luster.

roll your eyes all you want...:hi:

[subsuelo]

28. thanks for adding 'Syrian' in there

real classy touch

[Fredda Weinberg]

30. I wish we wouldn't go there

The facts are bad enough

[CyberPieHole]

35. You have something against Syrians?

:shrug:

[subsuelo]

36. nope not at all

[Stephanie]

40. They were wrong and now they know it.

They don't want a president who makes a mistake that huge.

[subsuelo]

exactly

[Patchuli]

43. The Iraq Occupation

couldn't be a "bigger mess" than we have made of it. Saddam needed to go but that is where it should have ended.

I didn't know many people that were behind this illegal war...

[ErnestoG]

46. they aren't NOW

And that puts them in front of Hillary, who still won't cop to her goof.

[ZinZen]

47. There were also mass anti-war demonstrations

before the lead of of the war across the globe that was unprecendented. How come us anti war folk knew that going into Iraq war was wrong and not the "experienced" politicians? Obama's judgment trumps Hillary's experience on this one.

[eridani]

50. Because Americans are like most other people everywhere else

Vicious cheerleaders for mass murder of the other guy. Like the Superbowl, only with dead bodies.

[maddiejoan]

3. It's her downfall for the primary

in the GE --not so much.

[SOS]

48. In the 2004 GE

It could be argued that the incessant Republican shrieks of "flip-flop!" didn't exactly help Kerry.

[maddiejoan]

61. Flip Flop

really can't work for the GOP with McCain or Romney

[debatepro]

5. Not just that but

remember... Obama says you have to set a timeline to force iraqi political forces... to come together and resolve problems..... that and without a timeline then you leave to possibility that there will be mission creep.

[sunonmars]

6. No, people are more interested in the economy

People are basing their votes on bread and butter issues.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

10. To me, the most stunning moment in the debate

came when Barack Obama reminded Hillary Clinton that the resolution for which she voted, and for which she said she didn't know that war would be the natural consequence, was entitled "The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002".

It was an embarrassing moment for her. To me, it was a crushing moment and I held my breath for a second during the silence that immediately followed.

[subsuelo]

11. echoes of Condi Rice

"I believe the title was ... Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S."

Similar kind of embarrassment. Rice felt it then. You know Hillary felt it tonight

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

13. Yes, I was going to add that to my post

because it was a very similar moment. But I was afraid that some here would think I was comparing Hillary Clinton to Condi Rice. I actually like some of Hillary Clinton's ideas, but her vote on the IWR is a big negative to me.

[Tellurian]

32. It was a cheap shot by Obama..

we all know, the title of the resolution is based on conditional approvals. Bush violated and broke all the conditions in the resolution because at the time, he insisted, he didn't need Congressional approval to go to war.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61040-2002Aug25?language=printer

[dailykoff]

51. Cheap and MEAN!

He's such a brute! I am LIVID with fake rage! :mad:

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

55. There were no preconditions to military action in the IWR

Here are the relevant portions of the Iraq War Resolution. Please find any condition to the President use of force in it. I can't.

Section 2 states that those signing the bill merely "support" the President in seeking a diplomatic solution. It's a show of support, but nothing binding the President's hand or limiting him. Absolutely nothing in the language states that the President "must" seek a solution or how far he must go in pressing for a diplomatic solution.

Section 3 is the one that counts, as it is the section that specifically lays out what authorization the President has to go to war. Section 3 says the President can use the U.S. military "as he deems necessary" to defend U.S. security against the threat posed by Iraq and "as he deems necessary" to enforce relevant UN resolutions. It's virtually a blank check and it provides absolutely no condition.

And finally, it allows the President to use military force before even having to report his decision to Congress about his reasons for using that military action.

Find me any conditions or limits on the President here.

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) 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.

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 there after 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 resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists 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 resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(a) 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 2 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 Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

[Fredda Weinberg]

12. When you're ready to listen ... the facts are on her side n/t

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

14. The majority of the Democrats in the House voted against the war

as well as 21 leading Democrats in the Senate. Hillary Clinton will forever be on the wrong side of history on this particular issue.

[Fredda Weinberg]

18. The resolution was to force inspectors back in. It worked. History

hasn't been written yet.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

49. There was no requirement in the IWR that exhaustive inspections precede war as a condition

In fact, a reading of the language of the Iraq War Resolution reveals the opposite. There were no specific pre-conditions or requirements placed on the President to exhaust diplomatic remedies before the UN Security Council and Hillary Clinton knew that and even reflected on it in her speech on the Senate floor.

From Hillary Clinton's IWR speech on the Senate floor preceding her vote:

"...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.

To repeat: "even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first" verifies that Hillary Clinton knew the danger and the potential for misuse. Hillary Clinton admitted that the IWR contained no pre-conditions other than the President "try hard". That is ridiculously vague. In fact, there is not even "try hard" language in the actual text of the IWR. The IWR says that the President can engage the U.S. military in Iraq "as he determines necessary".

Section 2 of the IWR only mentions that those voting in its favor support the President's diplmatic effort.

The Iraq War Resolution never mentions the fact that its purpose is to require the President to seek a diplomatic solution in Iraq before he can use the U.S. military. The Act says that those voting in favor of it "support" the President in his efforts to "strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq" and also to "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.". The Act NEVER uses the word REQUIRE. The Act is open-ended in exactly what the President would seek to enforce against Iraq through Security Council resolutions and never specifically states what the trigger for war might be.

Here are the actual words of the IWR:

"...The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) 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. ...'

The degree to which the President must exhaust remedies before the UN Security Council is not stated and is open-ended, offering the President a blank check. It does not say anywhere that the President 'must" seek this enforcement and exhaust it completely prior to the initiation of military action. Rather, it simply says those voting in favor "support" the President. Clearly this "support" could be in any course of action the President decides to take.

Section 3 of the IWR is the relevant one. It delineates when and how the President is authorized to use military force.

Section 3 of the IWR authorized the President to use military force "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq". That's again a blank check. There are no pre-conditions. Finally, the IWR also states that the President is "authorized to use the Armed Forced of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropropriate in order to enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq". Nowhere does it say that the President must follow a particular course of conduct, to exhaust all diplomatic remedies, or to seek all efforts to force compliance with inspections. It says the very opposite, that he can enforce those UN resoltuions through the U.S. military "as he determines to be necessary". That is again a giant blank check.

In addition, the Resolution invoked the War Powers Resolution of 1973, section 5, which grants the President a 60 day period in which to engage the U.S. military before having to report to Congress, after which the Congress has the opportunity to formally declare war. It was therefore contemplated that the President would have a free hand to do whatever he wanted for a 60 day period. With a modern military, a lot of bombing and destruction can be accomplished before Congress would ever get involved.

Hillary Clinton in her own remarks on the Senate floor acknowledged that the Resolution didn't go far enough in forcing a diplomatic solution. But she voted for it anyway.

[subsuelo]

15. facts are irrelevant on this point

Point is she flip-flopped and he didn't. We don't need a flip-flopper on the Iraq issue vs Reps

[Fredda Weinberg]

17. She voted in October 2002 for the inspectors to return. They did in

Nov. We invaded anyway.

There's no flip flop. I can't accept that facts are irrelevant here.

[subsuelo]

21. There's no flip flop?

She has stated she would have voted differently had she known then what she knows now. That's a flip-flop. And the point is - Obama is much less likely to be portrayed as flip-flopping than she is.

[Fredda Weinberg]

29. A flip flop is a change on an issue ... you haven't described one n/t

[subsuelo]

31. Oh, is she now in favor of having gone to war?

[Fredda Weinberg]

33. The resolution was to force inspectors back in. Read it some time n/t

[subsuelo]

34. and do you recall the title of that resolution ....?

[Fredda Weinberg]

37. It was titled to scare Hussein and it worked. Did you read it? I did n/t

[subsuelo]

39. Please, just recall the title.

[Fredda Weinberg]

41. I do, but we're not simple minded fools. Hussein was n/t

[subsuelo]

42. And what was the title of that resolution exactly?

[cooolandrew]

19. Barack can say he clearly had foresight on the war against mccain, once there..

..he had obligation to make sure troops had funding for their safety. Only with a new president can it begin to end. If he had foresight for this big decision he clearly will have the forethought to navigate the economy correctly. He clearly considers his plan of action before going forward.

[paparush]

23. Interesting that neither mention the studies of the 900+ LIES leading up to the vote..

I mean, c'mon...they should be beating the Repugs with this DAILY.

LIES LIES LIES

Hillary should just say "Yes, I voted for it. I'm guilty of believing the President and his staff who orchestrated months of daily, bald face, LIES meant to frighten and coerce."

[subsuelo]

25. agreed, she should just say that

it would strengthen her position

[Exultant Democracy]

24. I think she lost the latino vote and lost the nomination well before that.

[agdlp]

38. Obama March 2, 2007: My plan allows for a limted number of troops to remain in Iraq

That is why I advocate a phased redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq to begin no later than May first with the goal of removing all combat forces from Iraq by March 2008.

In a civil war where no military solution exists, this redeployment remains our best leverage to pressure the Iraqi government to achieve the political settlement between its warring factions that can slow the bloodshed and promote stability.

My plan also allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain and prevent Iraq from becoming a haven for international terrorism and reduce the risk of all-out chaos.
---------

http://usliberals.about.com/od/extraordinaryspeeches/a/ObamaIsrael_2.htm

---------
But what is a limited number ?
What kind of forces ?
What kind of situations should US forces engage ?
How long should they be there ?

[Orwellian_Ghost]

44. Um

Seems a little flip when over a million Iraqis have been slaughtered and the toll mounts for any of us to frame it as such.

Don't forget that Obama has funded the occupation all the way. Both are guilty.

[suston96]

52. IWR means diddly to the average voter. Just to desperate Obamites here & DipKos and at TPM...

[subsuelo]

60. not so

I think people are finally getting wise to the whole thing. Not your hard-core idiot Republicans, no, but the "average voter" I think is.

[usregimechange]

53. I agree

[Yossariant]

54. The war is just not much of an issue with voters.

Some polls show it as far down as fifth among voters' concerns and it has been trailing the economy and healthcare for a while now.

The IRW can only help Hillary in the general election.

I know it's sad, but it's true.

Colin Powell was right that we broke it and we bought it.

It is what it is.

And it would be no different if she or Edwards had voted against it.

Hillary says that, as President, she will begin bringing our troops home within sixthy days.

Barack says he will bring them home in a careful, responsible way.

[FrenchieCat]

56. It's not about the war, although it is....it is about leadership.

It was a politically expediente vote that she can bring herself to apologize for. That means, McCain, who is nothing but about war will win the debate.

[Yossariant]

58. McCain win a debate with Hillary?!?! Delusional.

[Beregond2]

57. Iraq

The only reason the war is down the list of voter's concerns is because there are so many other things to be scared about. As for Hillary's vote being justified by the fact that most American's were taken-in as well, that won't wash. It is a Senator's JOB to get at the truth. Her failure to do so and vote accordingly, even in the face of public opposition, is a HUGE black mark against her; especially when the truth was so blatantly obvious. Her vote was motivated entirely by political considerations.

[wildflowergardener]

59. war

I think the war directly affects the issues people are most worried about - for example the economy. If you think about how much money we spend each day in Iraq that certainly affects the economy greatly - think about all the money we could be spending to help with issues people are really worried about if we weren't spending that money.

Meg

[krkaufman]

62. It didn't stop John Kerry in the primary.

But then there was the general election...

[Levgreee]

63. Everyone who lost the life of someone close cares greatly about this war

no doubt about it... even if it is only 1 in 5.

[ErnestoG]

64. Bang on.

[AGirl]

66. Al Franken supported the invasion also.

[0007]

67. bttft