Hillary fans: What could she do to defend voting for the Iraq War Resolution with McCain?

[zulchzulu]

As far as anyone who is serious about this issue, she doesn't have a leg to stand on regarding the Iraq War. She voted for it. There is video of her mouthing essentially the same thing that Republicans said about striking at Iraq. She wanted Saddam taken out.

In my view, the Iraq War (which 70+% of Americans are against) is not something she can use as an issue with McCain. That is a HUGE DISADVANTAGE for the Democratic Party in the GE.

I hereby wish to see what she could say or do to defend her view on the Iraq war with McCain from Hillary supporters. Hint: I wouldn't use her labyrinthine "explanation" from tonight's debate.

Please, anyone...

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. Well she has said she wants to end it

while McCain says he wouldn't mind if our troops were there for 100 years.

[ErnestoG]

4. Then why won't she apologize for her war vote like Edwards did?

Or is she just too important to do stuff like that?

[Ravy]

16. Because that absolves Bush of the blame.

After all, if what many DUers are saying is true, he was just doing what the Senate asked him to do.

And if people *really* thought that, would an apology for the vote be enough?

[proud2BlibKansan]

25. I don't know but I think she should

[DJ13]

8. while McCain says he wouldn't mind if our troops were there for 100 years.

I'll bet you that as soon as McCain secures the nomination (when its too late for the GOP to torpedo his run) his undying love for anything Bush (including the war) comes to an end.

The McCain you see today wont be the same guy running in November.

Yes that means he's been lying to the GOP base, but thats not a bad thing.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

13. Exactly

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. Doesn't have to, it's a non-issue in the general with McCain.

The beef is with the "progressives" who would vote for Camejo.

[aquart]

3. Doesn't need to. Not if she's up against McCain.

Cancels the issue out. Their votes were identical. What do they plan to do now? People vote on the differences, not the similarities.

However, I can see a McCain ad hammering Obama on not being present for crucial events. For not being a man who can make a decision, for being a man who can only TALK about making a decision.

[zulchzulu]

9. You don't seem to understand basic legislative procedures

If McCain tried to pull a "present" ad, he would get spanked hard.

It's a simple Civics 101 process where in state legislatures, you can vote present to then go ahead and change the law before voting for it.

[Hoof Hearted]

58. You don't seem to understand that most people don't care about the intricacies of state legislatures

They could give a rats ass, actually. But they do understand voting "present" on bills you yourself wrote is kinda wishy-washy.

I'm not saying it would sink Obama by any means, but they would use it and it would be perceived as a negative.

Clinton's IWR will not be a negative against McCain however, and the reason why can be summed up in just three words. One hundred years.

[Tactical Progressive]

28. For not being present and for voting 'present'

Obama's pathetically convoluted and dishonest explanations for his 'present' votes in little Chicago will be repeatedly reamed by Publicans in an election, were Democrats dumb enough to let that situation come to be. People aren't very favorable to politicians who don't even rise to the integrity of triangulators. At least a triangulator comes up with a vote in the end. Obama ducks and covers.

Not to mention just not showing up for important votes in the actual US Senate on national security vis-a-vis Iran, while he's prancing around the nation telling everybody how he is 'right the first time' on Iraq. The only reason the media is letting him get away with it is because he is running against Hillary, who they want taken out. When he tries pulling that kind of stuff against a Publican watch how the protective media envelope for Obama just disappears like it never existed.

Bill Clinton got it exactly right when he said the media is negligent in assessing Obama's purported national security credentials re: Iraq, calling them a "fairy tale". That's dead-on accurate, but the media sure didn't like Clinton impugning them for letting Obama ride free.

If Obama ends up going against McCain, his flip-flopping on the IWR and not even showing up for Iran won't get anything close to a free ride.

[GoldieAZ49]

46. Hillary said in the debate

when asked about the surge working if she would rather win the war or bring the troops home, she said bring the troops home.

McCain will use that over and over and over.

[in_cog_ni_to]

5. THE ECONOMY is going to be THE issue in this election. That just happens to be McCain's

weakest issue and Hillary owns it.

The IWR will be a non-issue.

[zulchzulu]

10. Trillions spent on the Iraq War has a teensy weensy effect on the economy

Hillary can't mention her vote on the war without getting completely ridiculed. Yes, the economy will be a big issue. AND the war that is draining our economy CAN be a big issue if Obama is the nominee.

Obama could slam McCain on the costs of the war even just on a taxpayer standpoint, let alone the absolute drain it has on the economy.

Hillary...not so much.

[ErnestoG]

12. It's the next most important issue, right after the economy.

No matter how much the Shrillery crowd wishes it weren't.

[VotesForWomen]

53. correct. IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPID! Dems must push this relentlessly, starting now. nt

[Dogmudgeon]

6. Explain it simply

She though it was the best choice at the time. I follow her line of reasoning, but the big problem is that she is still not over it. I think she was still working under the assumption that even though he was a weenie, that George Bush would not lie about something as grave as war.

A lot of DUers simply scream "liar!" at this point. It's clear that it's an honest reaction -- a lot of Democrats and Republicans felt personally betrayed by Bush and have said things that were variations on the same theme. I can only fault them for not impeaching his filthy genocidal ass and throwing the book at him.

--p!

[jasmine621]

She can say this

She and most of the Dems in Congress voted for the IWR.

It was not a bad idea to topple Saddam.
Our soldiers did everything that was asked of them. Saddam was toppled, the Iraqi people voted for their government. We won the war. We have lost and continue to lose the OCCUPATION. It is tragic that so many lives were lost during this occupation. We should have come out when the loss of our troops was in the hundreds, not thousands.

Most Americans were misled by Bush and most were in favor of going after Saddam...thanks to the job the media did on Bush's behalf.

Hillary can stand toe to toe with any Republican on the issues of national security, defense, and concern for our veterns. Obama would not be able to do this.

[LVjinx]

11. "Our soldiers did everything that was asked of them. "

The failure in Iraq has been largely due to the PR stunt Bush and Fox News coordinated once they realized "Oops! Saddam isn't using weapons of mass destruction against us. The only possible explanation is... uh oh!" So within a couple days, suddenly, spontaneously, our REAL objective was to free the people of Iraq! Not to overthrow Saddam, or discover weapons of mass destruction, or even play nude twister. Suddenly "Operation Iraqi Freedom!" (if you could pronounce an exclamation point it would have been there) was the name of the game.

It probably even sounded good at the time. And when Bush had his "Mission Accomplished" moment it only highlighted failure. No, mission NOT accomplished. He changed the mission to one that was impossible to achieve - propping up a government that we ourselves had destroyed, trying to spread democracy by force, trying to promote stability in a region that we ourselves had destabilized by our very presence there.

None of that, not a single bit, is Hillary's fault. It was a typical Bush abuse of power. Did her vote provide him a little smokescreen? Let's be honest - he would have done what he did with or without a vote. Do we remember the loophole? "Technically, Saddam is in violation of the first Iraq War's ceasefire, which means we can attack him at any time we want."

[PassingFair]

34. You DO know, that 126 Democratic Congressmen and Women

voted NO in the HOUSE, right?

Compared to the 81 who voted YEA.

I get REALLY TIRED of people saying that the majority of
dems voted for the IWR.

The majority of SITTING Senators who are still around
also VOTED NO.

The YES voters are being weeded out, as they SHOULD BE.

[LVjinx]

7. On the contrary

It diffuses McCain's ability to call her just another weak on defense democrat. And her assertion that the vote was to place leverage on Saddam to allow inspectors back is true. If we're really honest, we'll remember that it worked. Saddam DID allow inspectors back. And then, out of the blue, Rumsfeld Powell, Cheney and Bush all started saying "Inspections aren't the answer, disarmament is the answer" and attacked anyway. Unbelievable.

But no one could have predicted that at the time. Almost everyone voted for that bill, because they wanted us to have the strongest possible hand against Saddam. Even Edwards voted for it. He's apologized, and some think Hillary should as well, but that misses the point : versus McCain, it strengthens her hand considerably.

[zulchzulu]

18. McCain's bumpersticker slogan on Hillary would be:

"Hillary voted for the war that she now wants to wave the white flag of surrender". Actually, he's ALREADY saying that. It sure is easy to chant and easy to remember. She can try to twist and turn and attempt to escape from her lack of judgment, but it would constantly be flogged on her.

Obama, on the other hand, could be within the view of 3/4's of the country and skewer him for wanting to have a trillion dollar war that takes money away from Americans....etc...etc... the weight of McCain tying a rope around his neck supporting Bush's unpopular war would make him even less of a candidate than Bob Dole in 1996.

[niceypoo]

44. Who cares what he says?

He is toast no matter who is nominated. I could not give a rats ass what John McCain or any other republicans idiotic rhetoric is.

[GoldieAZ49]

47. Finally!!! Someone who understands

The difference between the primary and the GE

The vote to go to war is the issue Hillary has to defend in the primary against Obama, and why she cannot apologize for it is because needs that vote in the GE to try to counter McCain!

McCain isn't going to fault her for voting for the war, he is going to attack her mercilessly for everything she has said about the war and the general SINCE then.

McCain is a stubborn hardass that will show her incapable of being the leader of the strongest military in the world, and he will use her own words to do so.

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. Against McCain it is easy. The hard part is defending it against another Democrat

Hillary Clinton can say that George W. Bush lied the United States into a war, that he betrayed his trust to the American people. She can point to the passages in her Senate Speech where she stressed the need for diplomacy to procede, where she argued against a preemptive war.

Clinton can say that Congress gave the President the tool he said he needed to leverage the U.N. into doing it's job to enforce their Security Council Resolutions and put inspectors back inside Iraq with full access to anywhere they needed to go. Congress gave Bush the tool he needed for diplomacy and it worked as planned. The U.N. went back into Iraq and they were on the verge of proving that Iraq had no WMD which is the security uncertainty that the American public wanted cleared up.

Instead Bush abused his office and arbitrarily invaded Iraq and has continued to make one devastating mistake regarding Iraq after another. She can accuse McCain of supporting a President who lied about his intentions to the American people and to Congress - who took the focus off Afghanistan and pushed his way into Iraq instead allowing Bin Ladin to escape etc etc

This is not a bad position for a Democrat to have against someone like McCain. She can say she was ready to cooperate in good faith with the President of the United States to provide real security to America's people, which defuses his position that Democrats aren't tough enough or that they are too bitterly partisan to protect America. Then she can say, "it is obvious to me now, and to the American people, that George W. Bush abused the power of his office by telling the U.N. inspectors to leave Iraq so that he could invade Iraq to further his secret neocon agenda, is that obvious to you now Senator McCqin, or do you still defend the decisions made by George W. Bush that led us into this war in the first place?

[1corona4u]

19. Ohh....funny you said that...

I just read her statement...and while I think she might have given him the benefit of the doubt, I'm having a memory lapse as to what he had done, previously to the build up, that would have made her, or anyone, less likely to trust Bush...thoughts?

[Dr Fate]

29. He stole the 2000 election, and had lied on literally hundreds of occasions by that point.

Those things sure did make ME and every Democrat I knew less likely to trust Bush. Maybe Hillary didnt have a TV.

So now we are arguing that Bush was not "yet" a corrupt, power-grabbing liar when Hillary trusted him with her "yes" vote?

[1corona4u]

30. Ok, maybe I should have been more specific....

as in war games...prior to the Iraq build up, what had Boosh done that should have given people cause for concern...I really don't remember, because I really made an effort to IGNORE him....

[Dr Fate]

33. Apparently Hillary ignored his record of lies, power-grabbing & corruption too.

Google "lies" "bush" and "scandal" and note the dates, if you really wish to catch up.

Start with the 2000 election and work your way forward- then come back and tell me Hillary was smart for trusting Bush.

Sheesh-I shouldnt have to prove that Bush and the Republicans were/are KNOWN as lying, war-mongering sons-a-bitches as part of an argument to defend Hillary.

[1corona4u]

40. I'm just looking for facts here....

we all know he stole the election.

[Dr Fate]

41. Me too. Show me some facts that support Bush as an honest, trust worthy commander in chief in 2002.

A stolen election isnt enough to establish Bush as a corrupt liar?

Plenty of DEMS knew to vote "no" or to openly oppose the invasion for one reason or another- and they were the ones who were right on Iraq.

I imagine that mistrust of Bush (or in Hillary's case, apparent trust for Bush) is only one of many factors considered when they voted.

[Tom Rinaldo]

57. Just that the vast majority of Americans believed Bush made the right call

...to go after Bin Ladin in Afghanistan in response to 9/11. In public Bush did not immediately accuse Iraq of being behind that attack. Bush made appropriate noises about not blaming all muslims for what some extremists did. Instead he identified the target that made the most sense to respond to; the Taliban who had given Al Quada santuary and allowed them to operate training camps on their soil. That factored into why so many Democrats - a majority of them in the U.S. Senate, went along with Bush on the IWR. That plus the fact that Secretary of State Colin Powell was then still thought to be at the height of what people assumed was his considerable power. Powell was widely admired at that point both inside the United States and inside of Western Europe. It was falsely believed that he would have the leading say in setting America's froreign policy.

[PassingFair]

Kerry already tried that and he was a genuwine war hero (tm)

Hillary will get slapped as a flip-flopper, just like Kerry.
She CAN'T DEBATE on the war, she VOTED TO AUTHORIZE IT.

[Tom Rinaldo]

55. Kerry muffed it at first. That was the problem

In Hindsight, Kerry Says He'd Still Vote for War
Challenged by President, Democrat Spells Out Stance

By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 10, 2004; Page A01

GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, Ariz., Aug. 9 -- Responding to President Bush's challenge to clarify his position, Sen. John F. Kerry said Monday that he still would have voted to authorize the war in Iraq even if he had known then that U.S. and allied forces would not find weapons of mass destruction.

At the same time, the Democratic presidential nominee said that his goal as president would be to reduce the number of U.S. troops in Iraq during his first six months in office through diplomacy and foreign assistance....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52839-2004Aug9.html

Kerry initially fell into Bush's trap. He went so far as to say he stood by that vote even in hindsight, knowing no WMD had been found. Kerry repeated John Edward's line at the time. He threw away his opportunity to challenge the way Bush used his IWR vote

Hillary Clinton said last night, and she had said it before also, that if she knew then what she knows now, she would not have cast that vote. She can then ask John McCain to say the same. He can't. His Republican base would turn against McCain if he did.

Fortunately for John Kerry, his campaign changed direction on Iraq by the end of August and started attacking Bush much more fiercely about it. THAT is when Kerry's campaign began to gain traction. Unfortunately he should have taken that stance two months earlier. Had he done so I think he would be President today.

[Texas_Kat]

35. Actually Tom, you may be right

Many Americans feel like they were abused and lied to by Bush. They will more readily identify with her situation than a smug "I told you so" from another candidate.

We've seen it happen before.

[Dr Fate]

39. But she wont be able or willing to frame it that way if she wins the nom.

If she tries to frame it that way, McCain/media can present hundreds of prowar quotes & clips of Hillary. She would be unwise to try to cast support of the war in a negative light.

More likely, the issue is neutralized and then the winner can carry on the occupation as he/she sees fit.

If it's Hillary v. McCain- my guess is that any war talk will be about how to start & win wars, not about how we get ourselves into unjust wars.

[Texas_Kat]

56. Gotta link to those "hundreds of prowar quotes & clips"

HC has always been stalwart in supporting the troops, not 'the war', though if such did exist (which they don't) it would effectively neutralize any argument that McCain may have.

[GoldieAZ49]

48. Much better approach

[1corona4u]

15. Uh, I don't think he is going to bring that up....

really, I don't.

[DiamondJay]

17. back to the future...

and what Hillary WILL do, and her recent legislation to prove it. The argument she can use against a Republican would be "I didn't believe the American President would go into iraq unilaterally and wrecklessly." "I didn't believe the president would lie about such an important thing" "i thought the Republican president would excersize judgement"

[zulchzulu]

22. Yeah...except...

...they play the videos of her venomously wanting to attack Saddam and voting for the Iraq War Resolution...

It's the easiest damn solution for them. The "I didn't believe the President..." act would easily be shown that she didn't know what the hell she was doing.

[GoldieAZ49]

49. they also have all the videos of her saying Saddam had WMDs

and McCain will bring up the war, it is his main platform he will keep the topic on the war

[Dr Fate]

23. She or almost any other DEM will use the word "lie" when pigs fly.

Just saying.

DEMS say "mis-spoke" or "mislead" or some other weak language.

[Dr Fate]

20. She doesnt have to defend it. She neutralizes the issue.

Most complaints you have about the war wont get adressed if she is the nom.

Just the way the DLCers & Repubs like it.

[napi21]

21. I answered that question the other night, and at least some accepted it.

If it were ME who had to answer that question, I'd say:

"I was told at the time that the President needed the authority to bakup his threat to Iraq, or it would be an idle threat. the President himself PROMISED ME that he would ONLY use military action as a LAST RESORT! I BELIEVED HIM! Had I known he rarely is truthful, I would have never coted as I did."

What I related in that statement was what "I" personally believed back then. I remember hearing the arguments about being able to backup your words with actions. I was a buyer at a large corp. for several years, and I KNOW that you can never get a salesman to negotiate with you sincerely if you don't have the authority to sign a PO! Shrub was new to office, and I NEVER dreamed the US would ever have a leader who turned out to be the liar, and totally dishonest man that he has. I don't view that as an error on MY PART nor on Hillary's. I view that as the American people being duped into electing a total AH and they didn't realize it at the time.

[zulchzulu]

24. "the President himself PROMISED ME"

:rofl:

That tact would go over well with Democrats. Not.

[Dr Fate]

27. With all due respect, it was an error on your part.

Not all of "the American people" were duped- and neither were the DEMS who voted against the war.

The people who opposed the war and and the DEMS who voted "no" were not duped and DID realize what was happening at the time.

Everyone else, with all due respect, was indeed in error. Realizing or not realizing an error at the time makes no difference- an error is an error.

And he didnt "turn out" to be a corrupt liar after the fact- anyone paying attention knew what he was about after he stole the 2000 election.

[anamandujano]

42. Guess who said this.

"I am absolutely convinced that the President of the United States, George Bush, won this election. I also believe he got more votes in Ohio."

[karynnj]

54. I think that was a good answer - but it begs the question of

where was she when it became apparent that Bush was NOT doing what he said. I protested in NYC and DC and I hoped the Clintons would come out big time on the imminent invasion and they really didn't. I don't know if it would have helped. The % of people agreeing that it was premature to go to war was rising. Could a strong Clinton statement have moved the media to oppose it more? Would that have made it less popular? Would it have changed Bush's mind on attacking?

It is when you get to the last question that you know the answer. Bush would have attacked even if 90% of the country was against it - and the % would never be that low. He was the decider. The reality was that the decision to invade was his.

[sandnsea]

26. 4 years of support

Year after year, she supported the actual war.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4327894&mesg_id=4327894

[bridgit]

31. Her position seems clear: bush has abused the authority of his office & McCain supports bush...

offering a president latitude to act is now quite another matter than offer such powers to g.w. bush (or a member of the bush family it would further seem); it is bush and his puppet handlers that have abused their offices...perhaps even by extension: McCain, being the clear war monger he is

[Barack_America]

32. And McCain is obviously going to be using the "S" word against her...

Surrender.

Actually, he's already doing it. So, yeah, if he were facing Hillary, McCain might actually be able to turn Iraq to his advantage.

[Yossariant]

36. Too many seem have forgotten who the Dem nominee was four years ago.

And four years ago, the war was the VOTERS' top concern.

It no longer is.

Give it a rest already.

[ErnestoG]

37. Way to write off a war crime.

No matter how you wish it will go away, it won't. The souls of those who have been snuffed for no good reason, and those of us still alive, won't let it.

[Yossariant]

38. Then find some anti-war candidate to support.

Claiming the moral high ground on the WAR issue, while supporting Barack, is sheer hypocisy.

[ErnestoG]

50. Claiming any of them are stridently anti-war, is foolish, You pick the bests one you can.

So I suspect you'll sit on your hands in the election.

[Yossariant]

51. "Stridently" is your semantics -- because that's the game you're playing.

I don't know how it feels to stand on the graves of "The souls of those who have been snuffed for no good reason" parsing and pontificating, using their deaths for political gain.

Nor do I want to know.

[loveangelc]

43. she cant

[GoldieAZ49]

45. Are you KIDDING?

Did you see McCain HAMMER Romney over Iraq and his words at the debate and just prior to the florida primary?

He has already trashed Hillary about her support of moveon's ad about the general in the NYT

McCain is ITCHING to go after her on the war on so many levels

I can see his campaign ads now, using her own words with images of war and terrorists in the background...and then the "I'm your girl!" from her stump speeches.

It is going to be devastating.

[VotesForWomen]

52. why would she need to defend it against mccain? nt