Clinton: I Didn’t Think I Was Voting For The War

[ProSense]

Clinton: I Didn’t Think I Was Voting For The War

January 31, 2008

OCTOBER 2002: I WAS VOTING TO AVOID WAR: Clinton: Authorizing Military Force In Iraq "Would Be More Likely To Avoid War." Clinton defended her vote backing military action against Iraq saying it was a message to the United Nations and President Bush, not just Saddam Hussein. "I ultimately decided voting for the authorization would be more likely to avoid war than not," Clinton said. "The idea there was a regime . . . with this kind of weaponry and this kind of intention could not be ignored. I (voted) saying to the president, 'We expect you to do everything you can to work with the (U.N.) Security Council.'" (Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, 10/12/02)

MARCH 2007: I WAS VOTING FOR COERCIVE INSPECTIONS: Bill Clinton: Hillary Voted For "Coercive Inspections," Not War. In response to a question from one about explaining Hillary Clinton's Iraq vote to undecided voters, Clinton said he had re-read the Iraq resolution, and that Hillary Clinton had voted only for "coercive inspections." Clinton justified his wife's refusal to apologize for her vote by explaining that she was acting out of concern that future presidents might need similar language authorizing "coercive inspections to avoid conflict." (The Hill, 3/23/07)

APRIL 2007: I WAS VOTING FOR COERCIVE DIPLOMACY: Hillary Clinton Called Her Iraq Vote one for "Coercive Diplomacy." According to USA Today, speaking of her Iraq vote, "Clinton says that vote was not a misjudgment, but a vote for 'coercive diplomacy' -- a stick to get weapons inspectors into Iraq — and it's a tool she says presidents must have. 'When somebody disagrees with me, or if they want somebody who has apologized for their judgment about the use of coercive diplomacy and the role that that plays in furthering American national interests, they have other people to vote for,' she said." (USA Today, 4/12/07)

APRIL 2007: I WAS VOTING FOR INSPECTORS: Hillary Clinton: When I Voted For The War I Believed I Was "Giving The President Authority To Put Inspectors In Iraq." At an event in New Hampshire, Clinton faced a young woman who said she had traveled from New York to ask the senator whether she had read a 92-page intelligence document before her 2002 vote to authorize the Iraq war. "I was thoroughly briefed on it. I was briefed on it," Clinton said repeatedly, as the woman tried to interrupt her. "I think it's such a difficult thing to go back in time and say what everyone was thinking." She added, "What I will say is I believed that what we were doing was giving the president the authority to put inspectors in Iraq. That's what we were told privately. That's what we were told publicly." (Associated Press, 4/15/07)

JUNE 2007: I WAS VOTING FOR INSPECTORS AND WAS FOOLED: Clinton Said She Was Duped By President Bush; Said That She "Did Not Count On" President Not Allowing Inspectors To Finish Their Job. Asked if she regretted not reading the National Intelligence Estimate before voting for the war in Iraq, Clinton said, "I was thoroughly briefed. I knew all the arguments. I knew all of what the Defense Department, the CIA, the State Department were all saying. And I sought dissenting opinions, as well as talking to people in previous administrations and outside experts. You know, that was a sincere vote based on my assessment that sending inspectors back into Iraq to determine once and for all whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and using coercive diplomacy was not an unreasonable act. What I did not count on, and what none of us did who voted to give the president authority, is that he had no intention to allow the inspectors to finish their job. (Hillary Clinton, NH Debate, 6/3/07)

IN NEWS REPORT AFTER NEWS REPORT: VOTE WAS CONGRESS BACKING WAR

"Congress Backs War On Iraq; Bipartisan Vote Gives Bush Broad Power; President Lauds Clear Message Sent" (Los Angeles Times, 10/11/02)

"Congress OKs War Bill ; Dems Join Vote To Back Bush On Iraq" (New York Post, 10/11/02)

"Congress OKs War Power; The resolution lets Bush use force in Iraq" (Philadelphia Inquirer, 10/11/02)

"Iraq Resolution Approved; Congress Gives Bush A Free Hand To Wage War" (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 10/11/02)

"Bush Wins War Vote" (Boston Herald, 10/11/02)

"Congress OKs War On Iraq; Days Numbered For 'Outlaw State,' President Bush Says As He Gets Approval To Attack With Or Without U.N." (Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 10/11/02)

"Bush Gets Authority For War On Iraq" (Newark Star Ledger, 10/11/02)

"A Step Closer To War; House, Senate Approve War Powers" (Minneapolis Star-Tribune, 10/11/02)

"Iraq Attack OK'd On Hill Solid Support In Senate, House" (New York Daily News, 10/11/02)

"Congress Signs Off On War; A Lopsided Vote Gives The President The Go-Ahead To Use Military Force Against 'The Continuing Threat' Of Saddam Hussein" (Grand Rapids Press, 10/11/02)

"Congress Gives Bush War Powers" (Hartford Courant, 10/11/02)

"War Looming With Vote; Decision Likened To Gulf Of Tonkin" (Knight Ridder, 10/11/02)

[suston96]

1. She said what she was voting for......

"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."

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

[islandmkl]

5. how in the hell can anybody say with clear conscience

they believed George Bush would do ANYTHING WISELY?

[suston96]

15. Uh, 77 Senators and Colin Powell (before the UN)? All believed in the....

Bush WMD bullshit. The Congress expected that it was being informed honestly and accurately?

And you want to lay constitutional weaknesses in interbranch relations at the feet of Hillary Clinton?

The Executive must be reliable when requesting resolutions and money from the Congress. If it is not then it is time to change the system of government so that a deceptive Executive can be forced to resign and a new Executive installed.

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. A majority of the Democrats in the U.S. Senate said so

Both of our Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates in 2004 said so. Most of our Presidential candidates running in 2008 said so, including Senators Joe Biden and Chris Dodd.

Many, including you and I, did oppose the IWR. But I am not arrongant enough to think, given the roster of Democrats who didn't, that everyone of them is literally an idiot or a traitor.

[rateyes]

29. And, a majority of Democrats in the Congress...

opposed the IWR. They had better judgment about Bush than did Senator Clinton, et al.

[Joe the Revelator]

30. You are forgetting the thousands of others who spoke out against it

Hillary couldn't even be bothered to read the damn thing before voting for it. There was a vast chorus of people asking her not to sign off on it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

48. Of course I'm not forgetting them silly

But a hell of a lot of Americans came down on the other side of that at the time also. A clear majority I fear. That is how the Republicans won the mid term elections in Novemeber of 2006.

And Hillary Clinton points out that though she only "read" the executive summary - she attended live briefings with people who presented that report. It appears those briefings highlighted the exectutive summary spin - but it's a stretch to say Clinton couldn't be bothered at the time to look into the situation seriously.

[no name no slogan]

109. The GOP did NOT win the 2006 midterms

quite the contrary-- the Dems dominated, and took back BOTH the Senate and House. The Dems that scored the biggest victories were oftentimes the ones who campaigned against the Iraq war and the IWR.

Voting for the IWR was an act of shear political cowardice and "cover-my-ass" playing of the highest proportion.

[calteacherguy]

117. She should have listened to Kennedy.

Because she chose instead to do what she thought was politically correct, she will pay the price.

[krkaufman]

106. Precisely. Regardless of whatever obfuscating she might do ...

... her greater failure in judgement was in not recognizing that the "authorization to use military force against Iraq" would be used by Bush to use military force against Iraq.

It's like she's channeling Condi Rice obfuscating on the August 6th PDF.

[John Q. Citizen]

6. Nice signing statement. And we bash bush for doing it. 'I'm voting for not what is in the bill,

but for what is in my heart...'

Americans are suckers.

[bigtree]

10. nice try

as the resolution states, Bush was not authorized to use force under the resolution UNLESS:

(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) 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.


Didn't the president unlawfully disregard these provisions? Don't these provisions represent the restraint Clinton maintains is implied in the resolution. Isn't this actually a case of the president pushing past Congress, the American people, and the international community in his race to war?

These are the foremost provisions of the resolution that I believe involves the president and his word.


1. Defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.


According to who? According to what evidence presented? Doesn't the administration have an obligation to present the threat in a accurate and truthful manner? Did they? Weren't they obligated to under this resolution?

[John Q. Citizen]

27. That mean bush...Gosh, what could Hill ever do about it now? Could she stand on the

floor of the Senate and call him a war criminal?

No way. Because why not?

But she can ignore the fact that the whole country knew what the vote was about.

What threat?

Didn't Hill bother to read the UN arms inspectors report? In her statement, she parrots the "Nuclear program crap."

I'm convinced my fellow Americans are suckers. The evidence is overwhelming.

[bigtree]

47. well, if you replace her words preceding the vote with your own . . .

. . . which opponent of the IWR actually stood on the Senate floor and called Bush a war criminal. I missed that.

[Skidmore]

67. Anybody just watching the news at the time could tell that * and Cheney

were jonesing for the war. That the media was being blatantly manipulated into helping the push the agenda. You could see the ad campaign rolled out. Period. This is the man who lied and and cheated during his campaign and stole an election. There was no reason to trust that he would honor his word. I don't know how many times while we watched the news here at home that we told each other that we're going to war. Whether we want it or not, we're going. On these boards we discussed the flimsiness of the evidence being presented and lots of us were working to get the inspections to be continued. This is why I don't buy Hillary's explanation. It didn't take a rocket scientist to understand that the old shell game was being played on a global scale. That speaks to judgment.

[bigtree]

87. she knew all of that. If you would accept her words precedeing the vote

instead of attributing the worst of motives to her support for the IWR, you will see that she thought it was a legislative vehicle (the ONLY viable one in the republican-controlled body) to try and restrain Bush from that push to war that everyone though he was going to make, with or without approval. Of course it didn't work, but NOTHING appeared to be in place to do that. Bush had told everyone that he intended to invade. There were NO inspectors in Iraq at the time. The resolution put those inspectors in Iraq. Hans Blix and others. That was her stated intent for voting for the legislation. To try and get Bush to heed the restraint Democrats like Kerry had succeeded in placing in the bill. It didn't work, but she tried. And, she made clear, in her speech preceding the vote, just what her intentions were. She should be allowed her own interpretation of her motives and reasoning behind her vote. She clearly states that she didn't intend for Bush to ignore the resolution and press forward without "exhausting all other peaceful means" or " a return to the U.N. Security Council.

[Skidmore]

101. Voting against it would have had the same effect and made a

stronger statement of not giving any quarter to *. Other legislators saw their way clear to voting against the IWR. Those voting for this measure accomplished two things: 1) they removed any legal impediment for *, and 2) they ceded the power of congress over matters of war to the extent that all other actions later were without effect.

As for her intentions, the only control she and any other legislator has is over their own actions when it comes to these issues. Her intentions are meaningless because she should have been aware that * was not trustworthy. This again is a matter of judgment.

[SOS]

93. 100% incorrect reading of the AuMF

You left something out.....

The intro to Sec 3.
Let's look at the determination aspect:

(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--

Your point Sec 3 (b) 1 is NOT a provision. They are empty phrases, since the sole determination of whether 3,b, 1 are met is left up to Bush.
Bush did not unlawfully disregard these "provisions" because they are not provisions in the first place.

[bigtree]

7. bbut, bbut,

there are plenty of folks available to tell us what she intended with her vote.

Why do we need her actual words? :eyes:

[rateyes]

25. Read her whole floor speech...

she said she TRUSTED Bush to do the right thing and push diplomacy. Most of us progressives knew better than that.

[SOS]

90. How nice

She "said what she was voting for".

What she voted for was authorizing Bush the sole determination to launch an invasion of Iraq.

"we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort".

Bush used the authorization exactly as written, not wisely nor as a last resort.
Didn't see that coming!

[warren pease]

103. She can say she thought she was voting in favor of small curd cottage cheese for all I care...

Fact is, she voted to support Bushie's preemptive attack on Iraq to spread democracy and freedom and find the evil doers and... whatever the hell else the lying bastard was tossing around back then.

She's delusional if she actually claims that her vote for the Iraq WAR Resolution wasn't "a vote to rush to war." Well shit; of course it's not. It's that damn cottage cheese made her do it.

That and that smooth, fast talking Bush dude who, despite all appearances to the contrary, is apparently the slickest con man ever to dupe a congress into going along with his hogwash. And he suckered her right in.

"Here, Hillary. Just take this here pen and pretend you're just signing another check to your illegal nanny. You know I'm not going to attack Iraq, even though it says so right there in the fine print. Trust me on this one."

So you have to wonder (as I first asked in post #99): How stupid do you have to be to be fooled by the stupidest man to ever occupy the Oval Office?

And you also have to wonder: How many millions of people -- with none of her access to insiders and experts and classified intelligence reports -- still weren't fooled by this imbecile, knew he was a serial liar long before the bloodless coup of 2000, knew with 100 percent certainty that he was going to attack Iraq and marched in the streets all over the world to protest the inevitable?

If she's going to be responsible for making final decisions on domestic and international policy, it would be nice if she read the various advisories and assessments and recommendations in their original form, rather than relying on the Cliff Notes version.


wp

[islandmkl]

2. Loved Bill, but then again, he "didn't have sex with that woman"

so I guess Hillary probably DIDN'T vote for the war, after all.

[harun]

3. I would like to hear Hillary say how Congress should never

again cede its constitutional responsibility as the only branch of Government able to declare war to the President. I would forgive her vote if she did.

Not holding my breath on that one.

[fadedrose]

4. Vote for Hill and get better excuses (nt)

[John Q. Citizen]

33. And she will be prepared to make excuses from day 1, in the oval office!!

[KittyWampus]

8. Coercive Diplomacy- isn't that an oxymoron?

[bigtree]

13. no. It's what Bill Clinton exercised in Haiti.

[Tarc]

9. More bullshit from NonSense again. Don't fall for this garbage, please

"I WAS VOTING FOR COERCIVE DIPLOMACY" is the headline that best sums up the reality. The vote was to authorize the president to pursue such actions to bring Iraq into compliance. He was egged on by the neocons to violate the spirit of that authorization and then went straight into war.

It is a sad day when the Obama kool-aid sippers parrot five-year-old Free Republic memes to prop up their candidate. Sad, sad, sad.

[ProSense]

11. Another idiotic comment from you! These are facts from Obama's site! n/t

[Tarc]

17. Oh my! Really? "Facts" from "Obama's" site?

Of course a candidate's website would never contain spin or opinion slated to support their own point of view. Everything found there is absolutely the plain, unvarnished truth!

:puke:

A shame you spend so much time making pretty links and bolded text and what not in all these posts, when they actually amount to very little in substance. No pretty amount of spin by the likes of you can alter the reality that the vote was not an explicit authorization for war.

[rateyes]

31. That's bullshit.

[Tarc]

40. Brilliant argument, ratboy

How can one possibly expand on something so succinct?

:eyes:

[rateyes]

89. There's no point in arguing with you,

Your assertions are utter bullshit, and I'm not stirring the pile...all that does is stink up the joint.

Again, just plain bullshit.

[RaleighNCDUer]

32. How is it that 'coercive diplomacy' is a good thing

while 'gunboat diplomacy' is a bad thing?

[BootinUp]

12. So what would have happened if the IWR was voted down or

the Levin Amendment was added?

Somebody who blames Hillary for the war please give me your alternate timeline going forward from the IWR vote.

Please include:

What Americans would have felt about the vote 51+ % of them.
What Repukes running against Dems in Nov would do.
What the UN Sec Council would do.
What Saddaam would do.
What the next congress in Jan would do.
What Bush would do January through March of '03.


I believe a reasoned analysis will support Hillary's statements above.

[Milo_Bloom]

22. Answers...

What Americans would have felt about the vote 51+ % of them.
Absolutely nothing.


What Repukes running against Dems in Nov would do.

Lose miserably, as the democratic base would have supported the candidates, instead of not turning out as they did.

What the UN Sec Council would do.

Exactly what they did anyway. Got the inspectors in, as was agreed BEFORE the IWR vote. (Remember, the IWR had NOTHING to do with inspections, as Iraq had already agreed to their return.)

What Saddaam would do.

The same nothing he was doing for the 10 years prior to the IWR vote.

What the next congress in Jan would do.

Been democratic.

What Bush would do January through March of '03.

Lose influence as he would be unable to get over losing that vote and would continue his out of touch tired, trying to drum up fear.

When nothing happened in the country, people would realize (as they did with Rudy) that he was just trying to play on their fears to get a result.

Bush would have been defeated in Novembver 2004 by a much stronger democratic candidate who didn't have to try and explain how he was for the war before he was against it.

[BootinUp]

44. I find those answers

to be improbable, starting right with number 1.

If the issue was a non issue to Americans there would never have been an IWR resolution. I mean you can't be serious there, please reconsider that answer.

I do not feel the need to prove to you that Americans were in favor of taking a very hard stance with Iraq. If that is your position than lets just end this little foray now.

[Milo_Bloom]

113. What evidence do you have to support that?

That the American people WANTED to take a hard stance with Iraq? There are polls taken at the time showing that the American people weren't ramped up for war and distrusted bush on this issue. (Check out the NYT polls taken within 1 week of the IWR vote)

All that aside, the reason they wouldn't have done anything is because nothing would have happened. We wouldn't have gone to war and we wouldn't have been attached and Iraq wouldn't have become a threat and their lives would have gone on as before and bush would have been out of office in 2004.

Maybe you don't "feel the need" to prove what the tone of America was at the time, but that is because you seem to be wanting to apologize for a vote, instead of looking through the scope of reality.

[Bitwit1234]

14. For people intelligent to read the resolution it said they were giving

bush permission to find WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. And of course bush twisted it around to bomb Iraq...wonder how the other candidate sucking up to bush in 2004, would explain that HE BELIEVED THAT IRAN HAD NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND WANTED TO BOMB IRAN. Just read the interview...I didn't say I wanted to bomb Iran the other candidate did.

[Milo_Bloom]

24. Nope. If you read it, you know it is a WAR resolution.

It names Iraq a threat and gives bush authority to deal with the threat.

It's black and white and very clear.

[Carolina]

58. Thank you! That's the bottom line

Iraq was not a threat, certainly not an imminent threat after being bombed in 1991 and off and on afterwards as well as maintained under sanctions for 12 years.

IRAQ and Saddam Hussein had zip to do with 9/11 (not a single Iraqi was among among thr hijackers). It was all a LIE and HRC and her apologists on this board can spin like tops.

It was a lie that all the speechifying then and now cannot change. HRC's vote (along with other Dems who did the same and then ran for POTUS) was one of political calculation, moral cowardice, poor leadership and horrible judgment.

[arewenotdemo]

105. agree completely

She has also evinced ZERO regret or remorse for her vote, in fact she has been nothing short of apologist and backer for the continuing American occupation of Iraq until her very recent (seeming) conversion.

Her statements on the occupation have been practically identical to statements made by John McCain: in short, only American casualties matter to the American people, and if we can reduce those to some acceptably low level, the occupation can continue indefinitely.

[Joe the Revelator]

26. This is revisionist history at its worse

How can you say this when there were thousands of activists, democrats, municipal city councils, and even foreign countries who spoke out against the vote?

[rateyes]

35. It was entitled AUTHORIZATION TO USE MILITARY FORCE...

can't get any clearer than that. Kinda like: "Bin Laden determined to strike inside the U.S."

[mike_c]

43. that is completely delusional....

You're confusing the preamble, which is just legislative boilerplate and has no legislative force whatsoever-- and is filled with lies, to boot-- with the resolution, which begins with "be it resolved...."

[pampango]

18. Kerry, Clinton, Edwards and Dodd voted for the IWR and later ran for president.

Wellstone, Feingold, Kennedy and Boxer (among others) voted against it and did not run for president.

It seems to me that presidential ambitions had as much to do with the vote as did belief in the intelligence on WMD or trust in Bush.

[Carolina]

61. TOUCHE!

The 'aye' voters did so out of political calculation. They played politics with so many other peoples' lives, with our national treasury and with international relations and goodwill.

The POTUS-wannabe-Dems and all the GOP lemmings showed the world their moral bankruptcy, political cowardice, poor leadership and horrible judgment. They all have blood on their hands. And all the speechifying then and now cannot change that fact.

[Stephanie]

95. Precisely.

At least the others had the good sense to admit they were wrong.

[Fovea]

19. She won't get fooled again

How many times did the neocons fool her?

If you are fooled by Powell, Rice, et al, more than twice IMO you are wanting to be fooled.
But it is not like the IWR was the only subject our congress rolled over for.

[RaleighNCDUer]

36. Kyl/Lieberman. nt

[Fovea]

91. You mean the fiasco that Webb called

Cheney’s Fondest Pipe Dream?

It is like another enabling act.

We might as well announce we are annexing the Sudetenland (aka Venezuela).

What goes through someone's mind after the IWR, seeing this bill and not just carrying it to the restroom, where it is at least functional?

[suston96]

20. The IWR resolution and Hillary's part in it, is very murky in the minds of voters...

A 2002 vote that 76 other senators, including 28? Democrats supported?

Voters have been saying what they want to hear: the economy, jobs, healthcare, and bringing the troops home. Fixing the infrastructure so that bridges don't fall on them, foreign oil dependency, and so much more.

But, y'all here keep going with that so yesterday's and out of the past 2002 IWR resolution, if that's all you have, and most important, if it makes you feel better.

Hillary and the rest of us will look at future - because that is what it's all about. Ask Obama. He will tell you. Change? Change happens in the future.

You cannot change the past.

[Carolina]

63. yeah and you can't

do squat now or in the future when the treasury has been, and continues to be, squandered over in Iraq.

[DemGa]

21. It was a difficult vote

I respect H. Clinton more so as I continue to read her statements after the fact. Thanks for the compilation.

[Joe the Revelator]

28. On a resolution that Hillary has admitted to not even reading.

[RaleighNCDUer]

39. If she was simply fooled by the neocons

(and do we want a president who can be so easily fooled by NEOCONS?) then why did she continue to boost the war for the next 3 years, until she figured out that the majority of the public didn't really like it all that much?

Why didn't she stand up in the senate and demand accountability from the president for misusing the authority she gave him? When, in fact, was the first time she actually used the phrase 'misused his authority'?

She gets no respect from me.

[Carolina]

66. exactly, she didn't change

her tune until it was very clear how the voting public felt about the war. Even then, she often said that the problem was that the war was mismanaged, not that it was wrong from the start.

I not only don't respect her. I find her calculating and despicable.

[Joe the Revelator]

23. She will Say and To Anything do get her turn

Simple as that.

[City Lights]

34. Which equates to "the dog ate my homework" excuse for Senators.

She voted for something despite not really knowing what she was voting for. :crazy: Maybe she should have just voted "present."

[Barack_America]

37. She's either lying or a fool.

Those are her only options.

The title of the bill was, "A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq."

Authorize the use of force. You can't miss it, even if you aren't willing to read the whole thing.

I don't care if Bush swore on his mother's grave that he wouldn't use force, Hillary was voting to give him the right to. And he wouldn't have asked for that authorization if he weren't considering using it.

Knowing what you *might* be voting for is just as important as knowing what you intend to vote for.

[Tarc]

42. What's that saying again, about books and their covers?

To casually summarize it by the title alone is naive. Read the full text; it spelled out what the president was expected to do before military force was brought to the table. The blood of the Iraqi casualties and the responsibility lies on BUSH and his fascist, neocon enablers. Stop trying to push it off onto Clinton.

[Barack_America]

60. She should be familiar with the book and its cover...

...What it says explicitly and what it says between the lines. That book said "we are going to war".

I'm sorry but Hillary's vote on the Levin Amendment tells me her true feeling on weapons inspections and diplomacy versus force.

[stillrockin]

38. Bullshit.

[Individualist]

55. ...which Hillary keeps piling higher and deeper.

[mike_c]

41. utter bullshit....

First, Iraq had already agreed to allow U.N. inspectors UNLIMITED access so they could complete their inspections. They agreed to this in September 2002, a month before the IWR vote. There was absolutely no need to "force" Iraq to comply with the U.N. mandate. It already had-- not to mention that it had disarmed by 1995 at the latest, anyway.

Second, what the hell is "coercive diplomacy?" That sounds an awful lot like "gunboat diplomacy," a primary tool of imperialist foreign policy that usually leads to either war or internal regime change, neither of which were justified in Iraq. And before the usual chorus of "but Saddam was evil" cranks up, look at Iraq now. It was WAY better off when Saddam Hussein was its leader.

[ProSense]

46. Not "utter bullshit"

July 5, 2002

Iraq once again rejects new UN weapons inspection proposals.

<...>

November 13, 2002

Iraq accepts U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 and informs the UN that it will abide by the resolution.

Weapons inspectors arrive in Baghdad again after a four-year absence.

link

Following the mandate of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, Saddam Hussein allowed UN inspectors to return to Iraq in November 2002. UNMOVIC led inspections of alleged chemical and biological facilities in Iraq until shortly before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003, but did not find any weapons of mass destruction. Based on its inspections and examinations during this time, UNMOVIC inspectors determined that UNSCOM had successfully dismantled Iraq’s unconventional weapons program during the 1990s.

link

[RaleighNCDUer]

80. Bullshit, again.

In September, Saddam agreed to UN inspectors coming back in. The US DELAYED any action on his compliance, insisting on a new resolution - such resolution being 1441. During that time of delay, Bush pushed for the IWR, on the claim that Saddam was not cooperating, and that there were no inspectors there, even though the only block to them being there was US opposition.

[mike_c]

107. you need to brush up on your current events, prosense....

NCevilDUer has the correct answer in the reply above this one.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/16/iraq.un.letter/

September 17, 2002 Posted: 3:26 AM EDT (0726 GMT)

UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- In a letter handed over to the United Nations on Monday, Iraq said it would allow the return of U.N. weapons inspectors "without conditions" to "remove any doubts Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction."

The White House was dismissive of Iraq's pledge: "We do not take what Saddam says at face value," said a Bush administration official, referring to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

--snip--

"I am pleased to inform you of the decision of the Government of the Republic of Iraq to allow the return of the United Nations weapons inspectors to Iraq without conditions," the letter said.

In the meantime, Iraq, while denying all charges, announced that it would permit the re-entry of United Nations arms inspectors into Iraq. The United States characterized this as a ploy by Iraq and continued to call for a Security Council resolution which would authorize the use of military force.

The resolution text was drafted jointly by the United States and the UK, the result of eight weeks of tumultuous negotiations, particularly with Russia and France. France questioned the phrase "serious consequences" and stated repeatedly that any "material breach" found by the inspectors should not automatically lead to war; instead the UN should pass another resolution deciding on the course of action. In favour of this view is the fact that previous resolutions legitimizing war under Chapter VII used much stronger terms, like "…all necessary means…" in Resolution 678 in 1990 and that Resolution 1441 stated that the Security Council shall "remain seized of the matter."

[islandmkl]

49. you know "coercive diplomacy"

Let me send my ambassadors and assorted liasons to engage you in frank and critical discussions concerning your current activities as they relate to our continuing consternation about the serious sequence of events possible should you continue to follow your path of seeking to expand not only your military capabilities but also your realm of influence vis-a-vis your neighboring nations.

in other words...we will blow you up, regardless of anything you might do to actually alleviate the situation

[mps]

45. Obama and his War Vote

On October 2, 2002 at a Chicago rally State Senator Obama delivered his anti-war speech on Iraq. However, since he was elected to the US Senate in 2004, he has never voted to cut off funds for the Iraqi War. Over the three years Obama has been in the Senate, the only Iraq-related vote on which he and Hillary Clinton have differed was the confirmation in 2007 of General George Casey to be Chief of Staff of the Army, which Obama voted for and Hillary Clinton voted against.

So could someone please tell me what the big deal Obama's 2002 speech was as an Illinois State Senator. There were no adverse consequences for him since he came from a safe liberal district.

There have been people who were against George Bush and the Iraq war who have lost their jobs and have been impacted financially. Did it really take courage for him to give that speech in 2002?

In July of 2004, Barack Obama said , that he was "not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don’t know,” in terms of how you would have voted on the war.

I just don't understand how he is glorified for being against the war because it never mattered if he was for it or against it since he had no impact on any vote!

mps

[Justice Is Comin]

51. You have just put the hammer on the nail head my friend.

I've been saying it ad infinitum.

not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don’t know ,”

If anyone is not clear on that statement, you have a bias based one thousand percent based on willful ignorance.

And if he was in the senate, I'll bet you ten to one, he would have voted exactly the way Clinton did. Exactly. Too bad we can't turn back the clock and find out.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

54. Well, it would have been fairly clear if people posted the whole quote, including the last one

which was "What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made"

[RaleighNCDUer]

100. Not when the actual intelligence did NOT support Bush's claims.

He's simply acknowledging that IF the intelligence that he had no access to HAD supported the claims, he MIGHT have voted for it.

Hillary was on the Armed Services Committee and DID have access to the intelligence, and voted for the war anyway.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

52. Why do people ALWAYS seem to drop his very next sentence when using that 'i don't know' crap

which was: "What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made"

[AtomicKitten]

59. Media Matters: "Russert Clipped Obama Comment" --- and so did you.

What you wrote and what many Clinton advocates continue to say:

In July of 2004, Barack Obama said , that he was "not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don’t know,” in terms of how you would have voted on the war.

And why that is disingenuous and misleading:

Russert misleadingly cropped Obama comment to claim he wasn't "firmly wedded against the war"

Summary: Interviewing Barack Obama on Meet the Press, Tim Russert read a quote he attributed to Obama to suggest that he has "not been a leader against the war":

"In July of 2004, Barack Obama: 'I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. ... What would I have done? I don't know,' in terms of how you would have voted on the war."

Russert did not quote the very next sentence of Obama's statement, which was,

>> "What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made" for authorizing the war. <<

http://mediamatters.org/items/200711110004

[BootinUp]

62. In most political circles this is whats known as "Waffling"

but to you I guess its only the second part thats important, or his excuse today for the waffle. lol.

[AtomicKitten]

64. In most political circles, purposely clipping a quote for political gain is considered cheesy.

Please continue to make excuses for those obvious and underhanded albeit lame tactics.

And to just about everyone else except people like you who are willing to do whatever it takes to win, Obama's actual quote is what resonates, not the gratuitously truncated quote you offer up.

Nice try.
Thanks for playing.
Drive through.

[BootinUp]

68. So you agree that he "Waffled"

I notice that in your response you did not dispute that, lol.

[AtomicKitten]

73. It was a well thought-out statement ... but since you're hungry for waffles:

You clearly don't understand the meaning of political waffling. No worries, since you seem hungry for waffles today, here, as an example, is a serving of Hillary waffling on driver's licenses for illegal immigrants:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTRh1m-BuMs

[BootinUp]

75. Lets leave it to others to decide for themselves

whether Obama waffled. I have no problem with that.

I predict that if he is the nominee, the whole country will be asked to decide.

[AtomicKitten]

76. Obama has solid ground to stand on ... Hillary not so much.

But, as you say, America will decide.

[BootinUp]

77. yes

so solid, Amen.

Your blind faith in him is so inspiring. /sarcasm

[AtomicKitten]

78. No, Jim. I'm just telling the truth ... unlike you and others that smear for political gain.

[BootinUp]

83. so a brief recap

1. Obama didn't have to vote on the IWR

2. Instead he gave a speech against it.

3. Obama gave an interview on one of the most watched political shows and said in pretty plain English that he wasn't absolutely sure how he would have voted. (I think thats a fair paraphrasing)

4. Obama now makes excuses for that interview.

5. AtomicKitten thinks solid ground.


ok.

[AtomicKitten]

88. Your incessant spinning isn't helping the credibility of you or your candidate.

Voters will wade through the pile of bullshit the Clinton campaign is dumping into the system, and they will decide. You don't even realize that the Clinton campaign has gone too far in their efforts to smear, people chastised and fired from their campaign for spreading vicious rumors, apologies galore from Clinton surrogates for bad behavior, and powerful people coming out decrying the vile tactics and smears coming from the Clinton camp.

No worries. Soon you will see the results of those tactics on election day. That is and will be America's final answer. And yours as well.

edited for an apostrophe

[Justice Is Comin]

102. !

:thumbsup:


The republicans will explain it to Atomic Kitten if he's the nominee. And it will be Kerry on the surfboard. They will creme him with it. But the gold watch is swinging and the Obamabots are falling right into the hypnotic trance.

[AtomicKitten]

104. And who's going to explain "it" to you?

"IT" = IWR and all the flip-flopping, K-L, and the golden oldies like Monica and Whitewater, etc., etc.

Hillary has to use two vans to carry her baggage.

No worries, though, because America is pulling up her socks and getting a clue about all that. They want to win this time. And all the lies and subterfuge and flat-out assault coming from the Clinton camp hasn't and isn't going to change the momentum that is Obama. Be there or be square.

[mps]

112. Obama against the war after 2004?????

>>> "What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made" for authorizing the war. <<<

I did not find the "whole quote" as you guys are saying and I'm sorry for that. But that doesn't mean that my thesis is wrong:

Since 2004, when has Senator Obama voted as an anti-war Senator when his voting counted and possibly would have made some difference. He touts himself as the leader who can bring different factions together. So where did he show this ability regarding the war. He voted as Hillary Clinton voted with one exception as noted in my original post. Why is he the standard bearer for the Anti-War movement. Dennis Kucinich, I believe, was the only Democrat running for the Presidency who voted constantly against the war.

Why is this man from Illinois deserving of the Presidency of the United States? I don't get it. Televangelists have the same effect as Obama does on their crowds as Obama does on people that come to hear him speak. They motivate people, bring sometimes a new faith and new hope for people.

However, if the people of America don't elect more Democrats and centrist Republicans, nothing is going to change. Most of the Republicans in Congress are right-wing and want to do away with the welfare state that FDR started and the Civil Right Laws that were enacted during the 1960's. They still think George Bush's War was the right one to fight and believe in the Unitary Presidency. How is Obama going to change them?

What kind of change is Senator Obama talking about that he alone has the ability to accomplish? Please help me see what the Obama people see. I believe his people are leading with their hearts with some lofty notion of reality and that forgetting that pragmatism and experience counts too as well as hope in the future.


mps

[Egnever]

69. The big deal is

At the time He was one of very few public officials calling it for what it was. Its also a big deal because he was almost prescient in his predictions. Its called judgment and he had it and Hillary didn't.

[AtomicKitten]

74. You're right -- It's JUDGMENT vs. "experience"

[still_one]

50. Perhaps she never knew about the War Powers Act? The IWR was not necessary

Even the damn resolution calls for war:

"Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002"

How come other Democrats voted against it? Did they know something?

It is her very position on that resolution, that will hurt her with progressives. How bad will it be, we will know soon enough

The bottom line, her vote for the IWR and the Kyle/Lieberman amendment tell us that is the way she negotiates with adversaries. So if you believe that diplomacy should be handled by threats then your choice is obvious

[mike_c]

108. kind of hard not to know about the WPR if she read the IWR before voting...

...since the IWR specifically references the WPR.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

53. A steaming pile of bullshit from Ms, Thing.

Her IWR and Kly/Liebermna votes were two of the most craven, purely political votes I have ever witnessed. The fact that she felt comfortable casting those votes -- even with the lives of American men and women on the line -- chills me to the bone. That she continues to make such lame excuses leaves one with the fear of what else she will do or vote for out of political ambition.

[ShortnFiery]

56. Kick

:dem:

[AtomicKitten]

57. Deja Vu: "Ms. Rice, what was the title of that PDB dated 8/6/01?"

Bin Laden Determined to Strike Within the U.S.

same pattern of denying the obvious:

Joint Resolution H.J. Res. 114 10-11-02

Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

65. So then she's admitting she's dangerously stupid?

That doesn't fill me with confidence.

[Carolina]

79. exactly, so much for her claim

of being ready to lead on day one!

[Desertrose]

70. If you aspire to be prez, you should KNOW what you are voting for.

What kinda bullshit excuse is this??

[Political Heretic]

71. Just one more example of a quality Clinton has in common with Bush.

Her total stubborn refusal to ever admit when she is wrong.

[mtnsnake]

72. Your idol, John Kerry, voted for the war & courted McCain to be his VP running mate

When the Kerry camp courted McCain to run with Kerry, thank god McCain shunned him. Dam that would've been the most embarrassing thing ever, even more embarrassing than when Kerry dressed up in camouflage to hunt defenseless birds in a feeble attempt to suck up to the gun people. Yeah, those gun people sure bought that. lol

[Indenturedebtor]

82. Lets focus on the positive here

HRC has the "political accumen and experience" to cover her ass by authorizing the war and couching her support in such a way that no matter how it turned out she could claim that "What I really meant was...".

This means that she will be wiley, experienced, and conniving enough to play the Washington game by Washington's rules on Washington's terms. She knows how to bring together corporate lobbyists and the politicians they own in private meetings so that they can strategize about how to do what they want and still keep the people guessing. That's an important asset for a politician.

Look, the damn vote was a vote for war and the ENTIRE PLANET knew it. Including HRC. You just don't want to admit that she's lying to your face and expecting you to be gullible enough to swallow it.

Call it for what it is: Politicking. Feel how ever you want about it but lets call it like it is please.

Obama's not perfect either but lets be honest here.

[mtnsnake]

96. That's precious, telling me to be positive. Compare these...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4331511&mesg_id=4331511
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4323633&mesg_id=4323633

with any of ProSense's threads and then tell me who's being postive. Wake the fuck up before you preach to the wrong person about who's focusing on the positive. When it comes to the Clintons, this forum is 90% negative and 80% bullshit. Focus on that if you wanna do some good. Hope that helps...

[hayu_lol]

84. For all the nay sayers and Hillary Haters...here is her speech on the Senate floor:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4329338

She obviously had misgivings about the IWR as presented. No doubt about that, but still felt that it was the best that could be done. That was not a time to do nothing.

Up to that point in time, BushCo had not been so bad as president, except for too many vacations. Today, Bush has the absolute power to do as he pleases...he would just go for the invasion and would ignore the Congress.

Obama, despite all his noise to the contrary, was not a player and had no effect one way or another. He waffled and continues to waffle on the issue today. Hindsight is really wonderful. He has admitted that he doesn't know how he would have voted had he been in the senate at the time.

Taking Hillary's speech at face value, there is no reason for an apology. She did not act alone and obviously did not want Bush to invade on his own.

[mtnsnake]

98. You are correct and when it comes to that speech, everyone would rather play dumb

and make believe they don't know what her intentions really were. You see, on DU you've got a bunch of people, a few of them actually Democrats, who simply have it in for the Clintons at all costs, and they make up innuendo, bullshit, outright lies, and distortions, and post it as if they actually believe it themselves....all the time knowing that the more naive sheep will buy into it without doing any research. They seek to divide us and they're very good at it, as evidenced in all these anti-Clinton threads.

[Arugula Latte]

81. Well, gosh, Hill. Almost all of us here knew you were voting for the war.

:eyes:

[jefferson_dem]

85. Kick for Truth.

:kick:

[snooper2]

86. We were all sitting on the edge of our chairs watching that vote

And when it passed we KNEW war was coming, a false war on false pretenses...


YOU CAN'T JUST GO AND FUCKING RE-WRITE HISTORY

[Kashka-Kat]

92. You'd think a lawyer would read the fine print & know all the ramifications before signing on

Dereliction of duty or just incompetent? Or flim flamery (is that a word)?

[OmahaBlueDog]

94. The Immediate Problem at Hand

I like both Clinton and Obama. I'm not going to get into that pissing match.

However, I will say that Hillary has made the exact same mistake John Kerry made. She's trying to rationalize and explain the vote away, and she sounds increasingly like John when he said "I actually voted against the war before I voted for it." If Hillary should win the nomination, sound bites from these debates will make her look like a flip-flopper, and it will be John Kerry all over again.

Another poster pointed out the obvious -- 77 Senators were tricked into this; so was Colin Powell. She needs to stand up and say
a) I was lied to by that lying, criminal SOB George W. Bush
b) So were a lot of us
c) We didn't realize what a lying, deceitful POS he was at the time of that vote,
d) The vote was a mistake, and I regret the mistake,
and e) bottom line, idiot George has stuck us in Iraq; Johnny boy wants to keep us there for a million more years; Mittens wants to open another Gitmo and send more troops; I want to use my experience and my husband's influence with foreign leaders to help to start to get us out of this mess.

... and she needs to fire Terry McCauliffe for incompetence

[ellisonz]

Hillary's Big Lie

[Emillereid]

97. If Hillary really only voted for the War powers act for inspectors or for

coercive diplomacy why the hell didn't she protest LOUD AND CLEAR the moment Bush used the authority of the vote to get rid of the inspectors, flaunt the UN, and invade Iraq. Why didn't she stand up then and say, 'THAT IS NOT WHAT I VOTED FOR!!!!' No instead she was solidly behind the war and occupation and even wanted more troops (remember?) until her presidential run when we started turning up the heat for her war support. The is one of the reasons I will not vote for Hillary -- she and Bill are constantly re-writing history and parsing and torturing the language. Enough of this already. Why can't she just own up to what she did and admit it was a mistake and a colossal lack of judgment. As I've said before, I wouldn't have given Bushie boy the authority to order lunch! I could see through Georgie boy -- I knew what he was going to do with the Iraqi war vote-- the whole world knew -- why didn't she? She did and she didn't protest one iota. Either that or she is totally stupid and naive, which is another good reason to vote for OBAMA!!

[warren pease]

99. "What I did not count on, and what none of us did who voted to give the president authority...

...is that he had no intention to allow the inspectors to finish their job."

So the question really is: How stupid do you have to be to be fooled by the stupidest man to ever occupy the Oval Office?

Which brings to mind this question: How many millions of people -- with none of her access to insiders or classified intelligence reports -- still weren't fooled by this imbecile, knew with 100 percent certainty that he was going to attack Iraq and marched in the streets all over the world to protest the inevitable?

Which makes me wonder: How is it that poor Hillary, who claims to have the smarts and judgment to be el presidente, was just so overwhelmed by the strength of Bush's character, the inevitability of his logic and his reputation for complete honesty that she was blinded by the light?

And begs this follow-up: Despite the fact that the rest of the senate seems to have had little or no trouble figuring out what the IWR was all about, she just couldn't get it? Why not? Didn't she read it? If not, why not? Does she think it's a good idea to commit the country to war after just skimming the Cliffs Notes version?

And reacting to this comment -- "I ultimately decided voting for the authorization would be more likely to avoid war than not." -- I'll have to ask: You must have passed basic English and apparently did well enough at it in college to earn a law degree. Is it not then a bit hard to believe that you somehow interpreted a vote for a WAR RESOLUTION as vote to avoid war? What's going on here? Cognitive dissonance? Lack a decent dictionary? Need to do a little work with truth tables?

And I'm supposed to troop dutifully to the polls, ratify this media-selected corporatist stumblebum who apparently can't grasp the idea that war does not equal peace, and pull the lever, glad in my heart and convinced that I'm doing the right thing for myself, my friends and family and the greater glory of the republic.

Not bloody likely. I'm writing in Kucinich or Edwards. Or maybe just to piss off those who still blame him for Florida 2000, I'll burn a vote for Nader. But I won't be voting for anyone named Clinton again in this lifetime, unless it's a whole different family with a completely different set of priorities.


wp

[BootinUp]

111. Can we bottle up all the smarts you people got

and save it somewhere, just don't let it out until after the election. Maybe we can win one then.

[calmblueocean]

118. You've laid the case out clear as daylight; but some people just don't want to see it.

I've been thinking a lot about this lately.

When you try to appeal to people's intellect, often times they simply shut down. You can have the most airtight argument, supported by all the evidence in the world, but if it hurts more to accept the truth than to continue denying it, you get denial. Seeing an awful lot of that about Hillary Clinton's IWR vote, lately. The truth is too awful and too painful to admit, so the argument processing part of the brain shuts down and you get statements like "It doesn't matter" or "It's irrelevant".

I think we're just so disconnected from the actual consequences of the war in this country that the numbers we hear (and we rarely hear them anymore) are meaningless. What's 29,038 wounded but a number? Or 3943 soldiers dead? Just a number. It could be twice that, and it still wouldn't have any impact. And the numbers of Iraqi dead due to our invasion are approaching 90,000.

But "it's not an issue". "It doesn't matter." "It's old news!"

I'm never surprised when I hear conservatives minimize the death and destruction wars cause, but I never get over seeing it on DU.

[mike_c]

110. we already have a president who lies habitually to get his way....

Do we really want another?

[usregimechange]

114. Good job, thanks for posting

[calteacherguy]

115. Then she didn't She didn't THINK. nt

[ErnestoG]

116. She's either an incredible liar or an incredible fool - BOTH which disqualify her

completely.