OK, prove to me that had Hillary voted "no" on the IWR that we would NOT

[jasmine621]

have invaded. Enough of this shit!!

[NYCGirl]

1. So that's an excuse for her to do the wrong thing? NT

[jasmine621]

3. Don't change the subject. Respond to the challenge. nt

[NYCGirl]

7. I'm not changing the subject. What the fuck kind of an excuse is that? NT

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. It is simple. The case has been made all day by multiple posters that Hilllary is responsible

for the Iraq war. If she caused it (as opposed to Bush for example) with her vote then she could have stopped it by voting differently. Very simple. If Clinton is responsible - not George W. Bush, than what about Obama surragates like Tom Daschel and John Kerry? Here is John Kerry speaking in August of 2004, for example, after he became our Party's Presidential nominee:


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

[NYCGirl]

28. And Kerry fucked up too. As did Edwards. But they've since said they were wrong.

[clydefrand]

34. What's the difference in saying I was wrong and I

regret the vote for the authorization? I don't think there is one bit of difference.

[Auntie Bush]

58. That's what I keep asking folks who won't forgive Hillary. If she doesn't

say it in the exact words that someone wants then she's "guilty".

We all know she is sorry and regrets that vote. Why the heck does she have to eat humble pie and grovel in order to satisfy some people? Read in between her line and you'll find the answer. Why doesn't anyone remember...all the future presidential nominees voted for the war.

[Tom Rinaldo]

40. And Clinton said, knowing what she does today, that she would not have made that vote

Doesn't anyone see the contradictions here? If the IWR was such an absolutely incomprehensibly horrible act of judgement, on a political level it would not matter how sorry anyone was about it after the fact. We might feel more sympathy for a politician who falls on their knees and begs forgiveness, but we sure as hell would not reelect them to anything. Saying "I'm sorry" doesn't negate the prison sentance when someone committs a bank robbery. You don't turn around and install that person as the treasurer for the Bank as a reward for saying "I'm sorry" when there is no reasonably good explanation for what they did in the first place.

The truth is that most of the Democrats in the U.S. Senate who either co-sponsored or voted for the IWR had more or less good explanations for it at the time, Hillary Clinton included. They just aren't good enough to win them points in my book.

But it is not about saying "I'm sorry" pleadingly enough. It is about saying "I studied what happened then and I understand now where it went wrong, so I if I had it to do again I wouldn't."

And even if "I'm sorry" feels like a better answer to you, and even if you are "right" about that - I don't choose my president based on who best expresses regrets. There are more important matters regarding the future to consider than discussing how one best expresses regret about a decision in the past. Either all the Democrats who voted for the IWR should be thrown out of office and never elected to anything again for having made such a totally indefensible error, or not. That is the bottom line.

Any Democrat who knows now why it would be better if that vote could be changed learned an important lesson. Most of our Senators voted for the IWR - I do not support that sweeping a wholesale purge of our party. Kerry, Edwards, Biden, Clinton, Dodd, all have an important future in our Party. Joe Lieberman drew the wrong lessons. He does not.

[pathansen]

49. Edwards and Kerry voted for the same bill

So why is Hillary being picked on?

[Selatius]

2. The way it stands, Bush could've done it without the IWR and not get into serious trouble.

The Congress would likely not have impeached him anyway. It didn't under Repub control, and it didn't under Dem control. However, it's important to note there were already congressmen who were questioning giving that kind of discretionary authority to someone such as Bush. People like Kucinich did not trust him at all to make an informed decision.

[Ravy]

9. He could have also done it with the IWR, and not invaded.

The weapons inspectors could have finished their job. Sanctions could have been lifted.

[clydefrand]

31. Absolutely, and if you read her speech on the Senate

floor and listen to what she has said over and over, that is what she said should be done. But the inspections were stopped. Could she have prevented Bush from calling them off? I don't know.

[El Supremo]

4. What would she do as President?

Be talked into invading another country?

[Ravy]

12. The IWR was not an order for the President to invade. nt

[Terry_M]

32. No, but many of us saw what was going on

and this particular senator and many others were apparently somehow blinded while doing what they're supposed to be doing best.

[Ravy]

35. But many didn't. And they had to make a decision.

What would your alternative have been?

[Terry_M]

43. Not vote to authorize a warmonger to go to war based on a

bunch of bullshit that he's feeding the public? If I knew that I was being fed bullshit why didn't see?

[Ravy]

75. Because there are no consequences if you choose wrongly. nt

[MichiganVote]

54. If you could see it, then why couldn't Obama, Kerry, Edwards?

[cali]

5. Your post is pathetically sad.

That's not the fucking point, genius. But if you actually don't know that, hey hang on to moral bankruptcy.

[MichiganVote]

6. Are you old enought to serve in the military?

[pdxmom]

8. So, it really doesn't matter how any individual votes on any bill, because

it's just one person, so it wouldn't have changed anything? We should not hold anyone accountable for their votes, cause it actually doesn't matter?

[wheresthemind]

10. Your right. So does that mean Senator Wellstone should have just voted for the war?

After all he was up for reelection and voting against it was deemed to be political suicide.

[BootinUp]

15. None of them voted "for the war"

They voted for a threat of war to be used only in the event the UN resolutions could not be enforced without the use of force. It was one man who voted for war, Bush.

[clydefrand]

33. Right ON!

[SammyWinstonJack]

37. ...

:thumbsup: And bu$h took it to the next level which is what he had in mind, anyway.

[PassingFair]

56. So then what did the MAJORITY of our representatives in Washington vote NO on?

Explain the NO votes please.

[BootinUp]

64. Why did a majority of our Senators vote yes?

It was a difficult decision.

I think the no votes from House Reps was because they represented what their districts wanted them to do. The pressure on the Senators was likely more divided and they were left to make the decision more on the merits.

To me it is fairly clear that the Dems could not stop the war with that vote. There would have been another vote after the election, or Bush would have started the war on his own. Showing Saddaam we were serious got the UN inspectors back in there. If they had been allowed to continue longer there never would have been a war, because the case for it would have evaporated. Also, it was not clear how much international support Bush would get to go in. The Senators may have miscalculated on that as well.

[PassingFair]

66. More likely pressure because their SEATS were up.

Hillary voted INCORRECTLY.

MANY Senators and MOST of Congress voted correctly,
including Lincoln Chaffee and Jim Jeffords.

Cripes, what will it take?

"Not CLEAR how much international support Bush would get to go in"

Are you KIDDING ME?

Do you EVEN REMEMBER the COALITION of the COERCED?

[BootinUp]

68. Was the coalition of the coerced formed in October of 2002?

Did Britain commit to invade in Oct 2002?


As for the pressure from the upcoming election, yes that was a factor of course. As I said in another post here, many of them believed that forcing the inspections was the right thing to do based on the intelligence they were receiving. They could not go into an election and say , well I guess we just keep playing footsey with Sadaam until he lets us inspect again.

[PassingFair]

72. The WORLD was against our invasion of Iraq.

It STILL is.

You know, Lieberman was another Senator who voted
YEA on that resolution.

He was REJECTED by his democratic electorate.

It was a fitting punishment.

[Webster Green]

60. That's absurd!

The chimp's intentions were very clear.

It was also clear that Iraq had no WMDs, at least to anyone who was paying attention.

I guess those of us who were already in the streets were pretty shrewd to have figured it all out with no access to intelligence reports etc.

[BootinUp]

61. are you always right or something?

"I guess those of us who were already in the streets were pretty shrewd to have figured it all out with no access to intelligence reports etc."

I guess you turned out right, do you want a medal or something?

"The chimp's intentions were very clear. "



How clear? Did you know the exact date he would kick the inspectors out and invade? Will you to admit that the UN inspections would have reduced his case considerably had they continued for another few months?

As a side note, I did not believe the asshole was as stupid as he turned out to be. I expected at most some air attacks and limited ground efforts, not a full scale invasion. But I based that on the knowledge that a full scale invasion would never succeed in a 5 year time frame. So what does that make me, smart or stupid?

[Webster Green]

62. I already have medals from a another war.....they don't mean shit!

All I'm saying is that it was pretty fucking obvious what the war-chimp was up to. I understand that the legislators were afraid to look soft on terror, as that is how they were being blackmailed by the chimp, but that's tough shit. Sometimes you just have to do what is right, even if you perceive it as a threat to your re-election. :patriot:

[BootinUp]

65. Some would still argue that

forcing Saddaam to yield to inspections was the right thing to do.

[PassingFair]

67. What? Not the "cakewalk" you expected?

I pick "stupid".

PNAC policy was laid out for all to see.

[BootinUp]

69. Where did I suggest it was a cake walk. Please take a chill pill and read it again. nt

[HughMoran]

11. It's true that her vote would have changed nothing

Though I wish more Dems had voted against it - it was clear to me that Bush was lying through his teeth. OTOH, it's almost a tradition to give the CIC enough rope to hang himself with - I can't imagine that Congress has EVER stopped a determined President from pursuing his agenda WRT starting a war.

[Guaranteed]

13. You know what is wrong with your reasoning. nt

[DUyellow]

14. she is a great leader so she would have swayed other Dems to follower her... oh wait...

yeah, you are right, she couldn't have done that.

[Alexander]

18. I'd have been happy to vote for Hillary if only she did exactly that.

[tabasco]

16. LMAO! One of the more absurd arguments I've seen lately.

Hillary voted to give madman Bush a loaded gun. That is an extreme error in judgment. Just because others made the same error does not excuse Hillary.

Your argument boils down to: "Other people did it so it's okay!" Absurd.

[DUyellow]

17. if she can't change a dem to vote with her how is she going to get anything done? your logic sucks

[southern_dem]

19. What difference does it make?

Instead of doing what was right for the country and American soldiers, she went for the way the wind was blowing. A common thing for the Clintons...

[Middle finga]

20. At least she shoud've taken a stand and voted no.

And maybe if Bill Cinton, who had first hand information on the situation in Iraq, would've came out strongly against the war like Al Gore and Jimmy Carter did maybe it would have slowed down the march to war.

[KittyWampus]

21. Leadership isn't about conceding the high ground or abandoning ones principles

[DURHAM D]

22. This is fascinating - your leader says to look ahead.

But your leader keeps getting confused on his own message as he keeps going backward.

Although Obama supporters seem to have a compulsive disorder on this issue the rest of the country is not talking about it. Perhaps because 70-80% of them were fooled as well. Obama tells the boomers to turn the page - perhaps he (and his supporters) need to do the same.

So, turn the fucking page - Bush started the war. Bush lied to the public and the congress. Bush lied to the media. All the public wants to know is what is the next President going to do to get us out of this mess.

[DUyellow]

30. no no no... read here

Clinton always says "knowing what i know now, i would never vote for such a thing." THIS MEANS NOTHING!!! If Obama was in her position today (he never would be) he would say "knowing what i knew then, i would vote no on that bill today." Because it's not the Bush supplied info that was full of spin, what matters is her judgment and knowing that info was BS. If right now it was October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM CLINTON WOULD VOTE YEA. Clinton has said nothing to contradict that.

I do not want any more "STUPID WARS" in the future. Clinton has said nothing to convince me that we wouldn't have another "Stupid War" And the Iran vote makes it even more clear.

You can debate the fact that Obama was not a senator all you want, at least he was right when the majority of Americans were wrong. 22 Democratic Senators got it right and there is nothing out there that shows Obama would have gotten it wrong knowing what he knew then. Read it Link

You would have a better luck convincing my that he owns a crystal ball then you could convincing me that he would have voted for that bill.

The people who marched in Washington D.C., before and after that vote, knew it was BS and everybody knew what "authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq." was all about. We were going to go to war, end of story. She, along with 27 other Democratic Senators failed us that day.

22 democratic senators, Obama, and many other Americans got it right, Clinton got it wrong. Face the truth. I can trust Obama has good Judgment to go for peace when possible in the future, i can not trust Clinton to do the same.

[DURHAM D]

42. You have responded to the wrong poster. n/t

[DUyellow]

45. no it was to you...

[DURHAM D]

47. Non-sequitur much? nt

[DUyellow]

50. are you kidding me.

Obama doesn't dismiss the past, he says me need to move on from the past. You stated that if you are looking to the future then the past must not matter, if you listen to Obama then you would know that just isn't the case.

The topic of the main post was the vote on IWR.

you said, because most of the Americans trusted the government and the media got it wrong, we should wash our hands and say everything is clean again. NO, Hell no, things are not clean, people are dieing and Clinton and 27 other Senate Dems enabled that. Period. Do not put the blame on the American people, we live in a representative government, we trust our leaders to look through the spin and get it right, 22 of those representative senators got it right, Clinton did not, Dodd did not, Biden did not, Kerry did not.

The sad part is that the same people who say that the American people was behind the war are also the same people who say that the this vote was not a vote for war, but a war for inspections. Lets not rewrite history here, 70% of American knew that we were going to war at the time of that vote.

So no, my post was not Non-sequitur, it was very relevant to the topic. I am piss we are at war, I am pissed at Clinton and the 28 other senators who supported this war. I will not forget who allowed this to happen.

past judgments do matter in the future when that person will not acknowledge he/she has learned a lesson from the past.

[CoffeeCat]

24. If Hillary had stood up and told the TRUTH....

.... she could have made it extremely difficult for George Bush and his neocon brigade to take us into Iraq.

That's a fact!!

Look at this 1998 letter to then-President Bill Clinton, from Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Rumsfeld and
other reocons. They demanded war with Iraq in 1998! Bill rebuffed their efforts.

These neocon sociopaths---the same people!!!---come back again, headed by George Bush, and try to
take us into the same war.

Hillary is a powerful New York Senator on the Armed Services Committee. Are you trying to tell me that
Hillary lacked any power to do anything????

All she had to do is stand on the Senate floor and say, "This same cast of characters came to my husband
in 1998, and asked my husband for war with Iraq. They didn't get their war. Here they are again, asking
for the same war with Iraq...only this time they're riding on the coattails of Sept 11. Maybe we need to
step back, slow down and ask some serious questions before we take this most monumental and irreversible
of steps."

Hillary Clintons remained silent. She never pointed out the significance of that 1998 letter.

You can argue all day long that she couldn't have stopped the war, but you can NEVER argue that
her silence was anything but behavior that helped the neocons get their precious Iraq war.

Here's a copy of that 1998 letter to President Bill Clinton, from the neocons: http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

[DUyellow]

51. THE BEST POST OF THE NIGHT... AND YES I AM YELLING

[ingac70]

53. This needs its own thread.

Best post ever!!

[Skittles]

25. no one ever said that

her support was enough to sicken me

[clydefrand]

26. How many of you have read the entire contents of

Hillary Clinton's speech that she gave on the Senate floor concerning the authorization to go to war in Iraq. Look closely at the last 3 paragraphs. They do not make her sound as if she is hungry for war.

There are more issues in this country besides the Iraq War which I hate as much as anyone on DU. I despise Bush for taking us there and all the lives lost and maimed and all the families that are affected by all of this. But there is more to Hillary Clinton than one vote on this war.

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

[BootinUp]

36. Of course she did not favor actual invasion

the suggestion is ludricrous and when the left attacks our own with that suggestion, we weaken our party tremendously. Hillary was right that the UN resolutions should be forced to be followed. The IWR was doing it via inspections that hadn't been done in years and years. Inspections that were not obstructed. There is only one person who is responsible for kicking the inspectors out in 2003 and dropping bombs.

[clydefrand]

39. Thank you so much for our reply. So why do people

act as she is the only one responsible for the decision of Bush? And my heart feels heavy when ever any of our candidates are attacked ruthlessly and called uncalled for names. Any one of our candidates is and was better than any one of theirs.

[BootinUp]

41. The "Theory"

that supports their unreasonable view, is that Hillary knew Bush was going to invade and voted for the resolution anyway. The obvious fact that refutes it, is why all the UN inspection, UN resolution nonsense then?

If the Dem Senators favored an invasion they could have said so at the time they voted. Most all of them clearly said they were voting for a unified voice to Saddam that he let the inpsections resume unobstructed or we are coming in.

Keep in mind that the activist left is very much against war, as I am too. They do not think like politicians though, they think like activists. Hillary has broad support from the core of the party even if it is not reflected at web sites like DU and DKos.

[clydefrand]

46. Again, thanks. I HATE war and want no part of it

Does that mean I shouldn't like her for her accomplishments, respect her for her ideas and her experience in helping promote children's issues and women's rights just because she made the mistake of voting for IWR. I'm not sure what an activist is? What does an activist do? Enlighten me, please. I'm old, but I still like to learn.

[BootinUp]

48. Stick around

I use activist to describe people who spend their time pushing for political change, supporting candidates with money or time advocating for them during elections. Getting involved with politics in your home town supporting Democrats is another definition.

[SOS]

55. She voted to authorize Bush to use military force against Iraq.

Hence the title "AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002"

Let's look at the actual law.
After reviewing it, please show us where "UN resolutions should be forced to be followed".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the
President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; 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.

There were NO CONDITIONS. The Congress merely "supported the efforts" to enforce UNSC resolutions. It's empty, meaningless rhetoric.

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.

Bush is given 100% sole authority to determine whether his non-existent "efforts" had met with success.

(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--
(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.

Again, Bush is asked only to inform Congress of his determination prior to attacking Iraq. Bush complied with the 48 hour notification requirement.
Kennedy and Byrd were right. It was a blank check.

[BootinUp]

71. Why?

[BootinUp]

73. Here's what you just swipe out of your little mind

immediately after this resolution, Iraq bent over backwards to work out the issue with the UN. I do not think it was clear beforehand that this would not greatly reduce public support for an invasion which remained around 40 ish percent or so, and and International support, like Britain. Nor was it clear that once they got in there that Bush had the balls to order them out.

The other point is how do you get Sadaam to bend over backwards like that, umm, you pass a resolution like the IWR, thats one way obviously.

[PassingFair]

74. Here's what you just swipe out of your little mind.

There WERE NO WEAPONS.

[BootinUp]

76. You want a gold star?

Why would Senators ask protesters whether they thought there were weapons there. Maybe you should become a weapons inspector so you can make those judgements in an official capacity.

[PassingFair]

77. Maybe you should ask Scott Ritter.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0721-02.htm

Here he is in July of '02.

[BootinUp]

79. the Dems were lied to and made their decision based on those lies.

Are we done here? I have other things that interest me and this is getting boring.

[PassingFair]

80. They KNEW they were dealing with LIARS.

THAT is the point.

Sorry we're BORING you.

Move along.

By the way, MOST dems made the correct decision.

[silverweb]

27. First of all, that's faulty reasoning.

Truly sad.

Secondly, I much prefer a leader who stands up for what is right instead of what is politically self serving.

[Terry_M]

29. I agree with you

It wouldn't have made a difference. But that fact doesn't mean that all of a sudden she's not a spineless enabler.

[DUyellow]

38. but she is a great leader so she would have swayed other Dems to follower her

[unkachuck]

63. a great leader....

....with EPJ, Excellent Political Judgement!

[ErnestoG]

44. Hardly the point.

The point is your candidate voted for war, saw it was a stupid thing to do, and refuses to apologize for it.

[Avalux]

52. It's not just about the vote. It's how she's handled it the past 5 years. n/t

[slick8790]

57. That's patently not the issue.

It's a question of judgement. He was probably going to war anyway, so why couldn't she vote what was right and vote no on it?

[MadHound]

59. It isn't that the decision to go to war hinged on her vote

It is the fact that her vote on the IWR, her ongoing support for that war, and her signing of Kyle/Lieberman all go to showing where her moral values lie, what her critical thinkings skills are like, and what she will do once in office. What these positions say about her character and ideology are all negative.

It also goes to the issue of accountability. It has always been a d(D)emocratic axiom that if you don't like the actions a political figure takes, we the people have the capability to hold those politicians accountable come election time. Well, guess what. The anti-war folks are indeed holding Hillary accountable. Deal with it.

[Armstead]

70. What's your point?

If all the Democrats had voted No, at the very least they would have been proven right.

[ErnestoG]

78. In the Nuremburg trials, that baloney rational would have gotten you...

a noose around your neck in record speed.