What difference did the IWR vote make anyway? Really?

[pnwmom]

http://men.style.com/gq/features/full?id=content_5326&pageNum=2

From an interview with Chuck Hagel:

SNIP


(But there was a decision whether to grant the president that authority or not. )
Exactly right. And if you recall, the White House had announced that they didn’t need that authority from Congress.

(Which they seem to say about a lot of things.)
That’s right. Mr. Gonzales was the president’s counsel at that time, and he wrote a memo to the president saying, “You have all the powers that you need.” So I called Andy Card, who was then the chief of staff, and said, “Andy, I don’t think you have a shred of ground to stand on, but more to the point, why would a president seriously consider taking a nation to war without Congress being with him?” So a few of us—Joe Biden, Dick Lugar, and I—were invited into discussions with the White House.

SNIP

--------------------

So . . .

Bush was prepared to go to war against Iraq without ANY authorization.

But even if he HAD wanted an IWR -- and all the Dems had voted in October against it -- all he had to do was to wait for January (and the new Republican majority), and he could have had any resolution that he wanted.

HE KNEW THE DEMOCRATS COULD DO NOTHING TO STOP HIM. Again, he had decided that legally he could attack Iraq without any authorization. At the most, if Congress disagreed, the House could impeach him -- but they didn't have the votes in the Senate to kick him out of office. So what would he be? Just another very popular (he was extremely popular back then) but impeached President. Still in office, thumbing his nose at his pursuers. And then he'd be free to do ANYTHING for the rest of his term. What would Congress do? Threaten another toothless impeachment?

So . . . if the Dem had voted together AGAINST the IWR, they were looking at two possible outcomes. If Bush wanted an IWR, the new Republican majority would have given him one. However, if he didn't care (since he already felt he had the authority), then he would have proceeded anyway. At which point he MAY have been impeached by the House, but he certainly would NOT have been convicted by the Republican Senate.

None of this information is new. It is all part of the agonizing calculations that every Senator was going through in October 2003. Some decided to cooperate on passing a resolution that restricted Bush's actions to Iraq (he wanted a much broader resolution) and that required war to be a last resort. Others weren't willing to trust him at all, and those Senators are being hailed now. But no one should think that this was a simple, clear-cut decision. It's a lot easier for those of us sitting on the sidelines, or even carrying anti-war signs (as I did) to make brilliant easy decisions.

[MichiganVote]

1. It was the fact that * wanted the bill in the first place that convinced me it was BS

His record in Texas hardly said, 'Mother may I'....

[pnwmom]

6. Hagel's comments lead me to think that Bush didn't care about an IWR.

It was Congress, trying to preserve Congressional prerogative.

[MichiganVote]

14. I was always under fhe impression that it was a mere formality for *

That he always intended to screw the Iraqi's and it was and is about energy (oil). He'll be on Exxon's board of directors within 6 months of leaving office.

[FrenchieCat]

2. Showed who was principled and who wasn't.

The IWR was to give Bush legitimacy to wage his war. The more who voted for it, the more legitimate we made his actions. Doh!

[pnwmom]

9. That's one perspective. The other was that some Dems were trying to avoid setting

a precedent where the President took the country to an unauthorized war and Congress gave him no more than a wrist-slap.

[thunder rising]

3. The same neocons had tried to convince Bill Clinton to strike Iraq and Hillary knew this when she

voted. That is if her story of "experience" be taken at face value that sleeping with the President is a cabinet position.

[John Q. Citizen]

4. The problem is, Hillary is a hawk who was in favor of invading Iraq. That's the problem.

[Cha]

17. Yes, and it's a big problem that

so many here are refusing to acknowledge or maybe they wanna enlist.

[sab3rX]

5. IWR does matter: it was a moral choice and those who voted for it chose wrong

Half of the country and the entire world was opposed to any use of force in Iraq. That there was that much vocal opposition should have told the Democrats who did vote for IWR that the case presented by Bush was not convincing. Those who voted for the IWR did so because it was politically safe while those who voted against it did so because they saw through it.

[pnwmom]

26. You're not responding to the substance of my argument.

As a PRACTICAL matter, there would have been a horrible precedent set if Bush had gone to war without any authorization, as he was prepared to do -- and then he wasn't held to account.

Yes, the House Democrats could have impeached him. But the Republicans in the Senate would never have convicted him. So what would we have? Just another popular impeached President. And Congress would have lost the only weapon in their arsenal, impeachment, for the duration of Bush's term. Having been impeached once, he would be practically impeachment-proof.

If the IWR was a moral choice, then it was also a moral choice to write it in a way that kept Bush from also going into Iran, as it did. Without that IWR containing that language, we would probably have attacked Iran long ago. Would that have been the better moral choice? To take a chance that Bush would proceed without any authorization and attack ANYWHERE that he chose?

[BootinUp]

65. Based on the above reasoning, there WAS one chance to stop him

that was to get IRAQ to allow full UN inspections by voting for the IWR as a real threat.

[TwilightGardener]

7. Hagel uses the same excuses--he voted for it for political reasons, same as Hillary--

of course, he's man enough to say he regrets voting for the war in that same interview. Still waiting, Hillary...

[pnwmom]

12. Hillary has also said she would have voted differently if she had known

what Bush would do. She said almost exactly the same thing as Hagel.

[sab3rX]

13. Yet those who voted 'Nay' knew what she knew and still chose correctly

[MichiganVote]

18. Ahhh... but were they representing the state of NY?

[sab3rX]

21. I seem to recall the massive demonstrations in NYC against use of force in Iraq

If a large portion of your constituency was not convinced about IWR, there is definitely a problem. At least with Bush senior, he made a clear case and rallied a lot more than half of the country behind him along with the UN.

[MichiganVote]

24. One demonstration in one city of NY hardly makes the case.

Besides * would have invaded regardless of what Congress voted. It was in the cards. Just shows how weak Congress has become under the legacy of lobbyists.

[PassingFair]

76. How weak it has become under the legacy of DLC democrats.

We as voters must DEMAND proper representation.
We WON'T get it if we reward incompetence.

We need to LIEBERMANIZE their asses across the board.

2006 WAS a mandate.

Hillary fails to recognize this at her own (and our
party's) peril.

[pnwmom]

34. I was strongly against the war but I'm not sure that the IWR vote was "incorrect."

For the reasons I stated above.

With hindsight, it is clear that Bush ignored the restrictions in it that were supposed to keep him from going to war except as as last resort (if Hussein didn't comply with the inspections. )

On the other hand, the wording of the IWR has apparently kept Bush from attacking Iran.

[TwilightGardener]

40. I was shocked to learn that they had to strip language out of it to

keep ChimpCo from being able to attack wherever they wanted in the Middle East. I shudder to think of the even-bigger mess we'd be in now, if some diligent Senators hadn't pushed back--for sure, we'd be in Iran. Chimpy could have used that same authorization.

[pnwmom]

48. I read another article about Hagel somewhere that said the White House version

allowed Bush to attack "anywhere in the world." I think Hagel specifically mentioned Korea.

Yes, it is very scary.

[emilyg]

44. Hello perfect person. Welcome to DU.

[TwilightGardener]

29. Hagel is a conservative Republican. Voting against the war would

have been absolute, guaranteed political suicide for him in a re-election year, and even THEN, I don't excuse him. Read his floor speech from October 2002--he knew the IWR was trouble, he knew invading Iraq was a bad idea, but even though he's ordinarily a pretty principled guy, he's a politician, so he made a political calculation. No doubt Hillary did too. I understand that he's probably telling the truth, that it was not a cut and dried vote for war, and that Hagel, Biden and others had inside info on what BushCo was trying to do to screw Congress out of its war powers and invade no matter what--that only makes his vote worse to me, not better. He knew Bush was not to be trusted, but he gave him that latitude anyway. I don't know if Hillary had the same info or not, but if she looked to Hagel or Biden for guidance (she's made the "Hagel defense" several times), then she used faulty judgment: all three of them, plus Edwards and Dodd, were planning to run for President. They all made a political calculation that nagged at their consciences, and it didn't turn out well. It's something they all have to live with. It's not unforgiveable to me, but I do appreciate someone who can at least admit they screwed up.

[billbuckhead]

8. Not a damn thing!

Obama has the same exact record on the Iraq war since he's been in the senate.

[sab3rX]

10. There's a difference between voting for war and voting to feed, protect and arm the troops.

[cali]

11. As Senator Leahy said: It violated the Consittution. Isn't that enough?

[pnwmom]

16. The other side of the argument is that passing the IWR

avoided setting a horrible precedent -- specifically, the President taking the country to war without any authorization, and the Congress being unable to respond with anything stronger than a wrist slap (which is all that impeachment without conviction would have been).

And it would innoculated the President against any further impeachments for the rest of his Presidency.

[cali]

22. Sorry. Leahy was right. The Congress has NO business

passing blank checks for ANY president, be they dem or repuke. And we cannot know what would have happened had the Congress not passed the IWR. Yes, bush probably would have invaded Iraq and come back to Congress for retroactive approval, but that does not make passing this kind of crap OK. The fact is that Leahy and 22 other Senators were on the right side of history and so were the majority of House dems. IT. WAS. WRONG.

[pnwmom]

30. It wasn't a blank check. The White House version WAS a blank check.

The version that Biden, Lugar, and Hagel worked on-- and that some Dems helped to pass -- was much more restrictive.

I agree we cannot KNOW what Bush would have done without the IWR. But I think it is entirely reasonable to believe that Bush would have attacked Iraq anyway, based on his Attorney General's legal opinion.

And that would have set a very scary precedent -- that Congressional approval wasn't necessary for this kind of action.

[sandnsea]

15. Her support of THE WAR for FOUR YEARS

made a difference.

There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm’s way, that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I’ve followed for more than a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. . . . I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information, intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount the political or other factors that I didn’t believe should be in any way part of this decision.
Hillary addresses Code Pink, March 7, 2003.

Tonight, the President gave Saddam Hussein one last chance to avoid war, and the world hopes that Saddam Hussein will finally hear this ultimatum, understand the severity of those words, and act accordingly. While we wish there were more international support for the effort to disarm Saddam Hussein, at this critical juncture it is important for all of us to come together in support of our troops and pray that, if war does occur, this mission is accomplished swiftly and decisively with minimum loss of life and civilian casualties.
March 17 2003 (Invasion)
We are in a two-front war. We are offense in Iraq and we have to finish the job
March 19 2003

“We must stay the course” in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and asked for more troops to finish the job.
“We have to exert all of our efforts militarily”
November 29, 2003 Hilary visits the troops In Iraq and Afghanistan

I am both a little optimistic and a little pessimistic, but what I'm trying to do is be realistic about where we are and what we need to be successful. We have no option but to stay involved and committed.
Dec 15, 2003 Speech to CFR

"The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration," she said. "It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared.
"But I think that in the case of the administration, they really believed it. They really thought they were right, but they didn't let enough sunlight into their thinking process to really have the kind of debate that needs to take place when a serious decision occurs like that." (They believed it, but her people didn't??)
April 2004 Larry King

It's regrettable that the security needs have increased so much. On the other hand, I think you can look at the country as a whole and see that there are many parts of Iraq that are functioning quite well," Clinton said.
It is time for the President to stop serving up platitudes and present us with a plan for finishing this war with success and honor – not a rigid timetable that terrorists can exploit, but a public plan for winning and concluding the war.
Nov 2005 Letter To Constituents

nor do I think it is smart strategy to set a date certain.
June 2006 TBA

"Now it's time to say the redeployment should start in 90 days or the Congress will revoke authorization for this war,"
Feb 2007

[TexasObserver]

33. Indeed. She's been wrong and stayed wrong.

on the War

[HughMoran]

19. Yes, I remember this argument

If was damned if you do, damned if you don't. A lot of Dems chose to do the politically safe thing even knowing that Bush was probably lying - this because they knew he was going to war with or without the approval of Congress anyway. It's easy to look back now and point fingers - but it doesn't change a thing.

[joshcryer]

20. The fact remains that most who voted for it were incumbants or junior senators.

Pretty much an irrevocible fact.

[MadHound]

23. It is important because it goes to the character of the Senator,

Voting for an illegal, immoral war tells the world a lot about what sort of person you are. It begets the question about what exactly she did consider to come to her decision. As some say, it could have been a political decision, she didn't want to get tarred with her vote come the next election. However sacrificing the lives of hundreds of thousands of people on the alter of politics really doesn't sit well with a lot of people. If you take any one of her stated reasons, A. that she was lied to, or B. she was fooled or C. she just didn't plain know that the IWR would lead to Shock and Awe, then one really has to question her intelligence, since in all of these scenarios it boils down to the fact that she was somehow duped by the the Chimperor, a truly amazing feat, especially in light of the millions of people around the country and around the world who weren't.

However it isn't just the IWR, it is her whole pattern of being a hawk, from the IWR to her ongoing support for the war, to her signing Kyle/Lieberman. It is a body of work, over time, that turns many people against her. Not to mention that at the time of the IWR, she failed in one of her basic duties as a representative, she didn't listen to her constituents. Messages to Congress were running 268-1 against the IWR. Sixty eight percent of the public didn't want a damn thing done, including the IWR, until the inspectors had a chance to do their work. Millions were out in the street both here and abroad. Hello?!

So finally it boils down to accountability, which is what a democracy is all about. You don't like the actions of a particular candidate, then you don't vote for them. Well, there are millions of anti-war folks in this country who think that Hillary should be held accountable, and that's what's going to happen. You may not like it, but hey, it's how this country works. Hillary, however she made it or rationalized it, made her decision, and she has to live with the consequences. It is, for better or worse, the way our democracy works.

[MichiganVote]

25. Except the vote was never FOR a war...that's not what the bill said

[sab3rX]

27. Then why not support the Levin ammendment?

[MichiganVote]

36. If you're referring the the Levin ammendment, Clinton and Schumer did not vote Yea

Neither did Sessions(R) and Shelby(R) from Alabama. Or Stevens(R) from Alaska. In fact, senators Akaka (D-HI) and Inouye (D-HI), voted Yea.

Question: On the Amendment (Levin Amdt. No. 4862 )
Vote Number: 235 Vote Date: October 10, 2002, 03:08 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Rejected
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 4862 to S.Amdt. 4856 to S.J.Res. 45

Statement of Purpose: To authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces, pursuant to a new resolution of the United Nations Security Council, to destroy, remove, or render harmless Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons-usable material, long-range ballistic missiles, and related facilities, and for other purposes.
Vote Counts: YEAs 24
NAYs 75

[MadHound]

31. Yeah, right, whatever

You're using the "I didn't know that it would lead to war" excuse. Think about it, if that is what you or Hillary truly thought at the time, it truly becomes a question of intelligence, actually a lack thereof. Think about it, billions of people, on both sides of the fence, knew that the IWR led straight to war, yet Hillary was somehow fooled:eyes: In that case, she's too stupid to hold the highest office in the land.

Want to try another lame excuse?

[sab3rX]

35. I agree; the entire world saw through it along with half of the country

[MichiganVote]

39. Well Merry Christmas to you too.:):) Actually that's not what I am saying at all

but really your blood pressure seems a lot higher than mine so I'll let it go. Good luck with that dialogue thing you're trying to keep going.

[sab3rX]

42. I'm sorry to be so vociferious on this issue, but it bothers me deeply...

I have several friends and family in Iraq right now.

[MichiganVote]

Its ok and if it helps,and it probably won't, 3 of the 5 we've called our own are back

So far they are healthy and managing to bring their lives together. Its just a really hard time in the US for citizens and families.

No matter our differences, we MUST throw the republicans out this Fall. Everything else is just stuff.

Peace.

[pnwmom]

52. Absolutely, MichiganVote. Whoever is our nominee,

we have to unite behind him or her and throw the Republicans out.

[MichiganVote]

79. Well its a start.....we hope.

[MadHound]

45. Oh my BP is just fine.

So what are you trying to say with your statement upthread? Of course the IWR was a vote for war, no matter it's technical language. I knew that, I'm assuming that you knew that, I know that that billions of people, both for and against the war, knew that very same thing, yet somehow Hillary didn't? Again, it leads to a question of her intellectual fitness for office if that is truly the case.

[MichiganVote]

49. Not sure what statement you're referring to as I made several responses.

In my opinion the IWR vote was a token gesture on the part of the * admin. regardless of its language, its intent or its effect. * and Rove and especially Cheney had and have total contempt for Congress. Be that as it may, the same argument was made by republicans against Kerry by republicans and frankly many of this board defended him. Perhaps you were among them, perhaps not.

And I will add this, in my view Obama needs to get a better line than the ones he has been using to explain his stuff w/regard to Iraq, war on terror or Afghanistan. Not because I need it and not because I even disagree with him. Rather, because he is going to get his ever loving butt kicked by the likes of John McCain who KNOWS very well how to use the 'I don't know how I would have voted' BS against him.

None of the current frontrunners are stupid. Not even Huckabilly. Crazy, maybe.

[TwilightGardener]

51. John McCain has absolutely nothing on Obama--he's 100% crazy warmonger, and Obama

is NOT RESPONSIBLE for the authorization to start the war. Hillary, however, IS in part responsible. That's a stickier wicket to argue about. He's going to say to her, "You were for it because it was popular, until it went bad, and then you abandoned our troops during their darkest days", blah blah bullshit. It's coming. What helps us is that even Republicans are getting fucking sick of this pointless and never-ending war, and he's a total one-trick pony about it. The lie about Mittens wanting a timetable for withdrawal really pissed some Repubs off, I think, and made McCain look like wayyyy too much of a zealot on staying in Iraq forevah and evah. It will ultimately be a losing issue for him, but the loss will be closer with Hillary.

[MichiganVote]

77. Could be. But the fact that Iraq has not met their benchmarks will mitigate some of the barb

[MadHound]

54. That would be this one

"Except the vote was never FOR a war...that's not what the bill said"

As far as Obama goes, well, I'm not a partisan of his. Since Kucinich dropped out, I have no real passion for this primary. However being the political animal that I am, I think that Obama is doing a fine job of hanging this albatross around Hillary's neck. Look at what's dominating this post debate news cycle, look at what the water cooler talk is, hell, look at what's going on here at DU and around the 'net. Before the debate the war issue had died down, but now it is being talked about quite a bit. And if Obama is smart, he'll continue beating that issue all the way to the White House.

[MichiganVote]

78. Yes I'm aware of the media hype surrounding the IWR vote. Afterall it was very

successful strategy during the 04' campaign. And if you'll recall, as soon as Kerry attempted to qualify his answers he was toast in the media. As far as the issue of who voted and what not being talked about around work sites, there I beg to differ. No one really knows as yet what will be the decisive issue for the GE. It's promoted in the media as this today, that tomorrow and Brittany everyday. For his part, all McCain has to pint out is that his party affiliation supported the surge and that was successful in bringing down the level of violence. the 'See, aren't we great' argument.

The war is a losing gambit for everyone but McCain. Its at the heart of the two America's in terms of economic philosophy, religious orientation and even environmental measures. Both Obama and Clinton should be hammering home the fact that this admin. uses Blackwater and continued war means more of the same. I don't think people understand or support that.

[pnwmom]

50. As a practical matter, Bush was going to war with or without that compromise

IWR. The IWR didn't lead to the war -- it was an effort to put SOME restrictions on a President who was determined to attack Iraq one way or another, and who had an Attorney General backing him up.

Bush DID ignore the language that was intended to keep him from going in except as as last resort. But the IWR could well be the ONLY reason he hasn't gotten us into a war in Iran.

[MadHound]

56. Wow, I haven't heard that kind of twisted reading of the IWR in awhile

Is that what you truly believe the IWR was about? Is that what Hillary truly believes? Sorry, but then the intelligence issue. How is it that billions of people, both pro and anti-war, could know exactly what would happen if the IWR passed, yet you and Hillary didn't? Those millions of people out in the street, across the country and around the world, didn't ring some sort of bell?

Please, I know that you're smarter than this, stop trying to push this rationalization, it only makes you and your candidate look foolish.

[TwilightGardener]

59. Did you read the article the OP posted? There is merit to pwnmom's argument, even

if it doesn't completely let Hillary off the hook, responsibility-wise.

[pnwmom]

61. Thanks wienerdoggie. I do get the feeling

that a bunch of people here didn't read beyond the subject line. I appreciate that you did.

[TwilightGardener]

66. There is a lot of damning and revealing stuff in that article--food for thought. I do realize

that the war vote was not as simple as everyone seems to think it is--it seems like the more some Senators knew, the harder it was for them to vote no, while others were able to resist. Biden, for one, knew a SHITLOAD about what was going on, and still voted yes. I still see a pretty direct connection between everyone who wanted to run for Prez (in '04 and '08) and a "yes" vote: Kerry, Biden, Edwards, Clinton, Dodd, Hagel--all very bright, smart, well-informed Senators, all afraid to be on the wrong side of history. I think most here are dismissing Hagel's words because he's a Republican, if they read it at all. Most just want to score a point against Hillary, and I have to admit it's tempting, as an Obama supporter myself.

[pnwmom]

71. Some people are assuming I'm a Hillary person,

when really I'm on the fence. I like Obama, and I especially liked Edwards for his health plan.

But I don't think people should be deciding against HRC based solely on her Iraq vote. And I especially don't like to read people threatening not to vote for her in the general because of that vote.

[TwilightGardener]

73. I agree--I think Obama's judgment, even outside the Senate, was better and

he took a courageous position at the time. War Fever was heatin' up, and he resisted, and while there's no way to know for sure what he might have done in the Senate, all I have to go by are his words from that time--and that tells me a lot about his analytical skills and his ability to think independently while seeing through the hype of the day. I've said that her war vote is NOT unforgiveable, just one area where I feel she failed--I don't think it means she's not serious about getting us out of Iraq, for example. Too many really good, thoughtful Senators voted "yes" (some, I actually voted for--Kerry/Edwards) for me to hold her to a higher standard, except in comparison to Obama.

[MadHound]

64. Yes I did, but thanks for asking.

Look, there is really no way to rationalize Hillary's IWR vote away, especially since she followed in up with vorciferous support of the war, ongoing funding for the war, and capped off last fall with saber rattling at Iran. No matter how you slice it, no matter how much you rationalize, Hillary's IWR vote was the wrong one. And the reality of the matter is that it's going to drag her down, possibly to defeat, as it rightly should. Her vote and support has enabled the killing of hundreds of thousands of people, and she should be held accountable. That is probably one of the central issues of this campaign season, holding Hillary accountable. If you don't like it, oh well, perhaps if this situation comes up again she'll have learned. Until then, for many millions of people, her IWR vote makes her unfit for office and you and she will simply have to deal with it. Good night, I'm gone:hi:

[pnwmom]

60. I was one of those millions of people out in the street before the war.

I didn't have to make the decision the Senators did, so it was easier to think it was all cut and dry.

This is what I know: that Bush, the DECIDER, had decided to attack Iraq with or without Congressional approval. That he had an Attorney General opinion that backed him up on this. So all the Democrats could do was decide whether it was worth signing onto a compromise IWR that attempted to put some restrictions on his actions. But they couldn't stop him from going to war and they couldn't kick him out of office if he did so without their authorization.

By the way, I don't have a preferred candidate, though at one time I was leaning toward Obama. But I was impressed with the whole field and will be happy to support whoever is the nominee.

[MadHound]

67. So because you couldn't stop the damn thing, and you couldn't kick him out of office

Does that mean that you sign up for one of the most morally reprehensible pieces of legislation to come down the pike in a long while? Please then, this one speaks to Hillary's moral values. If she knew what this bill really meant(and yes, I'm pretty certain that she did), then it means that she voted as she did as the result of cold political calculation. I'm sorry, but you don't sacrifice hundreds of thousands of innocent lives, along with the fortunes of your country on the alter of politics. You go out and damn well do the right thing and oppose the madness with everything that you have.

Good night, I'm off to bed now:hi:

[Justice Is Comin]

28. Oh you guys go a long ways to carry water for Obama.

Me....Ali I can whip your ass.

Ali...really?

ME....yup

Ali...well, by all means let's step into the ring


ME....what?


Ali...the ring--let's step into the ring.


ME....uh, you mean the real one?


Ali...yeah that one.


ME....don't get me wrong, I think you're great.


Ali...I appreciate that, what day would you like?


ME....uh, you know I uh, uh uh.....


Substitute Obama for me in the example above as a metaphor having to really vote in the senate and write your own ending.


Big talk, no walk.

[sab3rX]

32. Nice deflection of the issue; in the end Hillary still voted for an immoral and illegal war...

where half of the country opposed it, along with the entire world.

[pnwmom]

She didn't vote for the war, as she clearly stated before her vote.

She voted to give Bush the authority to attack Iraq ONLY if Hussein refused to comply with the UN inspections.

[ErnestoG]

38. Don't give me that codswallop.

Everyone with half a brain (and Hillary is NOT stupid) knew that an up vote on the IWR meant a certain attack on Iraq.

[pnwmom]

53. An attack on Iraq was inevitable, with or without that October resolution.

The DECIDER had DECIDED and he had an Attorney General opinion saying he didn't need any authorization -- which would have set a terrible precedent.

But if Bush wanted an authorization, all he had to do was wait a few months for the Repubs to come into power in January.

[ErnestoG]

68. And Hillary helped him anyway.

You want that sort of person with their finger on the military button? Fuckin NOT ME.

[pnwmom]

72. She, and other Dems, tried to put restrictions on him.

And the restrictions may have worked, to the extent that they kept him from attacking Iran.

In any case, they couldn't have stopped him completely, no matter how they voted on the IWR.

[MadHound]

41. Again, that is the "I didn't know it would lead directly to war" excuse.

Once again, that excuse leads to a question of her intelligence. Frankly, having billions of people, both pro war and anti war, who knew that the IWR would lead to Shock and Awe makes her pretty damn stupid, to the point where she isn't fit for the highest office in the land, if that excuse is actually reality.

[ErnestoG]

43. Yup. And it's a big stinky pantload.

[pnwmom]

55. It didn't lead directly to war. Bush had already decided and there was no way

to stop him.

Bush had, in hand, an opinion from his A.G. saying that he didn't need the authorization. The most that the Dems could have done was impeach him -- which would have been a wrist slap, considering the offense. Is that the precedent that should have been set? That a President takes a country to war without authorization and gets a wrist slap? Because that is what the Repubs managed with the impeachment of Clinton. They completely trivialized and neutered the impeachment process. For millions of Americans, impeachment is now connected to late night TV jokes about a stain on a black dress.

[ErnestoG]

69. And the IWR gave him the public approval he needed. Thanks alot, Hillary

[pnwmom]

75. The IWR kept him from going into Iran, because with it Bush implicitly

accepted the need for Congressional approval.

[ErnestoG]

37. Who needs to do that? Obama never voted to enable a criminal war.

Clinton did, though.

[emilyg]

46. I like that.

[Whisp]

47. I take it you don't hold that vote against Republicans as well?

their decisions weren't simple and clear-cut either?

what are you saying?
seems to me that the noise against the repugs voting for this travesty is all a mistake, and we should forgive them because it's not easy on them either.

you make no sense if you are a democrat. neither does Hillary.

[pnwmom]

57. With the Republicans, it would depend on the individual.

Most of them were probably just moving in lockstep with their President. But I think Hagel was trying to make complicated, difficult decision-- with possible consequences and precedents far out into the future beyond Iraq -- just as many Democrats were.

[zulchzulu]

58. If you care about judgment and character, it means a lot. If you want to hide from the vote....

...then it means "nothing".

This "nothing" is assuming that the person who thinks it means "nothing" either wanted the vote to go to war for political expediancy, didn't have any idea what Bush Co was up to or want to try to change the subject on this obviously flawed policy that has led to a trillion dollar war with more than a million dead.

[pnwmom]

63. Did you read the post, or just the subject line? As a practical matter,

what difference did the IWR make? Bush would have attacked Iraq anyway.

If he waited for the Republican version of the IWR, then he could have attacked Iran as well. Would we have been better off?

Would we have been better off if he had attacked Iraq with NO authorization -- as he was fully prepared to do? Would we be better off if we had impeached him, and then had to sit back and watch him pronounced "not guilty" in the Senate?

[BootinUp]

62. This is exactly right. I'm gonna bookmark it so I can stop

typing this argument out once a month.

[sampsonblk]

70. Your argument is unbelievable

First, the moral responsiblity to do right does not depend on the consequences. The entire point you make is one of political calculus, and ignores the moral responsibility not to encourage or support this war in any way.

Secondly, Bush needed the IWR to PR reasons, if nothing else. Having any type of pro-wwar legislation was a huge benefit to Bush who was increasingly seen as taking the nation to the brink of war on his own. So when the coward Dems gave him what he wanted, that signaled to the public that both parties, to varying degrees, supported invading Iraq. Sickening.

Lastly, your scenario is entirely speculative. You have no earthly idea what would have happened if our party done the right thing. Would there have been a snowball effect. Would others have come forth and stood with us? There were a lot of people on the fence. Perhaps all they needed was for someone of courage and conviction to come forth and stand up against the pro-war juggernaut. But, apparently, there were too many Dems doing too much calculating when they should have been doing what's right for the nation.

Your recipe is not a Profiles in Courage recipe. Its a recipe for what we have now, which is an embarassment.

Ask yourself this: Had we done what was right back then, what shape would our party be in today? And what would have become of GW Bush and his warmongerers? Would they even have a leg to stand on?

[pnwmom]

74. Politicians have to make political calculations. It's easier for us -- we don't.

That's why I could stand out there with a sign and be sure I was right.

But it's possible even for Senators looking at this from a moral perspective to think they were doing the right thing to approve the resolution -- IF they signed on to force Hussein to allow the UN inspectors in; and IF they thought it was better to have an IWR that limited Bush's authority to Iraq and kept him OUT of Iran, Syria, Korea, or wherever else he may have wanted to go.

[sampsonblk]

80. They were duped into making a bad political calculation?

Is that it? They had no choice but to make political calculations, and Bush fooled them into guessing wrong?

Sounds like a tangled web to me.