You Sent Them There, Hillary Clinton

[Dems Will Win]

Before you send soldiers to war you must consider the price they are going to pay. They will come home crippled, maimed, missing limbs and suffering from PTSD. This suffering is the inevitable consequence of war.

That's just part of the story. Mothers, wives, children and other loved ones left behind suffer in silence when soldiers are sent off to war. Babies grow up not knowing their fathers. Families pay in silence.

The there's the homecoming. When soldiers come home the adjustment from war to peace takes months or years. Soldiers attuned to constant threats of violence react to normal stimuli in abnormal ways. Sometimes this leads to domestic violence and abuse. These are all inevitable results of war.


When Senator Clinton implicitly compared her personal problems to the problems of the soldiers and their families she seemed unaware of her responsibility for their suffering.

The AUMF wasn't only an authorization to use force in Iraq. The AUMF authorized a war that was sure to cause soldiers and their families to suffer. It was certain to cause many Iraqis to suffer under the most favorable scenario. In fact, the AUMF led to millions of Iraqis to be displaced and half a million to a million to die.

When any politician uses our soldiers suffering for personal or partisan political gain I feel a knot in my gut. It isn't right.

But, honestly, I don't think most of our politicians including Hillary Clinton get it. They see our troops as pawns in a game of global chess. They don't see the connections between their votes in Congress and the suffering of our soldiers abroad. They don't take the decision to go to war seriously enough because they don't consider the personal consequences to our soldiers ahead of time.

They don't take personal responsibility for the suffering they cause.

Hillary Clinton does not see the connection linking her AUMF vote and the disabling of the veterans she talked about in the debate.

They are but pawns to her.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/21/214247/442/143/461593

[stillrockin]

1. I know. That infuriates me.

[psychopomp]

93. It angers me, as well

Sen. Clinton needs to own up to the fact that she had a hand in putting those soldiers in harm's way for bush's unnecessary war.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

2. No She Didn't. Anyone Saying So Is An Intellectual Moron.

[DURHAM D]

5. Yep.

They should rename this forum the "SimpleMindedUnderground".

[Windy]

6. You really need to examine your critical thinking skills.

Actions have consequences and that is why judgment is important. Hillary voted for a war for political gain, not to protect and defend the constitution of the united states from enemies foriegn and domestic which is her charge. Sadam Hussein was not a threat to the US. The evidence was not there and she knew it. So did John Kerry. They voted to protect themselves from republican attack during a presidential run.

I have a very serious problem with her motivation.

I have been in the military. You can't take the lives of the men and women who make sacrifices for their country for granted for your own political goals.

I'm sorry. It is a problem.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

7. My Skills Are Fine, Thank You. My Comment Stands Firm And With Accuracy.

Anyone saying she sent them there is an irrational moronic ignoramus.

[KAZ]

16. "irrational moronic ignoramus". I know you can do better.

I've seen it, on rare occasions. :) Stop being so lazy with your posts.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

18. Sorry, I'm Exhausted Right Now.

But it was accurate enough.

[Milo_Bloom]

21. No, they just read the IWR.

[polpilot]

129. Hillary's claimed ignorance....I give it to her. She just didn't know what she was doing.

Iraq War Resolution. Wonder what that means??? hmmmmm...Iraq--well that's some country..War...well that's fighting or bombing or something resolution? isn't that something to do with a camera or computer...damn, I don't know so I'll just vote for it maybe I'll get a new high resolution computer with Iraq pictures on it and we'll fight the war on poverty???

[KAZ]

10. Good post WIndy. It would have been so much...

.. easier to post things like "moron", and "SimpleMindedUnderground", but you rose above. I still lay this whole death-hole at the feet of the Chimp, but posts like yours makes me think twice.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

13. she wanted to be re-elected

sickening, she of all people could have stood up and made a difference.

[Skittles]

14. they put the (perceived) interests of their careers of the interests of America

f***ing indefensible

[Hell Hath No Fury]

125. There it is, in a nutshell.

When someone votes on something that important with future political considerations in mind, they have lost all credibility with me. I despised Clinton, Kerry, and Edwards for their disgusting sell-out of our soldiers.

And I'm sure as hell not thrilled with the lot of them for their continued funding of the madness. :mad:

[Hobarticus]

32. I assume you're equally outraged over Obama's continuing to fund

the war, Critical Thinker Extraordinaire?

[Windy]

115. As a veteran, I have no problem funding our troops and making sure they have the equipment they need

Its not their fault that the government failed them. And worse, the funding post invasion was a band-aid to try and equip our troops properly after the fact. Where was the oversight of the congress before they sent our kids off to battle?

Everyone who voted for funding on the Dem side wants timetables for withdraw. The problem is, Bush will veto any funding with timetables attached. He doesn't give a damn that our troops families have to buy their own body armour! We can't cut them off and hang them out to dry. The FIX is to get a new administration in there who will get them out and be MUCH more responsible about committing them to battle in the first place!

[lcdnumber6]

88. windy you hit it exactly.

I wish I could get your post on the front page. Lisa

[pocoloco]

15. You seem like you know, so tell me

did she lie about believing bush was not going to invade Iraq
or
does she have shit for brains for believing him.

Let's settle this once and for all.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mudesi]

141. You confuse the word "explanation" with "excuse" (nm)

[Milo_Bloom]

19. She voted for a war resolution, thus she sent them there.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Milo_Bloom]

53. Guess you didn't read the IWR. You should try it someday.

[Hobarticus]

30. Obama still funds them, so he's keeping them there.

Two can play that game.

[ErnestoG]

40. Putting food in a soldier's belly isnt the same helping Bushhole make illegal war.

which is what your Entitlement Candidate did.

[Hobarticus]

42. So why not bring them home, rather than feed them there?

If Hillary could single-handedly send those troop sinto Iraq, then surely Obama can single-handedly bring them home.

And I have no candidate as of yet, sunshine, so try your playground snark elsewhere.

[ErnestoG]

46. Make him president and tell him that. I think he already plans for it.

[Hobarticus]

48. Why not now, as senator?

[ErnestoG]

60. Because he's not the CIC. Do your research,

A Senator has no such power.

[Hobarticus]

65. So, Senator Clinton had no such power to send them there, either?

Hmmm.

[Milo_Bloom]

67. She voted for the war. He did not.

[Hobarticus]

69. That wasn't the question....did she order them there, or not?

And he COULDN'T vote, since he wasn't a Senator at the time.

[Milo_Bloom]

70. She voted to send them to war. He did not.

Its the only answer that matters.

[Hobarticus]

73. As the late great Billy Preston said...

Will it go 'round in circles?

:rofl:

Y'know, the last time I heard such black-and-white logic was....oh, right about the time our CIC Bush sent troops into Iraq. Funny how that comes back around.

[Milo_Bloom]

75. Sorry you can't hide from reality.

She voted for a war resolution.

Nothing more complicated than that.

[Hobarticus]

77. Sigh. He votes to fund it. Not more complicated, either.

[Milo_Bloom]

81. So?

I guess he should just leave them there to die then.

[Hobarticus]

84. And what are they doing right now? Playing tennis?

I think they're dying, steadily.

[Milo_Bloom]

85. Thanks to those who voted for the war.

Thanks for making the point for me.

[Hobarticus]

87. But, they're dying there because the war's still being funded

[ErnestoG]

90. You mean the war that Hillary voted for?

correct

[Hobarticus]

96. Yes, the war that Obama funds. That one.

[ErnestoG]

103. Obama never helped start it. Hillary did though.

[Hobarticus]

111. Obama couldn't have voted for it, since he wasn't a senator....

Not exactly a brave stance to take, in hindsight.

[Milo_Bloom]

92. No.

They are dying because they are there.

[Hobarticus]

99. Okay, we're making progress...

So, if they weren't funded, wouldn't they have to come home?

I mean, Bush is crazy and stupid, but if he tried to leave them there high and dry, there'd be anarchy in the streets.

Why not force his hand?

[Milo_Bloom]

102. I see your problem.. you don't understand how it works.

"So, if they weren't funded, wouldn't they have to come home?"

No. They wouldn't. The money could be pulled from other military resources with absolutely no congressional involvement. The only problem is that their equipment and treatment would get more and more substandard and our readiness here at home would deteriorate as well.

The concept that you can "not fund" and "force troops home" has long ago been debunked.

Not funding begins a long, slow, painful, starving process that bush could easily outlast with the money available to him already.

[Hobarticus]

107. If Congress said, start bringing the troops home

Why would he not be legally obliged to do so?

Oh wait, we're talking Dubya.

Seriously...if Congress called no joy, how could he possibly keep them there? Dubya never even came close to following the letter and intent of the IWR, and any instance that he claims he did follow it has been long proven to be false.

[Milo_Bloom]

116. Wow, you are really confused.

First, congress has tried to say start bringing the troops home; however, they didn't have enough votes to override the veto/even beat the fillibuster. All they could do is stop giving extra money which wouldn't stop the war, it would only hurt the troops.

Second, bush followed the letter of the IWR to the tee. It was a declaration of war and he went to war.

Anything else you need me to clear up for you?

[Milo_Bloom]

54. He didn't vote for the war. Nuff said. (nt)

[Hobarticus]

57. Doesn't work that way in Reality-Land...

Sorry. He keeps funding the very war that says he wouldn't have voted for. Not exactly seeing any ground-breaking efforts on his part to get them home right now, either.

If he wants to run on an anti-war platform, then he needs a consistent voting record IN THE US SENATE to be credible to anybody beyond the true believers.

And it just ain't there for me, yet.

[Milo_Bloom]

59. Sure it does. She voted for the war, thus she is disqualified.

He didn't vote for the war, thus, he is still worth voting for.

It really is that simple.

[Hobarticus]

64. Kerry voted for IWR...why did Obama accept his endorsement?

Why is Kerry still in the Senate, then? Is he not worth voting for?

Not so simple, is it?

[Milo_Bloom]

66. Yes, very simple. She voted for the war.

I wouldn't vote for Kerry either and would kick him out of the senate if I could. I wouldn't vote for Edwards, nor ANY other war voter.

[Hobarticus]

71. Well, at least you have a consistent stance...

And that I can respect.

So, should he have accepted Kerry's endorsement?

[Milo_Bloom]

74. Of course.

ALthough, in reality, an endorsement isn't someone's to accept or reject, it just is.

Kinda like a vote for war. It just is what it is.

[Hobarticus]

79. So if Alan Keyes were to endorse Obama, he should accept it?

Again, not picking a fight. Just asking.

[Milo_Bloom]

82. Of course. You can't "reject" an endorsement.

[Hobarticus]

86. Now that's just silly. Of COURSE you can.

I hope you really don't believe that.

What if it were, say, an ultra-rightist militant group or something? Is that someone that any given candidate would really want their name associated with?

[Milo_Bloom]

91. No you can't.

Sorry the meaning of the words isn't clear, but this should help.

From www.m-w.com

2 a: to approve openly <endorse an idea>; especially : to express support or approval of publicly and definitely <endorse a mayoral candidate>


An endorsement is something given, but cannot be accepted or rejected. It just is. If Alan Keyes announces that he supports Obama, he has made an endorsement. No matter if Obama were to object or not doesn't change what it would be... an endorsement.

If the KKK endorsed Obama, they would have endorsed him. He could come out and say he believes in everything they don't and hates everything they stand for, but they still will have "endorsed" him.

[Hobarticus]

95. So you think Obama would be happy with the KKK's endorsement?

You don't think he wouldn't hold a press conference and say "no way in HELL do I want my name associated with these people"?

Is that not "rejecting" an endorsement?

Maybe you know more about it than I do, maybe there's a form that needs to be filled out to formally reject an endorsement. Maybe you can find another link about that.

[Milo_Bloom]

98. Probably not, but he still can't reject a statement.

It is what it is. Just like voting for a war.

[Hobarticus]

100. That is ridiculous and illogical....

Just like voting to fund a war that you don't support.

[Milo_Bloom]

104. Perfectly logical.

I am sorry you don't understand what an endorsement is and what it means and how silly it is to suggest that someone can reject something over which they have no power, say or control.

But, then this goes along with your gross misunderstanding of government and this silly thought that you can just de-fund the war and bring the troops home.

You really should do a bit more research on these topics before going into a message board.

[Hobarticus]

109. I know, I'm reeeeeeallly stupid....

Good thing you're here with your fancy book learnin'.

What's funny is, I was just about to edit my other post with a thank you, for discussing the issue at hand fairly and not in a condescending tone. And then I read this. Guess it was too good to be true.

[Milo_Bloom]

117. Much like Clinton, people get what they deserve.

When one votes for war, they are treated the contempt they deserve.

When someone tries to defend that vote, and sling mud by misrepresenting the congressional process and suggests that voting for funding packages is the same as voting for the war itself, they are treated with the disdain they deserve.

When that same someone shows a basic misunderstanding of the english language, well... then we just poke at them and laugh.

[ErnestoG]

39. She most certainly had a hand in sending them there. It's called a vote.

And she voted the wrong way.

[gravity]

44. This Obama supporter agrees

I guess some people here assume that she voted on a bill specifically to harm the troops for personal poltical gain. If that is how you interpet this document, then you need to get your head checked.

You can say that she made a missjudgement voting for it, like trusting Bush to make a competent decision, but personally blaming her for the deaths of American troops and destabilizing the middle east is just shameful.

Get real. Remember who was Commander in Chief at the time who had the authority to specifically send our troops in harms way for political gain. That fool bares the personal responsibility.

[FiveGoodMen]

136. Nonsense

She had a chance to try and stop Bush.

She had a constitutional duty to see whether war was justified before the White House started one. That's why the power is given to Congress and not the President.

She did her job badly. Many here at DU knew what would come of this. She either couldn't figure it out or didn't care.

"Remember who was Commander in Chief at the time who had the authority to specifically send our troops in harms way for political gain"

He didn't have the authority till she and others gave it to him. That's the fucking point.

[SOS]

120. Technically correct

Clinton did not send the US military into Iraq.
She, along with 76 others Senators, voted to authorize Bush to use military force against Iraq.

[Skip Intro]

127. THANK YOU!

[Carolina]

130. votes have consequences

a 'yes' vote to cede all authority to BUSH (of all people) and to authorize the use of force against a nation that was not an imminent threat and that never attacked us means that HRC voted for war and has blood on her hands. Aiding and abetting a crime is CRIMINAL.

Twenty-three other Senators got it right and one in particular, Robert Byrd, gave a moving, cautionary, prophetic speech warning his colleagues against ceding their constitutional power to the administration. He warned about the administration's hubris, the lack of evidence for war, the lack of need for such a resolution, the uncanny time of the resolution (just before the 2002 midterm elections), the rush to war with all of it's consequences AND make no mistake about it, the fact that voting for the resolution was voting for war!

We expected the repukes to vote with Bush but interestingly, on the Dem side, mainly those with POTUS ambitions did so. They went along to get ahead politically.

You're the intellectual moron.

[DemGa]

3. Daily Kos surpasses ALL in Hillary-hate

Freepers got nothing on the Hill-hate compared to that cesspool.

[Stephanie]

4. A War Based on LIES

LIES that she either abetted, or believed. You be the judge.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

11. she's a hawk, urged Bill to bomb during Kosovo/Bosnia conflict

what with her "35 years of experience" and all.


But then, she has always been a war hawk.

Tomorrow's Neocon Today

Why Clinton II wouldn't offer much change from Bush II

Radley Balko | October 19, 2007

...The 1990s, remember, weren't exactly a decade of peace. Bill Clinton ordered more U.S. military interventions than any other post-WWII administration, and there's no reason to think any of them were over Hillary's protestations. She supported the U.S. military campaigns in Haiti, Kosovo, and Bosnia.

She once boasted that as the tension in Kosovo mounted, she called her husband from her trip to Africa and, "I urged him to bomb."

http://www.reason.com/news/show/123103.html

[Dems Will Win]

12. Hillary says it was COndi that convinced her to vote for the war when Condiliar told her

"Dick must have gotten confused" that we were going straight to war with the AUMF instead of letting the inspectors go back in (Concord Monitor blog Dec 21, 2007).

[IndianaGreen]

8. She has yet to shed a tear, or show any remorse, over the million Iraqis we killed

and the nearly 3 million we made refugees in their own country. Hillary's lack of moral compass is astonishing!

[Dems Will Win]

24. She did not even read the NIE! And it said there were no WMDs!!

The wrongful blood of our soldiers is therefore on her hands, she stupidly gave Cheney the authority to start a war over oil, just so she could run to the center for her '08 run.

And that wrongful blood will be on the hands of anyone who votes for her -- especially those whose who have been horrified at this war.

I can understand you pro-war Democrats not minding getting Iraqi or soldier's blood on your hands.

But how can you anti-war Democrats sleep at night when you plan to vote for someone who sent us to Iraq, when we can have a candidate who won't sell out our troops for mere political ambition? Did you ever think about this?

Please explain that to me, because I don't get it. And don't start with Obama voted to fund the war too. We are not talking about that. Hillary sent them there and then she has the audacity to use the maimed soldiers to hype her own campaign.

It's the Audacity of Hype!

All I could think of when she mentioned the soldiers and the war was

You started it! You were the one that got them maimed and killed--just so you could run to the center for President.

It was infuriating, really.

I really hope the new TX poll that shows Obama is up 14% comes true.

[XemaSab]

35. I had the same reaction.

And as far as funding the war? If we've already gone over there and killed their leader, we should stay long enough to install a new government, AND we should make sure our troops have body armor while they're there.

I am totally antiwar, but I don't have a problem with giving our troops what they need.

[Whisp]

131. and that's not counting the ones killed during the Clinton administation.

The Iraqi's have been pulverized for -16+ years!!!!!
Gulf War - Bush 1
Sanctions and misery and bombing - Clinton 1
Iraqi 'Liberation' - Bush 2

no reason to believe another Clinton would not continue the killing of a whole country.

[FiveGoodMen]

137. But she DID cry over the difficulties of campaigning!

Priorities.

[AX10]

9. Kos has exceeded the hate for Hillary that comes from Sean and Rush.

[cloud75]

17. so what has obama done to end the war?

[jgraz]

31. You mean besides not starting it in the first place?

[Hobarticus]

45. Kerry voted for the IWR...Kerry endorsed Obama...

Should Obama reject his endorsement?

Not starting a fight, just asking.

[jgraz]

49. Huh? That makes no sense whatsoever.

If Kerry was running this year, I guarantee you that Obama would be hammering him on his IWR vote. Accepting an endorsement is not the same as running against someone in a campaign.

[Hobarticus]

52. Actually it makes a lot of sense...

If your logic rejects Hillary because if IWR, why is accepting an endorsement from someone else who voted for IWR, okay?

Hillary's vote is terrible, but as long as Kerry's on Obama's side, it's all good?

Doesn't that seem disingenuous?

[jgraz]

62. Wow, whoever taught you basic logic owes you a refund

:eyes:

[Hobarticus]

68. Listen, you can be snippy and snotty all you want...

But I'm asking what I think is a legitimate question. It's not an illogical association at all.

Not trying to box you in or trap you in a gotcha moment.

If you can't answer it without being insulting, or answer it at all, then just admit as such and I'll find someone who can.

[jgraz]

72. I don't know how to respond to someone who makes absolutely no sense whatsoever

Your logic is completely fubar. The situations are not comparable in the least, and the fact that you can't or won't see that is a bit disturbing.

[Hobarticus]

76. Yes, insult, rather than discuss...

Keep HOPING and CHANGING! It's all UNIFYING, y'know! Unless you disagree, of course....

Anyone else must be FUBAR, nuts, illogical, or disturbed!

[jgraz]

83. Tell you what. Turn your question into a new thread and see what kind of response you get.

If you're lucky, some kind soul with waaay more patience than I will explain where your train of thought jumped the tracks.

[Hobarticus]

89. Oh, gee! Some kind charitable soul will answer the question you won't?

How sweet.

Can you please indulge this twisted disturbed soul with a least an answer, just for laffs?

Come on, throw this poor twisted wretch an answer. You've been insulting me for four or five replies without an answer, give me something. Think of it as throwing a beggar in the streets an intellectually-superior, hopeful nickel.

[jgraz]

113. Nevermind. I posted it for you.

Let's see what the rest of DU thinks.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4710451

[Bluebear]

23. Dupe

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4707056

[FrenchieCat]

25. Here it is in a nutshell.......

Hillary's commercial for Texas and Ohio!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Om_lI115gvo&feature=related

[BenDavid]

26. this to me is one dumb ass post from kos because you are giving

every other democrat that voted for that resolution a pass....I guess you gave Kerry a pass in 04 as well. The only problem with your post is you not blaming the one responsible and that is bush. he is the one that had the authority to go and attack iraq.

how about going and blaming max cleland. you know the one that lost 3 limbs in Nam and tell him he is responsible for the deaths and injuries of our servicemen and women....

or how about going to visit john edwards and tell him he is responsible to the deaths and injuries of our men and women and his apology did nothing to stop the escalation in iraq....

Oh I could go on and on about this, and the only reason you folks are pissed at hrc is because she will not grovel so the whoremedia can catch it on tape and play it over and over again and you all can sit back and laugh and feel proud.....she will not apologize....

I wish someone had the balls to tell obama that his 02 speech is old news. It serves no damn purpse in 08. If he or hrc become president they will have to deal with the cards that are dealt, and that 02 speech will serve no purpose at all.....

[donheld]

51. "you are giving every other democrat that voted for that resolution a pass."

every other democrat is not running for president.

[The_Casual_Observer]

27. You pay taxes? Then you did too,

[Beausoir]

28. Hmmm. I thought it was George W. Bush.

I must have missed the meeting when DU suddenly decided that this was a Democrat war.

All along, I thought it was Bush and Cheney who waged the war.

[cloud75]

29. obama keeps them there he has not stopped war as a senator.

he doesn't need to be prsident to stop this war as a senator he has a lot of power to end the war for two years he did nothing.

[paulk]

33. The Republican Patty would like to thank you

and all the other stupid fuckwits pushing this line for helping to pin responsibility for the Iraq war on the Democratic Party.

[Justice Is Comin]

34. And you don't know what you're talking about.

When a squad commander sends riot police to a riot, he doesn't expect them to start shooting people. What she signed on to was a belief of trust in a fucking president of the United States for bargaining power.

If you try to twist that, you're whistling in the epicenter of the grave yard. Show me the passage in her speech where she says she was giving him anything but last resort option to go to war.

You obama ground sniffers are going to be wishing you were a little more rational and a lot less radical about your false prophet no experience phony.

[XemaSab]

36. I knew Bush was a SNAKE on Day 1.

How the hell did Hillary not know that on day 900 or however long it was? :shrug:

[Justice Is Comin]

38. What you're not considering is all the

third party informative smoke that was simultaneously being blown up her ass.

Does the Colin Powell name ring any bells?

[XemaSab]

56. I do hear a bell ringing at that name, yes

But that doesn't minimize the fact that Bush is an asshole and we all knew it from the beginning.

("We all" meaning me and virtually every person I know)

[lcdnumber6]

108. HRC should have known smoke was being blown up her ass

What a lame intellectual "victim" excuse. Come on.

[XemaSab]

114. Me?

I knew the BFEE was fulla shit all along.

[ErnestoG]

then why WEREN'T 126 other Dems not fooled into supporting a war?

Can't have it both ways, Counselor.

[Justice Is Comin]

112. Let me know when you have two or three hours sometime

and I'll explain it to you.

[Carolina]

132. exactly, Bush was a snake, a liar and a thief

Besides, Iraq was never an imminent threat and never attacked us.

Ceding all authority to BUSH (of all people) to use of force against a nation that was not an imminent threat and that never attacked us means that HRC is either calculating or incredibly stupid. Yes, Bush and the repukes pushed for war but Dems with POTUS ambitions didn't have to go along and give bipartisan cover! And aiding and abetting a crime is CRIMINAL.

Twenty-three Senators and a host of House members got it right. Robert Byrd, in particular, gave a moving, cautionary, prophetic speech warning his colleagues against ceding their constitutional power to the administration. He warned about the administration's hubris, the lack of evidence for war, the lack of need for such a resolution, the uncanny time of the resolution (just before the 2002 midterm elections), the rush to war with all of it's consequences AND make no mistake about it, the fact that voting for the resolution was voting for war!

HHRC and her team of blind followers can spin all they want. There are no valid excuses for that vote.

[Cha]

37. hilary didn't even read the 90 page NIE

report before she voted for the IWR..and she supported bush's war on Iraq until it became clear even to hilary that the county she wanted to run wasn't buyin' it. hilary has blood on her hands and so does that sucker bil clinton.

[nonconformist]

41. Enough already. This is BUSH'S WAR

Not Kerry's, not Edwards's, not Biden's, not Dodd's, and not Hillary's.

[Murdock]

43. Oh of course..

Are you also willing to give Tom Delay and Bill Frist and Mitch McConnell a pass as well?

What's so sad is that by defending Hillary you also by default it puts you in the camp with the Tom Delays and Bill Frists and Mitch McConnells of the world since Hillary's voting record basically mirrors theirs on Iraq.

Lay with pigs my friend..

[Hobarticus]

55. Man, this is funny...

Stuff just writes itself.

[nonconformist]

78. I'm not giving anyone a pass. I criticize her vote.

Always have, always will.

But you guys are acting like she rode into Baghdad on a tank, hooting and hollering while Obama stood in protest in front of the tank, Tiananmen Square-style.


Have you checked out Obama's war votes since he's been in the Senate? Obama isn't the anti-war candidate you think he is... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4643795

[Murdock]

97. He's closer than Hillary

And thats all we have. I credit Obama for standing up with us in 2002 while Hillary was standing with the Republicans and George W. Bush.

[ErnestoG]

47. He had help from Hillary's vote.

Dont you EVER forget that.

[Hobarticus]

50. And Kerry's...whose endorsement Obama accepted.

Believe me, I won't forget.

[ErnestoG]

61. Kerry half apologized. Madame Entitled cannot be bothered.

[nonconformist]

80. Oh, I see.

You feel SO STRONGLY about this, that her vote alone cost the life of MILLIONS, but if she had half apologized, it'd be ok.

[ErnestoG]

94. an apology shows some compassion and character,

are you familiar with those terms?

[Carolina]

133. Votes have consequences

Voting 'yes' to cede all authority to BUSH (of all people) to use of force against Iraq --a nation that was not an imminent threat and that never attacked us-- means that Kerry, Edwards, Biden, Dodd, and Hillary were either calculating or incredibly stupid. Yes, Bush and the repukes pushed for war but Dems didn't have to go along and give bipartisan cover! Funny (no, tragic) that those with POTUS ambitions did. Aiding and abetting a crime is CRIMINAL and thus, they have blood on their hands.

Twenty-three Senators and a host of House members got it right. Robert Byrd, in particular, gave a moving, cautionary, prophetic speech warning his colleagues against ceding their constitutional power to the administration. He warned about the administration's hubris, the lack of evidence for war, the lack of need for such a resolution, the uncanny time of the resolution (just before the 2002 midterm elections), the rush to war with all of it's consequences AND make no mistake about it, the fact that voting for the resolution was voting for war!

Spin it all you want. There were no valid excuses for that vote and that is why the Dems who did so will never be POTUS.

[FiveGoodMen]

138. Say it again. And again. And again. Maybe one of these times it'll be true.

[AtomicKitten]

58. Me thinks some Dems are feeling guilty for supporting the Goddess of War.

So they try to diffuse the guilt with all kinds of snazzy subterfuge and finger-pointing, but alas it is for naught. The choice between the candidates is clear: One is the Goddess of War who votes "you betcha" on every GOP-inspired war scheme that comes her way ... and then there's the other candidate who opposed the war from the start. There it is. Clear as day.

[ErnestoG]

63. Bang on.

[Justice Is Comin]

110. And you must be easily mesmerized by holograms.

Yeah---you betcha cuz I'm not a U.S. Senator and I'm running against super tough Alan Keyes la lala la la. .... And oh yeah, definitely mark me down for present.


Opposed the "war" from the start :rofl:

[AtomicKitten]

119. How's it feel to support the Goddess of War ???

Must feel pretty crappy what with all your efforts at subterfuge.

[Justice Is Comin]

121. How does it feel to support

Urkel, only with less intelligence?

He would only be the second president in history to have less intelligence than anybody in his cabinet. The other one is stinking up the oval room right now.

[AtomicKitten]

123. "Urkel, only with less intelligence?" Ha, ha! Tell that to the Harvard Law Review!

Your desperation is if nothing else amusing.

[bridgit]

101. Preposterous, g.w. bush is the commander in chief just ask him...*he* *sent* them there...

you'll be busy pillorying many, many dems at this rate

[ErnestoG]

105. With the help of some so called Democrats like Hillary

while 126 other Democrats were not fooled by Bush's lying war push. Sadly, Hillary wasn't one of those.

[bridgit]

106. Many were, you're still very, very busy trying to factor out that issue down to just one

When we all know *exactly* who's war this really is

[FiveGoodMen]

139. "you'll be busy pillorying many, many dems at this rate" -- Many deserve it!

[MethuenProgressive]

118. Bogus OP

"They are but pawns to her."
What utter bullshit.

[RestoreGore]

122. And they both FUNDED it to keep it going, no?

Isn't that just as bad? One speech means nothing to me.

[AtomicKitten]

124. No, it's not. The IWR was the Golden Ticket to Junior's Big Adventure.

It's unfortunate that you are unable to discern the very real and screaming difference between giving Junior a blank check to have his way with the planet and keeping our soldiers equipped and safe, the latter as a consequence of The Original Sin that was the Iraq War Resolution.

[PassingFair]

126. You are 100% right, AK!

Too many of our Democratic Senators, the "LOYAL OPPOSITION", were
neither LOYAL nor in OPPOSITION.

The majority of our Congresspeople were in the right.
23 Senators could SMELL THE BULLSHIT.

Kerry did not deserve the nomination.
Hillary does not deserve the nomination.

This country must not be BULLIED INTO WAR
for personal PROFIT ever again!

It made a MOCKERY of DEMOCRACY.

[AtomicKitten]

128. Amen.

:thumbsup:

[Carolina]

135. excellent post!

[Carolina]

134. The Truth K&R

[BigAnth]

140. By voting for the war Hillary Clinton showed

a very distinct lack of leadership. There were very few people who were questioning Bush's "evidence" of WMD and it was very disappointing to me that our Democratic senators and congressmen were not asking more questions and pushing back harder on the issue. It's my opinion that many of them did not believe Bush but did not want to buck wave of the jingoistic sentiment sweeping the country (fueled by Bush/Cheney lies). They probably figured that the measure would pass, so why risk being branded as "soft on terrorism" for not supporting something that would pass with or without their vote. This is the kind of leadership that we have had in the Democractic party. Obama's case against the Iraq war was a real breath of fresh air to me. He articulated all of the questions and doubts that I had that noone else seemed to be willing to express. This is why I believe that some (but not all) of the blame for this mess of a war falls on Hillary Clinton. She did what she perceived to be the politically expedient thing at the time instead of showing some real leadership and challenging Bush's agenda.

[femrap]

142. I hope you're giving as much

hatred to Biden, Dodd, and Kerry. Do you hate them too? There's a whole bunch of them that voted for it...especially after Colin Powell came around and talked to each Senator saying that W had no intent of attacking Iraq.

Do you hate Colin Powell as much as HRC? I sure the fuck hope so.

I wonder if you hate HRC more than you do W?