Hillary's Lies About IWR in the Cal. Debate, and the Levin Amendment and ...

[Johnny__Motown]

But why believe me?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuBDDzu1yl0

[babylonsister]

1. I don't care anymore. Bashing Clinton isn't in anyone's best interests. nt

[lligrd]

3. So We Should Just Leave Her Bashes Unanswered?

:wtf:

[Johnny__Motown]

4. I am questioning her credibility, Some threads out here seem to forget what she just did weeks ago

[papau]

12. your assertions re what Youtube shows do not make her a liar - the IWR was as she said - the

Levin amendment had more to it in terms of negating point of IWR -

The usual Obama (in this case -supporter) smear - the reason why Obama will NOT get all the votes that would have gone to Hillary

[cbayer]

7. No kidding.

And I am weary, weary of it.

And weary of Obama bashing as well.

[babylonsister]

8. I'm weary, but live in Texas. How do I do this? Ha! I will. nt

[lligrd]

2. Ha Ha - Megalomania

She gave one megalomaniac the authority to declare war because another megalomaniac might act up?

[Ravy]

5. KO twisted that argument some...

No, the Levin amendment didn't say that the UN could veto our use of force, but it *did* say that the president would gain authorization based on the Security Council's approval.

Some Senators didn't want to give that power to the UN.

[Johnny__Motown]

6. I don't think there was anything binding about that, we still would have had the authority to act

[charlie]

9. Yep. It had the proviso

that Congress would "suspend", rather than end its session and if the president found that the UN didn't meet the terms of the resolution, it would reconvene immediately. It would have the effect of forcing Dubya to deal with the UN before Congress would consider authorization of force. Splitting the process into 2 steps though, gave the Don't Tread on Me types the opening to spin it as ceding sovereignty.

[Ravy]

10. Right, but if the UN *did* pass a resolution, he was authorized to

go to war. It was essentially, "if the security council says okay, you can go to war... and if they don't, you can come back to us later for the authorization-- we will keep ourselves available".

Some Senators thought this was giving too much power to the UN and setting a bad precedent.

[papau]

13. That kills point of IWR - and Bush claimed he needed no IWR and would invade - UN was consession

obtained by passing IWR

[Ravy]

11. Keith was using the presupposition that they would say "No".

The problem was if the security council said "Yes". That put the UN at the trigger for US troops.