Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Hillary NEVER Voted for War.. she voted for UN INspections and Diplomacy

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:15 PM
Original message
Hillary NEVER Voted for War.. she voted for UN INspections and Diplomacy
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/%7Ehst306/documents/war73.html">What The War Powers Act of 1973 Says: (Passed by Congress)

"Passed by Congress over President Nixon's veto, the War Powers Act of 1973 requires the president to "consult" with Congress before "introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances," and to notify Congress within 48 hours of any U.S. troop commitment or deployment.

The Act also requires the president to end U.S. military participation in such hostilities within 60 days without a congressionally approved declaration of war or resolution extending the of use armed forces.


The operative word in the "War Powers Act" IS "Consult": (this is the paragraph Bush used to go to War with Iraq. The Congressional Vote was no more than a token vote establishing support for the President from Congress and the People.

Consultation

"Sec. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations."

http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/%7Ehst306/documents/war73.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:16 PM
Response to Original message
1. She was one of many who signed a blank check for war and gave it to known liars
and profiteers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yourout Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #1
27. Amen.
She knew what was coming next but lacked either the will or fortitude to do the right thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #27
39. Too busy posturing to look 'tough on terra' to be intellectually honest and brave
Too focused on grooming a certain 'look' for a presidential run to be a good and effective political leader.

When someone is a slave to the polls, they are not demonstrating leadership, just driving (and perhaps, blind) ambition.

What Hillary thought was good for Hillary beat out what was good for America and even the world. Tell the OP that more and more DEMS see that fact of life and are rejecting Clinton's bi-polar campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ihelpu2see Donating Member (935 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #39
75. Great reply!! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niceypoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #1
32. How many Iraq war funding bills has St Obama voted against?
I'll give ya a hint, its less than 1...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #32
49. Problem is: Once troops are engaged, they are basically held for ransom
Congress can cut the ransom payments and the CIC can leave the troops to die. Let's stop throwing sand in the air to try and ignore who is responsible for allowing the CIC to hold those troops for ransom so far from home.

HRC voted for the war. She signed the blank check. If she didn't think it meant invasion, she is too fucking stupid to be president. If she did know it meant invading a country which was no threat (and most people with any INTEL knew it was not Saddam who was a danger- her husband's administration had him contained and knew others were the real threats) then she is too self-serving and ambitious to be president.

Throwing sand (and straw) around about funding troops AFTER they were already at bush's mercy and engaged in fighting for their lives in a place they shouldn't be? Is that all ya got in the quiver?

THE TROOPS ARE BEING HELD FOR RANSOM. That has ALWAYS been part of the plan. War for corporate profit. We have to pay KBR or the troops get no food, water, ammo. We have to pay until we get control and in position to BRING THEM HOME!

Now, which candidate helped bush/cheney put that plan in place? Oh, yeah, the one you try to lend cover to with your lame attacks on other candidate.

The troops are being held for ransom and HRC helped make that so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rageneau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #1
38. Hillary voted the same way "Obamans" want Superdelegates to vote.
Had Bush kept his word, there would have been no war -- so it is a lie to say Hillary voted FOR war.

But remember: back then, our bellicose country as a whole (and the entire MSM) viewed Bush as a knight on a white horse. So at the time, Hillary was merely voting the way most of her constituents wanted.

Obama supporters should understand and support her for doing that, because it is exactly what they are now demanding that Superdelegates do -- vote not with their conscience, but with their constituents.

If that was a bad idea when Hillary did it, it is an equally bad idea for superdelegates to.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #1
53. She specifically cited the example of Milosevic?on how it's best to let people solve their own probs
Edited on Sat Mar-01-08 02:10 PM by MookieWilson
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
2. At this point, even Hillary supporters don't believe you
Seriously, whom are you trying to convince here? This issue has been put to rest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sniffa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #2
25. I think she wants to go out with a bang
I'm shocked she's still here, and I'll be surprised if she makes it till the end of Skinner's one-week reprieve.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #25
44. She'll be working for McCain long before then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sniffa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #44
47. I thought she already was
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. Good point
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackORoses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
3. Bullshit!!!
***Please ignore the preceding OP it has failed the Average Fecal Concentration (AFC) Test***
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Johnny__Motown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
4. Hello... we were all alive back then... we remember it well.... it was a vote for war.. end of story
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #4
52. It actually was worse than that
It was a vote to cede the power to declare war to the worst president in US history -- with full knowledge of what he would do with that power.

Stupid, cowardly and blatantly unconstitutional.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
easy_b94 Donating Member (548 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
5. Whatever.....she knew that bush and co. wanted war
Edited on Sat Mar-01-08 01:18 PM by easy_b94
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
6. It was a blank check and she signed it- along with
far too many other dems. It was unconstitutional and it was disgraceful. Denying that it was a vote for war is akin to any other form of historical revisionism- including holocaust denial.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Exilednight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:19 PM
Response to Original message
7. If she didn't vote for war, then she was duped by an idiot, your choice both are incompitent excuses
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluerum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:22 PM
Response to Original message
8. And she trusted bushcCo. That says something about judgement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Middle finga Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:23 PM
Response to Original message
9. You're full of jokes today huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slick8790 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:23 PM
Response to Original message
10. Then why'd she vote against the Levin Amendment? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oilwellian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. Ding ding ding
THE question I've yet to see answered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ravy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 03:52 AM
Response to Reply #10
84. That gave UN authority that they hadn't had before.
If the UN voted for US troop involvement, Bush was authorized to send them in. The Senate did not want to cede that power to the UN.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geiger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:24 PM
Response to Original message
11. One of the reasons I was scrounging around for months for excuses to vote for her
was because I witnessed her getting upon the floor of the Senate Chamber and asking Senator Byrd for the bulk of his remaining time, when he was speaking passionately agst giving unprececented, unconstitutional authority to a stupid President, and she summarily took the time, divided it up btwn Snake Biden and herself to talk about going to war. Fuck her, and fuck that fucking shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
speedoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:24 PM
Response to Original message
12. Accountability Day is coming for Hillary.
Soon, her presidential ambitions, which she thought would be furthered by her vote for the IWR, will be smashed. And when she finally admits it's over, I will celebrate her political demise.

But first I will say a prayer for all those killed or wounded in the war she enabled.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Binka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 06:13 AM
Response to Reply #12
90. Ben almost lost his life he is 26 for fucks sake And he lost V his best friend ever
After spending sleepless nights in Germany praying my first born would not die, and weeks at Bethesda hoping to heal him, Hillary can go fuck off. Does this OP have a child in this fucking war? Why is she/he peddling this shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:25 PM
Response to Original message
14. Please she voted for the "Authorization of Military Force in Iraq"
That was the name of it, not the Authorization of Inspectors in Iraq
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:26 PM
Response to Original message
15. Yeah... I Guess, "It Depends On What The Meaning Of The Word 'Is' Is."
<snip>

Years from now, when we look back on Bill Clinton's presidency, its defining moment may well be Clinton's rationalization to the grand jury about why he wasn't lying when he said to his top aides that with respect to Monica Lewinsky, "there's nothing going on between us." How can this be? Here's what Clinton told the grand jury (according to footnote 1,128 in Starr's report):

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."

The distinction between "is" and "was" was seized on by the commentariat when Clinton told Jim Lehrer of PBS right after the Lewinsky story broke, "There is no improper relationship." Chatterbox confesses that at the time he thought all these beltway domes were hyperanalyzing, and in need of a little fresh air. But it turns out they were right: Bill Clinton really is a guy who's willing to think carefully about "what the meaning of the word 'is' is." This is way beyond slick. Perhaps we should start calling him, "Existential Willie."

<snip>

Link: http://www.slate.com/id/1000162/

Or... I guess, It depends on what the meaning of the word 'war' is.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HCE SuiGeneris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:26 PM
Response to Original message
16. Uh huh.
You have your own site to spew these lies. Why are you compelled to do so here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maddiejoan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:27 PM
Response to Original message
17. K&R
and funny how many were supporting this position during Kerry's run to the WH
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RazBerryBeret Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:28 PM
Response to Original message
18. Sell it somewhere else, sister...
this Ohioan isn't buying it...the official TITLE as it went before the Senate was:

" S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq"

Hey, I'm not a Senator...but I know how I would have voted on that one...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
19. A losing argument.
The Clinton camp needs to shift focus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skipos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
20. So she spoke out against the war when it started then? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clovis Sangrail Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:30 PM
Response to Original message
21. so she didn't know Bush would use that to go to war? o.0
millions of people around the world knew he would, but after working with him for 3 years and seeing how he acted she had no idea that this was a vote to go to war???

That would mean she had very very poor judgment in the situation.
I think judgment that bad may very well be worse than being misled into why we should go to war.

So was she misled about why we needed to go war, or did she make a colossal error in judging how a (by that time) known liar and cheat would act ?

Neither is good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NastyDiaper Donating Member (806 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:31 PM
Response to Original message
22. Ok, Then explain the Iran Resolution.

I mean in a way different than Joe would.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostInAnomie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:32 PM
Response to Original message
23. OMG! I can't believe people are stupid enough to still be pushing this shit.
There wasn't a thinking person alive at the time that didn't know what that vote was for and what * intended to do with it. Hillary voting for either proves that she is naive, stupid, or calculated that somehow it would get her elected down the road. Either way, she is unelectable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #23
54. Hans Blix disagrees with you. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jlake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:32 PM
Response to Original message
24. Exactly. And Obama's biggest claim to fame is that he wasn't there to vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NastyDiaper Donating Member (806 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #24
64. Actually, like Al Gore and others he made a POINT to go on RECORD.
Edited on Sat Mar-01-08 03:43 PM by NastyDiaper
But I guess your case is that nobody except members of Congress are relevant?

Something else maybe?

Lots of people (ed Congresspeople) I respect made the mistake and called it as such. But this Mealy-Mouthed Clinton jive is exactly why people don'y want... ug you know the rest.


I will vote for her in the General if it comes to that. But for now I hope TX and OH can end what looks more like a Clinton-Engineered train-wreck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoonerPride Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
26. Your spin makes you look desperate
You are covered with the stink of fear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:39 PM
Response to Original message
28. If that is what she meant why did she stay silent when Kerry SPOKE AGAINST Bush's DECISION
to invade when weapon inpsections were WORKING to prove force was not necessary? Wouldn't THAT have been the proper point to show what she meant by her vote? Kerry did it before, during and after - where was Hillary? Laughing at Kerry for taking all the shots because few who voted for IWR would dare to FOLLOW THROUGH on their promise to oppose if all the steps to avoid it weren't taken.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 06:26 AM
Response to Reply #28
92. Why didn't Kerry fight for us after he won the 04' Election?
we wouldn't have had a broken economy and the Iraq War!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #92
98. Clintons controlled the Dem party machine from 1993-2005 and they made sure there
Edited on Sun Mar-02-08 10:51 AM by blm
was no way to get the accurate count or the evidence as McAuliffe never secured the election process in so many crucial states like Ohio even after the evidence of 2000s theft.

RNC stole 2002 and 2004 and McAuliffe's DNC let them do it.

Now - why didn't Hillary speak against the invasion and back up Kerry AT THE TIME? Her betrayals are catching up to her........GOOD! The sooner the whole batch of Bushprotecting Clinton loyalists are all gone from DC the better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:40 PM
Response to Original message
29. Give me a break. The whole country knew it was a vote for war.
If Hillary thought it was for inspections, maybe she shouldn't even be a senator.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. the whole country-a you say--did not the context of the vote-and many Obamafolk do not either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #31
45. Guess the people in the streets of D.C. protesting were actually
waiting for the cherry blossoms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:42 PM
Response to Original message
30. They do not want to hear opposing views. They live in an Obamabubble (most do)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoonerPride Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #30
37. Opposing views are onthing. Lies are another.
I'll call bullshit what it is, and the OP is a load of crap.

It was a blnk check to let the chimpster use our military as he saw fit.

Period.

Revisionist lies are for the rethuglicans, not the Democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #37
50. Then look and learn --from the OP please
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HooptieWagon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #37
74. As HRC's campaign swirls down the toilet
leave it to the HI44 loons to grab a few turds to fling. It'll all be over wednesday...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #30
57. Obamamite are standing on the 1st Ring of Hell ready to Jump-in
They think they have found the Messiah... I have a habit of NEVER letting flowery words blind me to the cold hard facts found in reality.. The outcome is fewer mistakes and no regrets.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
THUNDER HANDS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:44 PM
Response to Original message
33. what stage is this? denial? I thought they'd be past this one by now and on to acceptance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #33
68. you are in a state of SWOON
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hfojvt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:44 PM
Response to Original message
34. I wait with bated breath
your explanation for her "it's all on Saddam" meeting with NOW, her interview with Woodruff where she said "Saddam is not co-operating with the inspectors" and her announcement on the day the war started where she said "we've gotta support the troops now". Republican-style obfuscation is sooooo convincing to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earthlover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:45 PM
Response to Original message
35. Hillary voted against the Levin Amendment which would have given the UN more time
On Day One of the war, Bush and McCain had Hillary's vote in their pocket.

Hillary did not even bother to read the intelligence provided Congress!

To vote for IWR was bad judgement. But trying to tell us it was not the Iraq WAR Resolution, that it really wasn't about war, that it was for the UN....that is so Orwellian! Do we have yet another prospective president who will try to tell us that up is down, that tyranny is freedom, that freedom is tyranny....that war is peace?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:45 PM
Response to Original message
36. The #6 post is not showing...it has to be that poor, vitriolic pathetic poster
who insists to those easily duped, she IS the Oracle of ALL Knowledge.

::::::::::::::

At Issue: Does President Bush need the approval of Congress before ordering a preemptive military attack against Iraq?

Background:


Both President Bush and Vice President Cheney have now urged that a preemptive military invasion of Iraq is needed immediately in order to accomplish two main goals in the war against terrorism:

* The removal from power of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein
* The discovery and destruction of suspected Iraqi facilities being used for the development and production of weapons of mass destruction

"What the White House Says: On Aug. 26, White House lawyers issued an opinion that President Bush could order a preemptive attack against Iraq without a vote of approval from Congress. The lawyers based their opinion on two factors:

* The president's constitutional authority as commander in chief of the military (Article II, Sec. 2)
* Terms of the 1991 Gulf War resolution they content remains in effect today
* Terms of the Sept. 14, 2001 congressional resolution approving military action against terrorism (S.J. Res 23)


According to White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, the president would "CONSULT"with Congress regarding any military attack against Iraq. "In all cases, the president will consult with the Congress because Congress has an important role to play," he said.

Fleischer, however, stopped short of saying whether the president would seek congressional passage of a resolution approving military action, as his father did prior to the 1991 Gulf War.

"The president knows that any decision he makes on a hypothetical congressional vote will be guided by more than one factor, more than legal factors alone," Fleischer told reporters.

"The president would consider a variety of legal, policy, historical factors in making up his mind about this, if it again becomes a relevant matter. The president knows that in a democracy, it's vital to have the support of the public if he reaches any point where he makes decisions about military action," said Fleischer.



What Opponents Say:

]b]On Aug. 26, House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt (D-Missouri, 3rd), speaking at a press conference, declared it "imperative" that Congress approve any attack against Iraq.

"This issue is much more than just a legal debate. The president will need the decisive support of the public and their elected representatives in order to initiate and sustain the effort that will be required to eliminate the threat posed by this regime," stated Gephardt.

For example, any expenditure of funds necessary for military actions not already budgeted, such as a long-term U.S. troop presence in Iraq, would require the approval of Congress.

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska), stated that the issues transcended the "legalities" of sending U.S. forces into battle. "If the president is going to commit this nation to war, he'd better have the support of the Congress and the American people with him." said Sen. Hagel.

Referring to the resolution passed by Congress authorizing U.S. military action in the 1991 Gulf War, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), stated, "For the good of the country and for the long-term success of whatever approach we take, President Bush should follow his father's lead and support a vigorous and constructive debate on Iraq."

:::As a refresher to the Ignoramus who constantly attacks Hillary on her Iraq Vote. Bush I instituted the Gulf War and Patrick Leahy voted against the Resolution but more than not supported BushII in the end.:::

Opponents also argue that requiring President Bush to seek Congressional approval would give him an opportunity to garner public support for an attack against Iraq by fully explaining the needs for the action.

Nowhere is it stated in the public record Patrick Leahey said he wasn't giving Bush a blank check to go to War..He may have said it later on...that doesn't count for much now, does it?

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa082702a.htm



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoonerPride Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #36
40. Ad hominem attacks?
Fail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #40
56. Ad Homs do not consist of linkage to historical articles helping
the reader gain perspective ie. 'a snapshot' of the time period under discussion.

You may want to compare and contrast #6 with #36..

comprende?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
41. What part of AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ didn't she understand?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
From The Left Donating Member (670 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:50 PM
Response to Original message
42. Sure, and Bush was actually elected in 2000
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Why Syzygy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
43. Then why did she say it was the hardest decision she ever made?
Letting the UN inspect and Diplomacy is a "hard decision"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
From The Left Donating Member (670 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #43
51. I thought not divorcing Bill after Monicagate was her hardest decision?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cloudythescribbler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:53 PM
Response to Original message
46. ... and, furthermore, I am the Virgin Mary! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #46
58. Wow! are you for or against the new Pope?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chieftain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 02:14 PM
Response to Original message
55. Give it a rest. Nobody but members of the Clinton Cult believe
this BS. No matter how hard she tries to run away from this vote and how hard her supporters say that up is down, peace is war and black is white, the fact remains she voted to entrust the decision to go to war to George W. Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #55
60. So, you reject a link to a government site stating verbatim the "War Powers Act"?
yet you follow Naomi Wolf like a lonesome puppy?

Here is the link again in case you missed it:

http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/%7Ehst306/documents/war73.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avrdream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #60
70. crickets
I love the way they bump your thread, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #70
81. The Truth is a lightening rod of bumps for this thread..
The Obama supporters are trying to rationalize their hero's irrational claim against Hillary, but fail miserably when faced with the very substance, an Inconvenient Truth, Bush used as his authority to go to war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 02:32 PM
Response to Original message
59. Sure she did.
How many repeats of this embarassing drivel are we going to see today?

Do you actually find your own argument convincing? Do you even think it is clever, or original?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HooptieWagon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #59
76. Uh, its today's talking points from HillaryIs44. so expect it ad nauseum
Tommorrow is another day, and some other bullshit line spewed by the astro-turf crowd. I must say they're rather entertaining, in a ranting village-idiot sort of way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GodlessBiker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 02:36 PM
Response to Original message
61. Even she thinks it was more than that. Why has she said she regrets that vote?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. Because people like you don't understand, Bush didn't need their vote..
and Obama is using it as a hammer to bash her with! AND... the reason I posted the OP..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GodlessBiker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #62
63. So she lied? She really doesn't regret it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 06:28 AM
Response to Reply #63
94. CluelessBiker..
Hillary didn't lie and had she voted no it wouldn't have made a difference..

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HooptieWagon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #62
77. What!? She regrets voting for inspections and diplomacy?
Damn, doesn't sound like the kind of president I want answering the phone...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 06:32 AM
Response to Reply #77
96. Hillary is the ONLY candidate that can put this country back on track..
The only thing Obama does best is tell LIES and malign the best candidate running because he'll say and do anything to Win.. Obama could care less about you and yours..as long as he's the nominee, he'll drop you like a bad habit and move on seeking the power of the presidency.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HooptieWagon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #96
105. OK, I see projection is Sunday's theme of the day at His44...
Looking forward to tommorrow... will it be a replay of Saturday's popular FREE CRACK DAY, or the much more entertaining feces-flinging?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
intaglio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 03:48 PM
Response to Original message
65. Hmmm now what was that bill called?
Ah, Yes! An Authorisation for the use of force in Iraq

Y'know do you think she might have grasped the idea that perhaps she was, errrr, authorising the use of force in Iraq.?

BTW Tellurian, why did you take your name from the very right wing books of E E Smith and L Ron Hubbard .... could you be a cult member?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
guidod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 03:50 PM
Response to Original message
66. I support Obama but...
...I agree with you on this. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
otohara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 04:17 PM
Response to Original message
67. Oh I See, The People Who Voted NO Were The
one's with the BAD judgment and foresight!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 04:37 PM
Response to Original message
69. Kick for a dud.
Edited on Sat Mar-01-08 04:37 PM by Forkboy
The war vote is a gift that keeps on giving.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 04:42 PM
Response to Original message
71. The War Powers Act, ignored by every President since Nixon, had no bearing on HRC's vote for IWR.
Sorry, nice try and all of that, but Hillary owns her vote. Citing some clause of the moribund War Powers Act - a law no president, even her husband, has ever acknowledged as having a shred of authority over the commander-in-chief - does not absolve the Senator from New York of anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 04:43 PM
Response to Original message
72. 'Authorization for the use of military force' - wht do you think that means?
It's pretty straightforward. Hillary saying she didn't expect bush to turn around and actually use military force...well, if she's that naive, then I certainly don't want her in the White House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 05:20 PM
Response to Original message
73. Your Clintonian "logic" is just pure bullshit to anyone with a brain
She wanted to appear "tough" and used the result of a trillion dollar war with over a million dead as a political game. If she had really wanted the U to get more involved more, she wouldn't have fought against bothe Biden and Levin amendments.

When you trust Bush and vote to give him a free pass to start a trillion dollar war with over a million dead, you made a HUGE MISTAKE. You HAVE blood on your hands. You FAILED.

Should you be trusted at 3AM when a crisis comes up and you have to make a quick decision when you proved you can't see the forest for the trees? NO...

Anyone who wants to try to cover up this is an apologist.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #73
80. That criteria puts you far and away from eligibility..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rndmprsn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 05:54 PM
Response to Original message
78. Apparently you have "Blind faith in Clinton Syndrome" where otherwise reasonable people vote against
their own conscience...shame on you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #78
79. Apparently, you have selective amnesia...
from your own blog..

It's Bush's War.. Congress's vote was meanless under the Rule of Law... As I said, their vote was no more than a "token" vote for publicty and support. Had the "NAY" Vote carried, Bush would have gone to War anyway under the War Powers Act... No one can hold any single Congressperson responsible for Bush's War, not even you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #78
100. Why is Ronald McDonald raising the flag over Mt. Suribachi?
That's just surreal...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HooptieWagon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 08:23 PM
Response to Original message
82. I see Saturdays are FREE CRACK ! day over at His44... n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Califooyah Operative Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 03:43 AM
Response to Original message
83. A.U.M.F.
period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 04:37 AM
Response to Original message
85. You are mistaken. The Iraq War Resolution is plain.
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.

That is what she voted yes on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 04:42 AM
Response to Original message
86. It's pure idiosy to say she or any SENATOR voted FOR war. STOP the crap!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HooptieWagon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #86
101. Then what is the Authorization to Use Force...
if not a vote for war? Your spin attempts are pathetic... :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 04:44 AM
Response to Original message
87. A vote to authorize war is a vote to authorize war
The vote in favor of the AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY. FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002 was just that - a vote to authorize military force.

That vote to authorize war, whether she hoped it wouldn't happen, whether she wanted there to be caution, whether she hoped Bush would consult with tinker bell before making decisions, was a colossal mistake.

It was one what should have been avoided if she had used better judgment, and it was one that was avoided by twenty-three senators who had enough information and good enough judgment to know that there was no legitimate case for authorizing war.

The reality of the IWR vote was that 77 senators lacked the courage to stand up against the massive popularly of the president (his approval rating was around 70%) and be labeled as weak on security. They passed the IWR for the same reason the unquestioningly passed the USA Patriot Act and other colossal mistakes in the aftermath of 9/11.

Because they were cowed into compliance, and too afraid or too concerned about reelection to do the right thing. In Clinton's case, her vote for the IWR was probably made because she was already planning her run for President, and did not want to go out on a limb and end up on the unpopular side of that historic vote in 2008. Her only problem is that her plan backfired.

The only intent to deceive going on here, is on the part of those who are now trying to find amazingly contortionist rationalizations to somehow interpret a vote for the Iraq War Resolution as a good vote.

The fact is a vote for the Authorization of Military Force in Iraq was a vote to Authorize war. No one gives a fuck whether or not she hoped that authorization would be used "wisely" - it was a colossal failure of duty to ever GIVE that authorization in the first place.

This "leverage" contortionist spin is such bullshit that anyone can see through it. If you're desire to use apply leverage, then you promise the use of force if x, y and z demands are not met. Of course, let's not re-write history, and remind ourselves that there was nothing to apply several too in the first place, **AND** there was enough information out there at the time for every senator and ordinary person to know this was the case -- I certainly did.

I could listen to David Kay. I could read the the un-redacted Iraqi Report on its own weapons (the US censored 800 pages of the 1000 page document, but Europe put the entire think out of the net - it pretty much defeats a case for war), I could listen to the United Nations recommendations against military force. I could listen to other world leaders.

And she could have too. And twenty three other senators did.

I totally understand if you believe that Clinton is the best choice for President, and I respect that - but please don't insult my intelligence or re-write history to try and defend her vote on the IWR instead of just having the courage to acknowledge it was a mistake.

When John Edwards was my candidate, that's EXACTLY what I did. He was wrong. Period. It was a colossal failure of both judgment and courage. So was she. That's just the reality of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KLee Donating Member (277 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 04:55 AM
Response to Original message
88. DEBUNKED
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
workinclasszero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 05:56 AM
Response to Original message
89. Hillary voted for war and stood shoulder to shoulder with King George
while dems with courage did the right thing and voted no to the madness that has brought this country so low.

Hillary's yes vote on the IWR is ALL I need to know about Hillary Clinton's fitness to be the President!

Ready on day one my ass! Who do you trust to answer the phone in the white house in a crisis??

It sure as hell ain't Hillary Clinton! She cannot be trusted to do the right thing and thats a fact!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BringBigDogBack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 06:20 AM
Response to Original message
91. Fail.
Sorry, Tellurian. You're gonna have to do MUCH better than that for some of us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cooolandrew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 06:28 AM
Response to Original message
93. They knew it was going to war anything surronding it is spin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cooolandrew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 06:28 AM
Response to Original message
95. They knew it was going to war anything surronding it is spin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skidmore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 06:34 AM
Response to Original message
97. She voted for a bill that eviscerated the War Powers Act and handed
the powers of the legislative branch to the executive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 10:52 AM
Response to Original message
99. War is peace. Ignorance is strength. Freedom is slavery. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HooptieWagon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #99
104. Yes, logic really is suspended in hillaryland, is it not?
Although the spin from that camp is so great it might generate a giant vortex that will cure global climate change. Oh well, at least it's entertaining, in a laugh at the village idiot sort of way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hepburn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 11:02 AM
Response to Original message
102. Can you read???
Here is the title of the resolution on which Hillary voted yes:

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002

Please point out exaclty HOW Hillary believed this resolution was about inspection and diplomacy and not war, i.e., "Military Force." The title sure as hell does NOT seem to support that POV. Matter of fact, a grade schooler with a 3rd grade or better reading level would not have been fooled by that title as you opine Hillary was. But...Hillary, law degree and all...thought that represented diplomacy and inspection. GMAFB...she was playing the odds on her political future without one wit of concern about our US military members or the innocent Iraqi citizens a lot of whom went to their graves way too soon because Hillary thought a resolution calling for the use of MILITARY FORCE was about diplomacy and inspection.

:eyes: You have to be insane to believe for one minute she thought that she was NOT voting to give up her Constitutional powers to that fuckhead in the WH...and that he would do the right thing.

Bullshit to THAT lame argument! Tell that to children who will never know or never see their fathers...or to mothers who have lost their children...or to wives who are now widows in their 20s. Translation: Fuck this kind of lame bullshit excuse spinning and churning.

JMHO

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evergreen Emerald Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #102
103. can you read?
Edited on Sun Mar-02-08 11:04 AM by Evergreen Emerald
It is intellectually lazy to say "clinton voted for war." Unfortunately that is the state of our politics in America.

Try reading her speech. It says it all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 11:17 AM
Response to Original message
106. You have your facts wrong. Hillary voted AGAINST the Levin Amendment.
Not for it.

Sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 01:22 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC