I Have But One Serious Question

[Symarip]

I read time and time again that it is essentially unfair to hold the IWR vote against Senator Clinton. Without deflecting (ie, "Obama would have done it, too" or "It wouldn't have mattered if she voted against it"), why is taking the IWR into consideration unfair or illogical?

Personally, this veteran finds that there are only two scenario's that are possible as reasons to vote in favor of the IWR. Both lead me to believe Senator Clinton is unfit for presidential duty.

Scenario A:
Senator Clinton was misled. If this is the case, I find it particularly disheartening she trusted the Bush War Machine and refused to do the proper research herself, such as Senator Wellstone. Unfortunately, when you're dealing with the lives of servicemembers and civilians abroad in foreign countries, one cannot afford to be tricked so easily.

Scenario B:
Senator Clinton knew the IWR was a bad idea. But in an effort to remain politically viable at a time when the idea of blowing up brown people was popular, decided to vote in favor of warmongering for profit. I'm sure, if this is the case, she figured it wouldn't be this bad (it is) and that it would be quick (it's not).



Thus, I have a hard time giving her a pass when she voted to send thousands of men and women to die because either scenario is about as bad as bad can get. I'm surprised others can be so forgiving. But, in fairness, maybe I'm missing something. So, unless I'm confused, why should I not blame Senator Clinton for helping put innocent people in the ground?

[Lucky 13]

1. Now don't all you Hillary supporters answer the OP at once...

... orderly fashion please.

[Mooney]

8. ...

[quantass]

2. Excellent Post and i too want to hear a response from a Hillbot

[sandnsea]

3. The Clinton Advisors repeated the propaganda

John Edwards has said that. He said that's why HE voted for it.

And that is why we cannot have anymore Clintons in the White House. Kyl-Lieberman. Obliterate Iran. ME Security Umbrella. What does it take to get a person to THINK and Wake Up.

[babylonsister]

4. Scenario C:

She thought it would be a walk in the park, the troops would be greeted with candy and flowers, it's be over post-haste, and she could reap the benefit of having voted for it. Oopsie! I think that's basically what Lincoln Chafee said in his new book.

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3043

“Being wrong about sending Americans to kill and be killed, maim and be maimed, is not like making a punctuation mistake in a highway bill. They argue that the president duped them into war, but getting duped does not exactly recommend their leadership. Helping a rogue president start an unnecessary war should be a career- ending lapse of judgment, in my view.”

–Lincoln Chafee in Against The Tide: How a Compliant Congress Empowered a Reckless President

[Armstead]

5. Too often the case today. A choice between Stupid or Cynical.

You should hold it against her.

She would have been deserving of forgiveness if she were to admit that she was wrong, as Edwards, Kerry and others have done. But she hasn't apologized.

[Mike Nelson]

6. I blame George W. Bush and his Supporters

...and not some of the people who wrongly voted yes. I think your view is understandable, though. The Dems have been AWFUL in telling truths about Bush/Cheney. Most of them, in fact.

[Armstead]

9. Thus Democrats who enabled him deserve blame

[Symarip]

11. I understand completely.

And trust me, my anger for those that dreamed up this death march is off the chart. I could only imagine the outcome if I were able to have the great fortune of being locked in a room alone with those bastards.

But, that doesn't answer my question.

Hillary Clinton still voted to send innocent people into an unjust war to die even though she wasn't necessarily the architect. So, again, why should I not be blaming her for having a hand in this?

[Mooney]

7. The few times I can actually get a response to this, the favored scenario is "A"

Unfortunately that would mean that Hillary Clinton is a complete fucking idiot. If George W. Bush "duped" her (their word, not mine), then it logically follows that she is too stupid to be president. Anyone whose intellect is actually lower than George W. Bush's, to the point where he can "dupe" them, has nothing but Wheatina north of the eyebrows.

I favor scenario B. I think she thought it would be an easy way to bolster her "toughness" credentials, or more likely, she was just following the herd.

I would love to discuss this rationally with a Hillary supporter, but as long as they're going to pretend that this wasn't a vote that she should be held accountable for, then fuck 'em. We have nothing to discuss.

[Writer]

10. I am going to engage this as if it's a fair question.

Because it IS a fair question. Why would one vote for a person who voted to allow Bush to put our troops in harm's way?

I suppose that the easy answer is to ascribe some type of character flaw to Clinton: naive; evil-minded; a warmonger, etc. Yet much of the real reason "WHY" is circumspect, as none of us truly know her personally or why she made the decision she made.

So the best we can do is to put a decision like this into context. The truth is that it was political, but political in the way that she was representing the State of New York, still reeling at the time from one of the most horrific terrorist attacks on our soil. The vote occurred in October, 2002, three weeks before the November mid-term elections. I suppose one could say that Clinton voted how she voted in order to preserve her senate seat, and sure, that would be likely, except for the fact that she wasn't up for reelection that year. In fact, she was only two years into her six-year term, and as a plethora of American flags adorned the streets of Manhattan and hung from poles in front of many houses in her state, I doubt her thoughts centered solely on the political. Should she have counteracted the will of her constituents? Perhaps. But isn't that exactly what a representative SHOULDN'T do?

I think she suspected that Bush was a bastard, but at that time, around 80% of Americans approved of that bastard. (Hence the bit in her Senate floor speech on how Bush should not use military authority until every diplomatic option has been exhausted.) How do you represent people of which a majority cannot see through the fear they felt, the propaganda emitting from the administration, or see Bush and Cheney for the bastards they were? Many of us were bamboozled then. She had to come to a decision in a difficult climate. Clinton likely could only voice her warning, vote for the bill, and prey that it wouldn't collapse under Bush. Unfortunately, Bush and Cheney turned out only to be bastards, but truly despicable men.

Hillary Clinton wasn't the swing vote. The bill would have passed with or without Democratic support. But it's Hillary Clinton, the wife of the former president, likely to run for president herself, so all eyes are on her decision. I suppose one can use that jargon in order to justify singling out her vote, but it's truly not given all of the aforementioned circumstances.

I hope that this post is received in the sincere spirit that I wrote it.

[Symarip]

15. Writer, I've always respected your posts

Here's what I find troubling if your scenario is in fact, true:

Politicians are supposed to do the hard job the people can't do for themselves. If 80% of those you represent think one way, though you know otherwise, then the answer is to jump off the bridge with them? I find that disturbing and unfortunately, I feel this falls into the category of 'political expediency' or, Scenario B. She went against the better interest of her constituents to save her ass.

Thus, I find her unfit to be president.

I should point out, though, I'd vote for her in a heartbeat over McCain.

[Writer]

18. It's true that sometimes the will of the people isn't the right way to go.

(BTW: That feels really strange to write during this era of increased populism, but I digress...)

But ultimately, a "no" vote by her wouldn't have stopped the bill from passing. I think the criticism is understandable, but terribly unfair. If Democrats in certain states hadn't voted for the bill, I believe that the Democratic power deficit would have been far larger than it was come 2006. Democrats would have had a much harder time than they did have. (Remember what happened to Tom Daschle?) It was a diseased political era when a decision against jingoism was pure poison, and Republicans were trying to hang the Democrats in 2002 with the IWR - The Poison Pill Bill.

And they almost succeeded. Karl Rove's dream of twenty-five years of Republican rule came to a disastrous halt.

[Symarip]

20. I agree that a 'no' vote would have done her no good as a politician in short term

But, the same could be argued had Kerry voted 'no' it would have been rather hard to paint him as a flip flopper.

We can't have it both ways.

[Writer]

22. But he could have been painted as anti-American...

while the GOP continued to wave the bloody shirt of 9/11, repeated over and over during their convention.

It was a damned if you do, damned if you don't decision to make. If I had been in Congress, I would have abstained.

[Symarip]

24. Then we disagree

And that's fine. But personally, I would prefer that if someone knows the difference between doing something right versus something wrong, they would go ahead and do the right thing. Especially when innocent lives are at stake. Had she voted no, along with Kerry and Edwards and any other Democrat who voted yes, and then lost their political seat I feel that:

1. They aren't as good of politicians as we paint them out to be.

And

2. America gets what it deserves.

[nichomachus]

17. You gave all the reasons she should have voted against it

Hillary Clinton wasn't the swing vote. The bill would have passed with or without Democratic support. But it's Hillary Clinton, the wife of the former president, likely to run for president herself, so all eyes are on her decision.

This was her chance to differentiate herself from the GOP if she was planning on running in 2008. But she made a calculated choice -- she and Bill make no political decisions that aren't calculated to further their careers. She also needed to play to her strong base of Jewish voters in NY, whose support she would need for her senate seat and for her 2008 run. She figured it would remove the "soft on terror" as an issue, and figured, as someone noted here, that it would be a slam-dunk and people would have forgotten all about it by 2008.

I don't care what kind of weasel words she used when she voted for it. She voted for it. That's all that mattered. She gambled and lost. Unfortunately, so did a couple of hundred thousand other people -- more than 10,000 of the Americans -- not to mention those who will suffer from the economic effects of the illegal and immoral invasion and occupation.

She cannot wipe those bloodstains off her hands.

[Enrique]

12. it's not unfair to criticize that decision

but the IWR vote and the IWR itself is often exaggerated by people.

[nichomachus]

13. Exaggerated? WTF are you smoking? Send me some.

[Enrique]

16. an example

people have told me that it's impossible for me to support Hillary and be against the war, because of her IWR vote.

That's what I'm talking about.

[nichomachus]

19. Not impossible -- cognitive dissonance is quite common

[movonne]

21. How about the "obliterate Iran...do you think she should have said that..

[Enrique]

28. no

[sellitman]

29. Her vote and subsequent support of bush's illegal war isn't an exaggeration.

It is the main reason I couldn't support her in the primary. Now other reasons have come to light but this one was the mother lode.

[superkia]

14. In regards to scenario A, Dennis Kucinich spoke out on the floor...

about how the evidence was outdated and that the war was about oil, so anyone that believes her when she says she didn't know or was misled, just doesn't want to face the facts about who Clinton is and what her agendas are. They all knew what this war was about and that includes allot of peoples golden boys John Edwards and Joe Biden who amped up the propaganda just like Clinton did. They all should have at a minimum voted yes and kept silent on the war mongering but instead they promoted their agenda...all of them!

Now they lie and say oh I didn't know and show us even more who they really are...liars out for themselves and their elite friends!

[Mimosa]

23. "B", sad for me and Iraq and all, it was "B" the night we cried

Symarip posted: "
Scenario B:
Senator Clinton knew the IWR was a bad idea. But in an effort to remain politically viable at a time when the idea of blowing up brown people was popular, decided to vote in favor of warmongering for profit. I'm sure, if this is the case, she figured it wouldn't be this bad (it is) and that it would be quick (it's not)."


Symarip, my DH, my BMF and me all paid lots of attention back then. Lots of close, pained attention. BMF is Muslim, sufi sect. DH and I actually MET partly because of anti-Vietnam War protests.

So, when we all saw and heard that Hillary Clinton backed the invasion of Iraq we 'trusted' she had knowledge and good reason to believe Iraq posed an "imminent threat" to America. After all her husband had "inside knowledge" didn't he? WE TRUSTED HER EVEN IF WE DIDN'T "LIKE HER."

So even though we watched TV and CRIED when the bombing began we had believed Hillary knew what we didn't. She and her hub had been on the inside along with Mccain. So people since then have wondered why the 3 of us distrust or 'hate' Hillary. It's related to the night we cried for US and IRAQ.

[wiggs]

25. Everyone know that intelligence is often inaccurate and highly qualified. Everyone new

that the idea of pre-emptive or preventative war relies on near-perfect intelligence, which is not possible. Much, MUCH more should have been done by everyone in decision making capacity to ensure this invasion was a defensible idea. They did not and it is not. There be consequences.

[denem]

26. WHY DOESN'T ANYBODY BOTHER TO READ HER SPEECH

She is quite clear. It's the first reason she gives. HRC wants the Presidency as an institution to have the strongest (most expansive) possible power to wage war:

"This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.

And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war."

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

After then after making some conclusions about the threat Saddam might pose, she says "My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose."

And it doesn't have to be an expansive NEW doctrine. Under the Truman doctrine, US policy for sixty years, the United States reserves to itself the use of military force, without sanction of the UN Security Council, to protect it's vital interests , as it did with Greece and Turkey.

Hillary Clinton believes in an expansive interpretation of the President as Commander in Cheif, and won't back away from that one inch. It's the the premise of her speech

[Shae]

33. We all knew

that Bush and Cheney were immoral and that they were jonesing to go to war with Iraq. We were aware of the PNAC plan. She didn't even bother to read the NIE. Her vote allowed George W. Bush to wage a "preemptive" war with a country that was no threat to us. She knew what she was doing, and she made the unconscionable decision to do it.

[TahitiNut]

36. Yes. Her own speech CONDEMNS her.

First and foremost, it baldly portrays her vote ("strongest possible position") as one that made Bush a War Lord and did an end run around the Constitution that foresaw exactly that possibility when it made Congress the sole authority to declare war. With regards to her frequent claim that her "trust" in Bush was violated, she puts the LIE to that claim herself in the same breath.

I've said and I'll say again, there was absolutely no compelling reason whatssoever for the IWR other than to offer cover for an illegal and unprovoked invasion and occupation of Iraq. None.

I believed then as I still do that the IWR was unconstitutional. It was an abomination.

[Jed Dilligan]

27. My take is different, but makes her look just as bad.

She gambled on the neocon foreign policy and lost. It was all about THIS election, not any election before now. She believed that by now the war would appear to the public to be a success, and not something you would want to run against. It's somewhat understandable that she thought this, since bombing countries and such generally turned out very well for her hubby.

However, since Jed Dilligan, at the time a grad student with no security clearances or access to secret intelligence data, was betting on the opposite--that we would be about right exactly where we are with Iraq in 2008--I think her vote proves that she is not savvy enough about how the world works to be president.

It all goes back to her core authoritarianism and belief in state power. She thinks people can be forced to change. You can see it in her healthcare plan and her continuing support for an unreformed drug war, as well as in her various pro-war votes.

[Symarip]

30. The outcome is always the same with this issue.

I'm still interested in other scenario's though. Thanks for the post.

[Shae]

31. supposedly Hillary gets a pass on anything.

Votes to authorize Bush to start the war with Iraq? Oh well, she must have had her reasons.

Rush Limbaugh says vote for her? WooHoo more votes for our gal!

Threatens to obliterate Iran with nukes? "Obama said nothings off the table."

Campaigns like a Republican? Obama's such a dirty bastard, he deserves it. Reverend Wright! Reverend Wright! REVEREND WRIGHT!!! And if she doesn't win the nomination, we're gonna sit home or vote for McCain anyway.

It's virtually impossible for her to win? You Obamacons and your silly math.

Says that McCain is more qualified to be President than her Democratic opponent? No she didn't, and anyway if she did, she didn't mean it.

Even DUers who have been around for years are seemingly okay with her recent cavorting with Scaife, Murdock, and O'Reilly? Good for her, she's trying to reach out for those Repuke votes.

Okay, I'm stumped. Up is down, and we've gone down the rabbit hole and through the looking glass. What's that sign post up ahead?

[Samantha]

32. It was purely a political maneuver

Most DU'ers knew it was a mistake to believe anything George W. Bush* said. We discussed that resolution hot and heavy 24/7. Most DU'ers were so adamantly against giving Bush* any kind of authority under any circumstances that would enable him to start a pre-emptive war, they vowed to boycott voting for ANY DEM that signed.

The consensus among the legislative branch was that this pre-emptive war would be over so quickly, with the United States having "won" - it would be political suicide to not endorse the war and be on the wrong side of the fence when it ended - in a few short weeks. Thus, not wanting to have a no vote held against them in their future campaigns, many simply signed on the dotted line. Protecting their political futures was obviously more important than standing up and speaking out against an illegal, immoral war in which thousands of innocent people would be blasted from the earth, starting with the moment the war commenced.

"What is more important to me?" these politicians asked themselves -- "my political future or protecting millions of innocent Iraqi citizens (not to mention United States' soldiers) from death and destruction at the hands of the United States Government. Their vote on this issue signaled their response to that question.

When weeks passed and the "win" had not been achieved, and subsequently months, then years passed, these politically expedient people realized at different points they needed to give some plausible explanation for their acquiescence of the resolution. The most despicable ones blatantly lied.

And that is exactly why I will not vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances. Were it not for that, however, in all candor I must say there are now a million other reasons I will not vote for her under any circumstances.

She's unfit to lead; and she's unfit to govern.

[cliffordu]

34. kicked

[cliffordu]

35. I have a question of my own.....

Has Hillary ever gone to the funeral of any of the Veterans her vote helped kill???

I know Bush hasn't, I want to know about her...

[Symarip]

37. Don't hold your breathe.

This is another one of those "if we pretend it's not there, it'll disappear" threads.

[cliffordu]

38. that's why I kicked it and am kicking again now,

[REACTIVATED IN CT]

39. Excellent question and we are getting some

good answers - especially the text of her speech.