Something about the Iraq War we tend to forget

[Armstead]

Last edited Wed Feb 17, 2016, 05:16 PM - Edit history (2)

Bernie tends to be monotonous in his beating of the drum that he voted against the Iraq War while Clinton voted for it. He uses it to explain how it was a difference in judgement.

He uses it so much, and it is such a clear cut thing, that people's eyes often tend to glaze over. And some, who are not that invested, are likely to say "yeah,Yeah,Yeah....So she made one mistake. "

But here's the thing, we all tend to forget. The human brain tends to compress the past in memory.

Today, that whole debate is just a blip. Bush threatened Sadaam. He went to Congress to authorize military action. Congress agreed. We went to war. Seems like it happened in a couple of days or a week. Bing bang 123. Done.

That little mental trick tends to overlook the fact that the whole "debate" dragged on for months, and months and months....It was the National Obsession for a very long time. You couldn't turn on the TV for many many months without hearing dueling pundits (well, not really dueling because the pro-wars got a lot more time. But arguments about it....)

And all the facts, myths, truths, untruths, conflicting theories, warnings of what would happen if we we did or didn't.....Lot of side issues...Protests, Freedom Fries, Phil Donahue...etc. etc.

Also GW used the elections to make it a political football. Force the Democrats to support him or they'd look "weak."

And so when it came time to make a decision, it was after a long, agonizing national (global) debate. It wasn't a coin toss. It was NOT a split second decision, a rapid reaction to an emergency...Nothing like that.

So when Clinton chose to go with Bush, she was making a deliberate, conscious decision, that followed long national analysis, and input.

So next time it is tempting to think, okay she made one bad decision, just remember -- It was a whopper of a bad decision. And not one made in haste.

[Carolina]

1. K&R

[Ferd Berfel]

2. Correct me if I'm wrong on this but

"Today, that whole debate is just a blip. Bush threatened Sadaam. He went to Congress to authorize military action. Congress agreed..."

As I recall Bush illegally pivoted, sent the military in to Iraq (they were in Afghanistan at that point - legally) and THEN went to congress while the fighting was already underway.

[jeff47]

5. You're wrong on this.

The Bush administration was arguing that the Afghanistan AUMF would be enough to invade Iraq, in case they lost the Iraq AUMF vote.

But they did not invade until after the Iraq AUMF passed.

[Armstead]

7. Referring to this?

(from Wikipedia)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
The first Central Intelligence Agency team entered Iraq on 10 July 2002.[117] This team was composed of members of the CIA's Special Activities Division and was later joined by members of the U.S. military's elite Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC).[118] Together, they prepared for the invasion of conventional forces. These efforts consisted of persuading the commanders of several Iraqi military divisions to surrender rather than oppose the invasion, and to identify all of the initial leadership targets during very high risk reconnaissance missions.[118]

Most importantly, their efforts organized the Kurdish Peshmerga to become the northern front of the invasion. Together this force defeated Ansar al-Islam in Iraqi Kurdistan before the invasion and then defeated the Iraqi army in the north.[118][119] The battle against Ansar al-Islam led to the death of a substantial number of militants and the uncovering of a chemical weapons facility at Sargat.[117][120]

At 5:34 a.m. Baghdad time on 20 March 2003 (9:34 p.m., 19 March EST) the surprise[121] military invasion of Iraq began.[122] There was no declaration of war.[123] The 2003 invasion of Iraq, led by U.S. Army General Tommy Franks, under the codename "Operation Iraqi Freedom

[Ferd Berfel]

9. Yea probably what I was thinking of - Tx

[Armstead]

10. It just is a reminder of what a Kabuki Dance the whole "debate" was

[Skwmom]

3. Clinton voted for war because she had her future political ambitions to think of (which is why she

should NEVER be commander-in-chief). The media was beating the war drum and the poll driven candidate tapped to the beat of that drum. Wow, what a surprise.

[Uncle Joe]

4. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Armstead.

[dchill]

6. k&r

[Faux pas]

8. A-M-E-N

to that.

[senz]

11. Don't forget that Hillary voted for the 2006 Reauthoriztion of the Patriot Act, too.

Bernie voted against it every time.

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/patriotact20012006senatevote.shtml

[questionseverything]

59. because bernie believes in the 4th amendment

hc is one who would give up our freedoms for "security"

[MisterP]

12. she repeated Bush's lies for a 20-minute speech and led the 29-21 Senate Dem split

that passed the IWR (only 48 Pubs voted yea) and turned the Party into the festering corpse we're lashed to today

[AtheistCrusader]

13. And it was an enviroment not unlike the red scare, where dissent was simply not tolerated on any

level.

Recall, the commercial destruction attempts on the Dixie Chicks. They basically said 'we don't like Bush' and look what happened.

(And they were even wrong about him being 'from' texas, Bush was from Connecticut.)

[swilton]

14. Thanks for reminding us

I worked and worked and worked with peace activists to try to get the situation turned around. I was in the DC suburbs at the time and collected signatures to oppose the war for Senators Sarbanes and Mikulski. I remember asking parents that I had casually run into at the high school and I remember one flabbergasted parent replying - (in my own words) "Another war"..."Why do we need another war?".....

[Fumesucker]

15. If Hillary hadn't voted for the war she would be a lame duck President right now

Exquisite irony, she voted for war to maintain her Presidential viability and that vote kept her from being President.

[joshcryer]

16. Bush was going in regardless.

[Sophiegirl]

17. Yep. n/t

[Live and Learn]

50. Is that a good excuse? nt

[politicaljunkie41910]

18. What people also forget is that it's easier to vote AGAINST something on principle in Congress,

when you know it has the votes needed to pass, and no one is going to call you out on your no vote as an Independent, at the time when it's really important. The Dems WERE afraid of being painted as weak if they didn't go along with Bush, if there were another attack on the Homeland, even though we know the attack didn't come from Iraq. And with the current GOP candidates all calling for the carpet bombing of the Middle East and worse as proof of their toughness, the Dems didn't want to appear as "weak" in the ashes of the two World Trade Center buildings.

Just like Trump is now saying that he said that the War in Iraq was a bad idea, and no one can recall anything to that affect prior to the war. The media has reported that the earliest that can find any anti-war rhetoric from Trump is 2004 which is long after the war started.

Personally, I never believed the claims of WMD that Bush was making, and I was livid about it because at the time it was the Bush Admin that was making the claim that they had the proof of WMD. Then, they had a meeting scheduled with British PM Tony Blair who was coming to Washington to meet with Bush, and the Bush Admin then switched up their stance that it was the British who would be providing the proof of the WMD. I knew positively then, that it was a lie. But again, the Dems had a reputation for being weak on foreign policy, and after two attacks on the World Trade Center, Americans (like those who support Trump now) were angry and they wanted revenge. It didn't matter that Bush was going after the wrong man, their anger had to be satisfied.

[ieoeja]

23. And such an amazingly ignorant reputation.

Republicans spent the 2000 election mocking Al Gore for claiming that Jihadi terrorism was the number one national security threat facing the United States. When the Jihadi terrorist attack occured less than a year later they were out in droves saying, "bet you're glad your guy did not win now!"

And not one fucking Democrat bothered to point out the above point.

Conservatives and moderate Americans have a really up-is-down take on foreign policy. Carter is a wimp for refusing to pay ransom. Reagan made the Iranians afraid then paid the ransom afterwards because, I dunno, he felt sorry for them? This set off a string of hostage takings by Jihadi terrorists which Reagan/Poppy repeatedly paid.

First time an American was taken hostage when Clinton was in office, the hostage takers were told, "we won't pay that, but what we will give you are the United States Marines." The hostage was released, and the string of hostage taking came to an end.

But, hey, Democrats are weak on national security because we believe we should not just kick ass, but also figure out why the problem existed in the first place and whether or not we should change what we are doing. Apparently thinking** things through makes one a wimp.

9/11 attackers made no secret of the reasons for their attack: we had an on-going partial occupation of Iraq. While it was not discussed at the time, I think it is time we started talking about that. Why the fuck were we in Iraq? There was plenty of debate on the AUMF in 2002/3. Where was the debate about us being in Iraq during the '90s? Had it ever been debated, we likely would have pulled out since we had no necessary reason to be there, and 9/11 would never have been planned.




[font size=1]**Actually, I did explain to a bunch of cops one time why their actions in a certain instance made sense. They got infuriated! "It was just right, God damnit!" You can not have a well reasoned explanation for why it was right without first questioning it. And questioning it was wrong.[/font]

[Armstead]

34. With all due respect, that line of thinking is what has...

kept the Dems on the lower half of the ongoing tussle for 40 years, whether in power or out.

Not just on that one issue, But on many.

[Live and Learn]

51. So you agree that she sold out because it was the political expedient thing to do?

That is exactly why I can't trust her to do what is moral and correct.

[Jopin Klobe]

19. Exactly

Very clear, concise and succinct ...

... those who condense History are condemned to fail ...

[Pantagruelsmember]

20. The rest of the story

"So when Clinton chose to go with Bush, she was making a deliberate, conscious decision, that followed long national analysis, and input.

So next time it is tempting to think, okay she made one bad decision, just remember -- It was a whopper of a bad decision. And not one made in haste. "

I marched against the authorization and the war but I sympathized with HRC and Kerry's votes for two simple reasons.

1.HRC represented the people of New York and rightly or wrongly they were strongly in favor of trusting Bush to gain some measure of vengeance. Maybe their thinking was cloudy but there's no doubt how they generally wanted HRC to vote.

2. The intelligence was manipulated by Bush and gang no question. But MOST IMPORTANT the vote came BEFORE the U.N. inspectors found no signs of WMD.
That vote may very well have been much different if they had waited for independent U.N. confirmation of WMD in Iraq.

Looking at the complete picture, I think HRC is getting the short end of the stick though I'll probably vote for Bern anyway.

[Armstead]

29. I see your point, but will agree to disagree

I think avoiding a bloodbath and not opening the gates of hell for the entire Middle East was far more important than pkacating the nation's desire for revenge against bin Laden.

I also think it was a massive mistake to trust Bush.

On both counts, I have much more empathy and respect for the Congresspeople who had the courage to risk their political capital and stood up to the Bush regime

[Pantagruelsmember]

60. Tough call IMO

I just can't throw out HRC' lifetime of progressive efforts based on that very difficult call.I wonder what her constituents mail looked like, can't believe they didn't want her to trust Bush on the Iraq decision. How could she tell the 9/11 victims families that she wasn't going to allow every chance at disarming the "bad guys"?
We didn't know the inspections would come up COMPLETELY empty, frankly that stunned me in retrospect. Nor did I believe at the time that Bush/Cheney would be so cavalier with our nation's best interests, mea culpa.

[Bernin4U]

37. New Yorkers were strongly in favor?

And you know this how?

Ok, I was on the other side of the country, but -everybody- I know thought the whole circus was absolute bullshit.

The so-called evidence and arguments? Embarrassingly obvious bullshit.

The claim that 90% of Americans supported invading Iraq? No fucking chance. No way any of Bush's got into the 60's for support, let alone 90's.

New Yorkers got their attack on Al Qaeda and Afghanistan. What made them dumb enough to think Iraq had anything to do with it?

[Live and Learn]

54. New Yorkers aren't stupid which why Hillary doesn't want to debate there. nt

[Duval]

39. We went to Fayetteville to protest with Viet Nam Veterans.

It was amazing and we talked with many of the guys, who knew what was what. There was even a website some veterans had (it was taken down) and I and others discussed this coming fiasco with them. I can understand how New Yorkers wanted vengeance. But, Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. And lest we forget, all the attackers were from Saudi Arabia, and Bush and the Bin Ladens were friends.

I agree the vote would have been different had we waited for U.N. confirmation, but we didn't, to our ever lasting shame.

[Live and Learn]

52. I disagree. We all new it was bullshit. She knew it was bullshit. Voting for it was akin to murder

You do not invade another country illegally. There is no excuse!!

[eridani]

57. There were a million people in the streets in NY 2/15/2003 against the war n/t

[Darb]

21. Bush's decision. It's all on Bush. All of it.

It is not the fault of the Senator, or Senators from the State of New York who had 3,000 people murdered in broad daylight, on television, many jumping to their deaths in the most haunting fashion imaginable.

Sure, Bernie could vote no without hesitation and I applaud him for it. Bernie was not Senator from New York.

The vote happened months before the invasion. It was George Derrrrr Bush who chose to invade. PERIOD. The Resolution did not mandate it.

Deal with it.

[KingCharlemagne]

24. Yes, it is the fault of Hillary, Kerry and Biden (and Daschle and Gebhardt). The

1,000,000 dead Iraqis are not interested in your jejeune post hoc rationalizations.

[Darb]

30. Bull.

I marched against that stupid fucking war. Stow your sanctimonious bullshit.

[KingCharlemagne]

33. I marched against it too. I knew after about 30 minutes of research that the

claims of Iraqi WMDs were bullshit, as were claims of ties between Hussein and Al Quaeda. If I, a layperson in the field, could deduce this after only 30 minutes, why couldn't Hillary get it right? She is either colossally stupid or colossally conniving. Either way, it disqualifies her from POTUS.

I protested against it 2 to 3 times a week for 8 long years. So I think I've earned a right to my sanctimony.

[Armstead]

36. We have a group in my hometown that is out in the town square every Thursday protesting

to this day.

I'm not that dedicated, I must admit, but I do remember standing out in 0 degree temps during the run up

[Bernin4U]

38. They fucking rock!

I remember how much Cindy Sheehan was getting out there, showing she had bigger balls than anyone, and how much she was marginalized for it.

[KingCharlemagne]

46. I thought about alerting on your OTT post, but decided to put you on IGNORE until

after the GE instead. Have a nice life.

[noiretextatique]

48. i will...this is over-the-top eom

[progree]

53. Looks like it earned him/her a trip to Transparency Land

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=317878&sub=trans

[noiretextatique]

55. excellent

nasty and mean.

[noiretextatique]

47. bush is not the only person responsible

and you are not the only person who marched against it. a lot of people here did. nice word, though.

[Armstead]

32. Nor am I

[KingCharlemagne]

22. The single worst foreign-policy decision in America's history and Hillary was on the

wrong side of it. If she was too stupid to know better, that disqualifies her from POTUS. If she knew better and still voted for it in order to buff up her national security credentials, that also disqualifies her from POTUS.

THere is NO EXCUSE. NONE!

[Enthusiast]

28. Oh, she's disqualified for that and assorted other reasons. IMHO.

[Duval]

31. We had computers then, she could read. NO EXCUSE!

[Enthusiast]

25. Kicked and recommended!

Something tells me if things go the way They® want in the 2016 election there will be a huge new war possibly against Russia or Iran + Russia.

[Duval]

26. I will never forget the protests around the world! I printed many articles

from foreign sites that stated "Saddam has NO WMD's". I wanted my children and grandchildren to know the facts about this war and about Bush. And about not having necessary equipment for our guys, and about using depleted uranium in weapons and military gear.
Now, if I KNEW THIS, certainly those in Congress knew it. Damn, and then we had our marvelous MSM showing pictures of 9/11 and helping the Hawks beat the war drums. So, to keep from being labeled "soft on defense" or "unpatriotic" many Dems voted for it. In my not so humble opinion about this whole thing, that was Wrong. I could hardly believe Colin Powell when he fell in line and I've never regained the total respect I had for him.

Bernie stands for "Truth, Justice and The American Way", as Hartmann puts it.

Well, I can really get worked up when it comes to the Iraq War. I could say so much more, but my rant is done. Whew!

Thanks, Armstead. This is very important.

[Fearless]

27. Umm... did she or did she not vote for it?

It was very clear to liberal activists that the war was a mistake from day one.

There is no confusion about this.

It's really quite simple.

[tabasco]

35. All that time and no solid evidence of WMDs.

All rational legislators voted against the IWR, including a majority of Democrats in Congress.

[DrBulldog]

40. Hold on. That mistake was only ONE of many serious "mistakes" she has made over many years!

[zeemike]

41. Bad decisions are relative.

From some people's POV it was a great decision. Many people made a whole lot of money from that war.
There was 13 BILLION in cash shipped over there and no one knows what came of it...and that says nothing of the government contracts let that netted many people millions in profits.

If you are a politician that said yes to it you can bet those same people will be grateful. And you can count on their support.

[Bernin4U]

42. What does it prove? As much as anything, that CHASING POLLS

...is NOT the way to lead a country or a constituency.

Those who do, trying to be "moderate" and representing the majority, are instead being weak and cowardly.

Leaders don't ask for public opinion. Apple doesn't take a survey to say, "Hey folks, should we develop a touch-screen-only phone?" Instead, they predict what the right product is going to be for their audience, not try to have their audience (based on very limited information) try to design it for them.

Policy needs to be the same way. We hire leaders, because their opinion should be more useful than Homer Simpsons'.

[moondust]

43. Criminal negligence.

Hillary and/or others in Congress had plenty of time to go over to CIA and NSA and demand to see and hear the raw intelligence to support the WMD claims. If they had simply done that they would have learned that no recent raw intelligence existed (because the WMD programs had apparently been abandoned by the mid 90s). Even Bill Clinton should have known that much.

[basselope]

44. There is one line SO KEY in what you said....

"Also GW used the elections to make it a political football. Force the Democrats to support him or they'd look "weak." "

This is the bait that the democrats swallowed and I am forever flummoxed by it. The GOP managed to convince people that not only did Iraq have WMD, but that they were involved with 9/11.

The Democrats who voted for the war were completely complicit in that, not REALLY questioning the "evidence" presented.

[MisterP]

58. in fact while they and their compulsive flunkies insisted that it was because they HAD

to to win the election; of course when the "yea" senators started losing at twice the rate of the "nays" that was just further "proof" that they were in tough, right-leaning states!

[Live and Learn]

49. Funny thing was almost everyone on DU at the time new it was wrong and illegal.

Some of them are now supporting Hillary. I don't understand it.

[merrily]

56. I haven't forgotten a thing.