unlike sniveling cowardly Greenwald - Biden and Clinton stand by their Iraq War and Patriot Act

[joshcryer]

64. Clinton's weasely floor speech on the Iraq War Resolution:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2667891

I'm going to highlight the weasely bits because I want people reading this to see how Hillary knowingly aided and abetted a war criminal (I will explain after the quotations):

Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

...

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.

...

If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.

If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.

...

I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein's biological and chemical weapons.

...

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 -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

Pretty good, huh? She wanted the UN to get involved before Bush invaded but she was alarmed by unilateralism! Yet, she knew that passing the resolution enabled unilateralism! But the "present facts" made it "not a good option." Cute, eh? This, despite the Bush administrations run up to the war and demands to attack using old, obsolete, Gulf War era resolutions!

If, if, if! But she knew damn well that she was enabling a unilateral attack.

At the end she reveals herself (and thus invalidates her talk of diplomacy and assuring UN resolutions were upheld, and assuring that weapons inspectors were allowed to do their job):

Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret.

Except, dear Hillary, Saddam destroyed those weapons in 1991:

While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.

Boom. Hillary aided and abetted a war criminal as testified in his own biography signed off by him and is why he can't visit certain EU states because he'll wind up in the fucking Hague.