Hillary voted for the Iraq war "as a last resort"

[Tactical Progressive]

Hillary voted 'for the IWR' to provide Bush with leverage on Iraq. She didn't vote 'for the Iraq war'.

If the media is going to mischaracterize her vote as one for war, then they should at least have the intellectual integrity to quote the four words that apply.

Those four words, which she spoke on the Senate floor, represent many reservations in her speech which put her position into context.

Oh, and Obama's position on the IWR? - "I don't know how I would have voted."

[tabasco]

1. Riiiiiiiight.

Because Bush was such a smooth negotiator.

Obama said at the time he opposed the war. The majority of Dems in Congress voted against the IWR.

Thanks for playing.

[Johnny__Motown]

2. We all remember it happening, we all knew it was for war. This does not fly with anyone

[thunder rising]

3. Billary's internals must be bad...the snakes are hissing again

[GarbagemanLB]

4. Excuses, excuses. There were other Democrats who voted against authorization. She showed a

lack of judgement, and hopefully she will not be given the chance at the presidency.

[ClassWarrior]

5. Then where was her outrage when he abused the authority she'd entrusted to him?

Why wasn't she out with us in the cold on the Ellipse when half a million of us were protesting the Invasion and Occupation?

:shrug:

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

64. You've answered nearly everybody but me...

Why are you afraid to answer my question?

NGU.

[Tactical Progressive]

66. She's been sounding pretty damned outraged over the war for the past few years

Alot more than Obama to my ear.

[hedgehog]

71. Please google Jonathan Tasini and New York State 2006 Senate Race, Democratic Primary.

Then tell me how she was pretty damn outraged over the war the past few years. AS near as I can tell, her outrage developed overnight, say, the night of November 5, 2006 when the returns came in and teh Democrats took back Congress.

[Hepburn]

76. Please post a link to....

...her apology for her YES vote. I sure seemed to have missed that.

[sniffa]

6. Oh stop it, you're killing me

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Oh god, my sides are killing me now.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I'm lucky my mandated health care allows me to go to the hospital to treat my splitting sides.

[VenusRising]

11. Not healthcare.

Insurance. :thumbsup:

[sniffa]

14. Sorry

I just saw one of her stumps, and was just quoting her from memory. My bad.

[VenusRising]

21. Drink more kool-aid.

All is forgiven.

[Crazy Dave]

7. I dunno

Kerry's "I voted for the war before I voted against it" had a nicer ring to it than that spin.

[mjg540]

22. THINK ABOUT THIS...WITH YOUR BRAINS!

In the run up to the war, you have to consider the information given to congress at the time. Information the dear Senator from Illinois didn't have. A case could be made, based on the information at hand...If Obama voted against the war, he jeopardized our very lives. His judgement then could be construed as irresponsible at best. Now granted, the information turned out to be false, but only in hindsight is Obama able to make his case. Hell, if we could stand on our convictions based on hindsight, we'd be hailed as genious. And lest you forget, Hillary was not alone in her vote. The war in and of itself was not near as bad as our bungling of the war, and I don't remember Obama calling upon his believers and demanding we send in more troops. The bottom line is we are there and we have American lives at stake and we have to protect them. We cannot put their lives at stake and willy nilly pull them out...It didn't work well in Vietnam plucking Americans from the rooftops of buildings and it won't work now. Obama has better get a firm grasp of the task at hand and get over himself and his judgment call...forward thinking...what are you going to do now???
Just note that my candidate of choice has long since left the race, but I assure you I am leaning much closer to Hillary than Obama. His rally's cause me to crave Kool-aid and I think Hillary is much sounder on the economy and our foreign policy. Obama is a quick learner tho, as he has already changed his stance on meeting with leaders, I guess maybe by the time this campaign is over, he may understand this war, but I doubt it.

[Crazy Dave]

31. You made cackle just like Hillary does

And I'll be cackling even harder at her Mar. 5th concession speech :rofl:

[ClassWarrior]

32. Then where was her outrage when Bush** abused the authority she'd entrusted to him?

Why wasn't she out with us in the cold on the Ellipse when half a million of us were protesting the Invasion and Occupation?

:shrug:

NGU.

[dansolo]

44. The other senator from IL voted against it

This is a bullshit argument, and you know it. Dick Durbin had the same information as Hillary, and he voted against it (and he was facing re-election at the time). It was not hindsight, because he spoke out against the war, unlike Hillary, who only now claims that she wishes she could have her vote back. Now that's hindsight.

[mjg540]

81. BS argument....I don't think so

Look at the yea/nays on this issue.....How can you say that he didn't risk our lives by opposing the war. There were plenty of people in the know that authorized the war...and they aren't without credibility. Durbin knew it would carry, so it was hardly a political risk to vote no. Maybe that's just Illinois politics as we're finding out in the recent days is a bit corrupt. And I will repeat again, Obama needs to get over himself and get the smirk off his face when challenging McCain, because the bottom line is Americans are in harms way, and he better address that if he ever wants to sit in the oval office. I will stand behind Hillary on this issue. She gets it!

[hedgehog]

73. Judgment lets you determine when someone is lying to you. nt

[mjg540]

82. WAS REZKO A JUDGEMNT CALL????????????

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

75. BEST POST I'VE READ ALL WEEK!

If I could recommend a post, it would be yours. Awesome job!!!!

:toast:

[meow mix]

8. heh. funny.

this is suppose to be a joke or something i guess.
:shrug:

i dont really get it.

[JimGinPA]

9. Can You Say "Political Expediency"

She was too worried to vote against the war IN CASE IT HAD GONE WELL. She was AFRAID to stand up to Bu$h.

[sloppyjoe25s]

10. Ha!!!!! ROFLMAO!

You go right on believing that.

There is nothing, repeat nothing, that Senator Clinton has EVER done that was not
PURELY the result of poltical calculation.

The IWR was only the most despicable single example. But at every point in her "35 years" she has
put political calculation of what might help her one day in some election ahead of principle.

Senator Clinton = politcal cray computer FROM DAY #1.

[Tactical Progressive]

25. You're talking about Barack Obama

He's never done or said anything in his life that wasn't for the express purpose of benefitting Barack Obama.

[BootinUp]

12. I'm glad I'm not the only one

that attempts to set the record straight around here.

[Tactical Progressive]

67. You do a great job Jim4

I usually don't bother because progressive 'conventional wisdom' is about as incorrect, impervious
and just plain lame as the media's 'conventional wisdom', so what's the point.

[skipos]

13. So when the war started, she was speaking out against it then?

Could you provide me with some quotes that back this up?

[Tactical Progressive]

65. Of course not, that's ridiculous

You support your country. You'd better if you're a Senator.

How about you give me quotes of Senator Obama speaking out against supporting the troops once the war started?
How about you show us all the references of Obama trying to cut funding for an obviously failed war?

You speak out against the way the war is being run and against the sketchy evidence and dishonest promises that got us here, as Hillary, Barack, and many other Senators have done. You know the protocols and exactly how far they can go before the media turns opinions against you. You saw what happened to Kerry when he questioned the integrity of our presence over there by merely alluding to having to be dumb to volunteer to go over there now, in a sarcastic way.

Don't pretend things aren't the way they are just because you don't like the way they are.
Publicans were going to war regardless of what we thought, and there's only so much you can do once we're in, given the system as it is.
Hillary and Barack have said what they could. Personally I think Hillary has been much more forceful and negative on Bush over it.
But it's all a matter of degrees.

[lligrd]

15. And I Will Only Vote For Hillary AS A LAST RESORT

Thank goodness it looks like it won't come to that.

[ClassWarrior]

36. LOL

I want that bumper sticker.

NGU.

[Tactical Progressive]

42. So you're voting for Hillary.

According to the exact same out-of-context treatment.

As applied against your own quote you'll notice that
it kind of changes the meaning 180-degrees, doesn't it?


Thanks for the help in setting up an example. It was a funny line
which just so happens to demonstate the point perfectly.

[lligrd]

43. Your Logic Is Twisted

I have another choice so Hillary will not be getting my vote. Hillary had another choice too. She should have made the right choice and voted against the IWR.

[Tactical Progressive]

49. I know it's twisted: I'm using YOUR 'logic'

According to you, when you say something is a "last resort", that means you want it.

You apply such convolution to Hillary.
I applied it to your attitude towards Hillary, to show how twisted it is.
And it worked - you see how twisted it is when applied to your preferences.


It's fair to say Hillary voted for the IWR.
It's fair to say Hillary voted for the Iraq war "as a last resort".
It's dishonest to say Hillary voted for the Iraq war unless you note that qualification.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

78. ...

:thumbsup:

[Hepburn]

16. She voted FOR the IWR.

Have you read it? Obviously not. Come back and discuss the issue AFTER you have some modicum of information in regard to the same.

Sheesh.....:eyes:

[Tactical Progressive]

37. Yes, you are correct

You characterize it correctly.

I'm talking about people who dishonestly characterize Hillary, and other Democrats, as voting "for the war".
That isn't correct.

The very least such truth-twisters would have to do to mischaracterize it that way is to put in her exact quote as to that condition: "as a last resort".

Sheesh youself.

[dansolo]

45. The IWR was political cover for Bush to go to war

*I* knew that. How could Hillary, with all her "experience" be fooled by a dolt like Bush? If she can't figure out what Bush is scheming, how is she going to stand up to someone like Putin?

[Tactical Progressive]

47. Political cover?

Bush would have gone to war with or without Hillary's vote.

Try again.

[Hepburn]

74. Ummmmmmm......

....hello?

Care to explain just HOW that works? :eyes:

[hedgehog]

77. Maybe, probably, but would he have been able to steal the election in 2004

if leading Democrats had stood up and loudly denounced his war from the beginning?

[DemGa]

17. Come now, it's common and good to attribute pure evil to Hillary Clinton

whatever the reason -- they have learned well from the right-wing attackers.

And right-wing attacks are good for many things -- just ask St. Obama.

[FrenchieCat]

18. You have mischaracterized Obama's position on Iraq.......

And so you have lost your own intellectual integrity. :(

Delivered on 26 October 2002 at an anti-war rally

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

The interviewer asks Obama this specific question on the video.
Obama responds that he would have voted like Dick Durbin, Voted Nay.

This video is dated 11/25/02
question is asked at 2:11 of the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXzmXy226po

As far as Obama's statement on "I don't know how I would have voted"...you quote him out of context! (again, where is your intellectual integrity standard you apply to others? :shrug: )

----------------------------

Tim Russert read a quote he attributed to Obama to suggest that he has "not been a leader against the war": "In July of 2004, Barack Obama: 'I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. ... What would I have done? I don't know,' in terms of how you would have voted on the war." Russert did not quote the very next sentence of Obama's statement, which was, "What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made" for authorizing the war.

At the time....
The Times also reported that Obama "declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time":
http://mediamatters.org/items/200711110004

THE FACT CHECKER

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/01/obama_and_iraq.html#more

As the keynote speaker, Obama was trying to be loyal to the Democratic nominees, John Kerry and John Edwards, both of whom had voted in favor of the war authorization resolution, along with Hillary Clinton.

In an interview reported by the New York Times on July 26, on the first day of the convention, he reiterated his opposition to the war but declined to criticize Kerry and Edwards, saying he was "not privy to Senate intelligence reports."

He then continued: "What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made."

again.....

"from my vantage point the case was not made"

(The Clinton campaign left out that important last sentence when it e-mailed reporters with backup material for the inconsistency claim, which was also made by Hillary Clinton in the televised debate Saturday night.)

In an interview published in the Chicago Tribune the following day (July 27,2004), Obama said that he would have voted "no" on the Senate resolution. But he said he was not in favor of "pulling out now." On the issue of whether to stay in Iraq , he said "there's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." The context of his remarks makes clear that he was not referring to the original decision to go into Iraq, but the question of whether to remain.

again--

(July 27,2004), Obama said that he would have voted "no" on the Senate resolution

His views on whether to stay in Iraq have changed, of course, as he now advocates a phased withdrawal.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/01/obama_and_iraq.html#more

so because we had candidates that had voted for that fucked up IWR, Obama, not wanting to EMBARASS THE NOMINEES, stayed vague to a degree.

THANK YOU, BARACK OBAMA.

Responding to Clinton’s attack on Iraq

IRAQ: Obama Consistently Opposed the Iraq War.
In January of 2005, Obama criticized Condoleezza Rice for not offering a timetable for withdrawal;

in February he criticized the Administration’s policy in Iraq while praising our troops;

in May and June, he called security in Iraq “horrible” and criticized the Administration for linking the 9/11 attacks and the war in Iraq;

and in October and November, he called for a phased withdrawal of our troops, saying that we should “get out as soon as we can.”

Obama called for a phased withdrawal of our troops in November of 2005 and voted for an amendment stating that the US should not “stay in Iraq indefinitely.”

He consistently called for troop withdrawal throughout 2006, and voted for a resolution in June urging the President to begin troop withdrawal during 2006.

Obama spoke out against the surge the same night Bush announced it, and introduced his bill to end the war at the end of January, which would have prohibited the surge and set a timetable for withdrawal of all combat troops by the end of March 2008.

That bill became the template for the Democratic caucus’ position.

IRAQ: Obama Has Consistently Opposed A Blank Check for Iraq.

Since Obama came to Washington in January of 2005, every single Senate Democrat has voted for every single Iraq funding bill that has come to the Senate floor until President Bush vetoed a timetable for withdrawal.

After that, Obama voted against funding for the war, stating that “This vote is a choice between validating the same failed policy in Iraq that has cost us so many lives and demanding a new one…We should not give the President a blank check to continue down this same, disastrous path. With my vote today, I am saying to the President that enough is enough. We must negotiate a better plan that funds our troops, signals to the Iraqis that it is time for them to act and that begins to bring our brave servicemen and women home safely and responsibly.”

IRAQ: Clinton Continues to Unfairly Truncate Obama’s Quote on Iraq. Below is the full excerpt from the New York Times:

“He opposed the war in Iraq, and spoke against it during a rally in Chicago in the fall of 2002. He said then that he saw no evidence that Iraq had unconventional weapons that posed a threat, or of any link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. “In a recent interview, he declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time.

again!

he declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time

“‘But, I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports,’ Mr. Obama said. ‘What would I have done? I don’t know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.’

“But Mr. Obama said he did fault Democratic leaders for failing to ask enough tough questions of the Bush administration to force it to prove its case for war. ‘What I don’t think was appropriate was the degree to which Congress gave the president a pass on this,’ he said.”

"What I don’t think was appropriate was the degree to which Congress gave the president a pass on this"

http://thepage.time.com/obama-camp-memo-on-clintons-mtp-iraq-statements/

[Tactical Progressive]

33. You're becoming the Boilerplate Queen, cat

This is my favorite part, where, in about your only words in the whole post that aren't ad-hominem, you ascribe noble motivations to Barack:

"Obama, not wanting to EMBARASS THE NOMINEES, stayed vague to a degree."


Here's my much more accurate characterization, since it doesn't leave out his motivation for even saying it in the first place:

Obama's Iraq invasion stance is the most unethical of anyone on the political stage.

Obama, wanting for himself to speak at the convention, was willing to completely compromise his supposed anti-war position. Everyone else had tough choices on national security and international direction. Barack Obama only worries about Barack Obama, and so getting to stand at the podium was all it took for him to refute his own pretense of anti-war steadfastness.

What else would Obama do to get a microphone? 'I'm not sure how I would vote on privatizing Social Security.'

That deserves a thread of its own.

[FrenchieCat]

38. You are silly........

but please, keep at it. It won't help.

[Tactical Progressive]

48. Obama backing off his anti-war 'position' to get a convention speech

shows how craven his politics are. Limelight for Barack seems to trump even the most serious issues.

I can't think of anyone else who would take a position any way or another on the IWR
based on whether they got a speech out of it.


But now you've gotten me off track now too. The issue in this thread is:

You can honestly say Hillary voted for the IWR.
You can honestly say Hillary voted for the war "as a last resort".

It's blatantly dishonest to say Hillary voted 'for the war'
by leaving out the very words that put the context in.

[Faygo Kid]

19. This argument is "a last resort." And it won't fly.

Too many of us were alive and adults in 2002 to buy into this historical revisionism.

Sorry. Nice try.

[Tactical Progressive]

51. It's not an argument

It is simply recognizing dishonesty in characterizing her and many Democrats IWR vote as support for going to war, when her words contextualize exactly how supportive of going to war she wasn't.

[Faygo Kid]

69. Are you a contortionist? Thanks for the reminder: "Pretzel Logic' by Steely Dan

Great album. Haven't played it in a long time, or even thought about it, until I read how "her words contextualize exactly how supportive of going to war she wasn't."

Think I'll play it this morning. Rikki, don't lose that number.

[MannyGoldstein]

20. "Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock...

...his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Guess who said that, when they said that, and which NIE they chose to not read which refuted all of this.

[sniffa]

24. How dare you!?

That is such Ctrl + S-exist bullshit. :grr:

[Tactical Progressive]

23. Hillary-haters can't get around the truth.

Since it is what she said, why not quote it correctly?

You can't have it both ways.
False characterization from column-A. Redacted quote from column-B.

Either she voted for the IWR, which she did, and I believe it was the correct vote to make.
Or she 'voted for the war' "as a last resort".

Either one of those is correct.

Mischaracterizing Hillary as voting 'to go to war' is just factually dishonest, without the "as a last resort".

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Medusa]

29. You and Hillary are the ones being "factually dishonest"

but keep spinning. It's hilarious. :rofl:

[ClassWarrior]

68. Okay, it's the truth. So answer me. Where was her outrage...

...when Bush** flagrantly abused the authority she'd entrusted to him? Why didn't she act like a leader and stand up to the injustice? Why doesn't she advocate for IMPEACHING him now?

NGU.

[paulk]

27. "media" and "intellectual integrity"

don't belong in the same sentence.

[Tactical Progressive]

34. Well, yes, that's true

but I think it should be hilighted strongly and often.

Thanks for making the point directly.

[AtomicKitten]

28. What part of AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ 2002 didn't she understand?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

79. Tell Me: Were There Any Other Words In There? Or Just Those.

Such disingenuous bullshit.

[Political Heretic]

88. Just those.

No other words mattered.

[Hepburn]

80. Apparently....

...along with the OP, both had -0- comprehension of that phrase.

[Arugula Latte]

30. Bwa ha ha!!!

Anybody with a pulse knew that asswipe Bushco. and the PNAC neocons were bound and determine to invade Iraq and were just looking for any flimsy excuse whatsoever. Hillary willingly obliged him.

But, thanks for the laugh. I needed that. :hi:

[Tactical Progressive]

35. So you understand nothing about the entire situation?

What "excuse" exactly were they looking for?


(And why is it always the laughing clowns who understand least of anyone what they're laughing about?)

[mmonk]

39. My rep had no problem voting against the IWR.

He obviously didn't see it as a war as a last resort vote.

[Tactical Progressive]

41. Yes, that's fair enough

I think he made the wrong vote, but that's neither here nor there with regards to this thread.

This thread is about the factual dishonesty of saying that Hillary, and by extension other Democrats who reluctantly, with reservations and caveats, voted to give Bush leverage against Saddam Hussein as "voting for the war" as the media and others frequently mischaracterize Hillary's vote.

You can say correctly that:
- she voted for the IWR
- she voted for war "as a last resort"

Saying she "voted for the war" is intentionally dishonest.

That's all this thread is about. Your post, while correct, doesn't even touch on the OP.

[FrenchieCat]

40. Hillary could have voted for the Levin Amendment......

so why didn't she? :shrug:

Editorial from the lone Republican in the Senate to Vote NAY on the IRW.
Chafee, who has since left the Republican party endorsed Obama a couple of weeks ago.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/chafee-endorses-obama/

The Senate’s Forgotten Iraq Choice

By LINCOLN D. CHAFEE
Published: March 1, 2007
Providence, R.I.

AS the presidential primary campaigns begin in earnest, the Iraq war is overshadowing all other issues, as it did during the midterm elections. Presidential candidates who were in the Senate in October 2002 are particularly under the microscope, as they are being called upon to justify their votes for going to war.

As someone who was in the Senate at the time, I have been struck by the contours of the debate. The situation facing the candidates who cast war votes has, to my surprise, often been presented as a binary one — they could either vote for the war, or not. There was no middle ground.

On the contrary. There was indeed a third way, which Senator James Jeffords, independent of Vermont, hailed at the time as “one of the most important votes we will cast in this process.” And it was opposed by every single senator at the time who now seeks higher office.

A mere 10 hours before the roll was called on the administration-backed Iraq war resolution, the Senate had an opportunity to prevent the current catastrophe in Iraq and to salvage the United States’ international standing. Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, offered a substitute to the war resolution, the Multilateral Use of Force Authorization Act of 2002.

Senator Levin’s amendment called for United Nations approval before force could be authorized. It was unambiguous and compatible with international law. Acutely cognizant of the dangers of the time, and the reality that diplomatic options could at some point be exhausted, Senator Levin wrote an amendment that was nimble: it affirmed that Congress would stand at the ready to reconsider the use of force if, in the judgment of the president, a United Nations resolution was not “promptly adopted” or enforced. Ceding no rights or sovereignty to an international body, the amendment explicitly avowed America’s right to defend itself if threatened.

An opponent of the Levin amendment said that the debate was not over objectives, but tactics. And he was right. To a senator, we all had as our objectives the safety of American citizens, the security of our country and the disarming of Saddam Hussein in compliance with United Nations resolutions. But there was a steadfast core of us who believed that the tactics should be diplomacy and multilateralism, not the “go it alone” approach of the Bush doctrine.

Those of us who supported the Levin amendment argued against a rush to war. We asserted that the Iraqi regime, though undeniably heinous, did not constitute an imminent threat to United States security, and that our campaign to renew weapons inspections in Iraq — whether by force or diplomacy — would succeed only if we enlisted a broad coalition that included Arab states.

We also urged our colleagues to take seriously the admonitions of our allies in the region — Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. As King Abdullah of Jordan warned, “A miscalculation in Iraq would throw the whole area into turmoil.”

Unfortunately, these arguments fell on deaf ears in that emotionally charged, hawkish, post-9/11 moment, less than four weeks before a midterm election. The Levin amendment was defeated by a 75 to 24 vote. Later that night, the Iraq War Resolution was approved, 77 to 23. It was clear that most senators were immune to persuasion because the two votes were almost mirror images of each other — no to the Levin amendment, aye to war. Their minds were made up.

It was incomprehensible to me at the time that the Levin amendment received only 24 votes. However, there were some heroes, like Paul Wellstone, Democrat of Minnesota, who even in the midst of a very difficult re-election campaign voted to slow the march to war. And then there was the moving statement by Robert Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, in support of the Levin amendment and against the administration-backed resolution: “This is an unprecedented and unfounded interpretation of the president’s authority under the Constitution of the United States — not to mention the fact that it stands the charter of the United Nations on its head.”

Americans are gravely concerned about Iraq, and yearn for leadership to stabilize the situation there and gradually end United States involvement. Calling on presidential hopefuls to justify or recant their vote authorizing the president to take us to war almost misses the point.

The Senate had the opportunity to support a more deliberate, multilateral approach, one that still would have empowered the United States to respond to any imminent threat posed by Saddam Hussein. We must not sidestep the fact that a sensible alternative did exist, but it was rejected. Candidates — Democrat and Republican — should be called to account for their vote on the Levin amendment.

Lincoln D. Chafee, a Republican senator from Rhode Island from 1999 to 2006, is a visiting fellow at the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/opinion/01chafee.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[MadHound]

46. Please, this ignorance argument has been shot down many times before,

And it always winds up leaving Hillary, and you, foolish.

Everybody in this country, on both sides of the issue, knew what would happen after the IWR passed, Shock and Awe. Millions were out in the street because of this, hell, twenty one of her fellow Senators also realized this, and voted against the IWR. Are you really saying that Hillary didn't know that the IWR led straight to war, not passing go? If so, if that is truly the case, then frankly Hillary is too stupid for the White House.

[Political Heretic]

50. Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002

That's not "a last resort" that's an authorization for the use of military force.

PERIOD.

You don't "authorize use of military force" unless you are going to USE military force. There's no need to AUTHORIZE IT until you need to USE IT.

[Tactical Progressive]

53. That's just wrong

You want to make things up about what an authorization could be used for, go ahead. But don't put it on others.

Had Bill Clinton or Al Gore or John Kerry or Hillary Clinton asked for an authorization to use military force as leverage against a dictator, they would have used it exactly as they had gotten it. So you're just flat out wrong in your contention.

[Political Heretic]

94. 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.

[Jacobin]

52. Nice try. Heard it all before

Doesn't explain why over 100 congresscritters voted against it.

No judgment

[Tactical Progressive]

56. You want to dismiss truth you've dismissed before, go ahead.

Doesn't make it any less truthful, or you any less dismissive of truth.

I'm pointing out a very simple thing: the intentional rhetorical mischaracterization of IWR voters who've provided enough direct context such that saying they wanted a war is demonstrably and knowingly false.

If you can't say "voted for the IWR", but instead have to say "voted for a war" knowing the stated conditions of that support, then you have to ask yourself why you need to be intentionally dishonest.

[Jacobin]

58. Actually its utter bullshit

I was on DU during the IWR vote and hundreds of us emailed, faxed and called congresscritters. The truth was out there in foreign media. It was OBVIOUS bush was going to invade Iraq. Utterly and completely OBVIOUS. to EVERYONE.

THe smarmy canned emails we got back from Kerry and Clinton make me want to puke to this day.

Please explain why over one hundred congresscritters voted AGAINST this invasion. Were they stupid? Were they less informed than Saint Hillary? Or were they smarter with better judgment?

[Tactical Progressive]

61. If only the world was so simple that you, and me,

and Joe-Bob down the street knew everything without being privvy to the real information.

I don't know who was more, as much, or less informed, but Hillary and the members of the Armed Services Committee probably had much better, more classified information than most anybody else, and they had personal assuranced from the Administration that war would be a "last resort".

I think too, you might possibly be conflating lies. I knew they they were lying about WMD - well, at least to the point that they were lying because they couldn't get any proof about what they really did believe they would find, but that's not the same thing as lying about using the resolution as leverage and not going to war except "as a last resort". That's another separate lie, which is one not refutable by evidence or lack of evidence. That's a lie about their immediate intentions, which, what do you do when the President looks you in the eye and tells you his intentions are true even if the evidence may be shaky?

They were lied to. Just because I know what liars Publicans are at every level of their spiritual existence, not to mention their public service, doesn't mean that as a Senator you can assess everything on that basis.


As to the numbers - about half the Dems voted for the IWR and about half the Dems voted against it.
Which was exactly what they should have done.

[rodeodance]

54. Many on DU have parroted the Media meme for years. Shameful

[susankh4]

55. And Mr. Obama is caving to Bush on the war now

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/04/politics/main2645861.shtml

So, why do we believe he would have done differently then?

Dream on......

[Tactical Progressive]

57. Obama would have been among the very first Senators to support the IWR

No doubt in my mind whatsoever.

And I'm more unbiased about that than any person on this entire board, because I know supporting the IWR was the correct vote, so I'm not slamming him for points, nor refusing to recognize such an obvious truth for defensive points the other way. It was the right thing to do, and he would have done it.

[susankh4]

59. Thanks for your deft analysis

to bad we aren't going to hear it anywhere else.

I agree, BTW.

[pdxmom]

60. You can't complain about mischaracterization and then turn around and

mischaracterize. The remainder of your Obama quote is "What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made."

You insist that you know what Obama would have done, had he actually been in the Senate at the time, but based on his stated position and the position of the senior senator from his state, I believe he still would not have voted for the IWR.

[Tactical Progressive]

62. Which was the position of probably every Senator that did vote yes on IWR

That the case hadn't been made, but here is the authority to leverage Saddam into complete inspection compliance.

Barack keeps feet in both sides, just like everyone did, because there was more than one aspect to support of the IWR.
When the President says I'm not going to invade I just need leverage, trust me I'm with you, what do you do?
He lied.

There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that Barack would have given authorization.
Maybe if he hadn't been considering a Presidential run it would have been close,
but given that he would have been, it wouldn't have even been close.
Any more than any of his subsequent votes to support the war have been.

Barack would have certainly voted yes on the IWR, as he should have.

[sendero]

63. And why did she vote..

... for Kyl-Lieberman? Patriot?

Please, we were all here, we all watched it go down, we know what happened.

[paulk]

70. the real question is - why did Obama sit Kyl-Lieberman out?

because he wants to, once again, straddle both sides of the line?

[sendero]

83. Better to sit it out ..

.. than vote for it.

[paulk]

84. not really...

if he's going to running for President I would like to know what his position is on this. And not after the fact.

Same goes with his IWR vote - the one that didn't happen. I have no doubt, being the triangulating centrist that he is, Barrack Obama would have voted "yes" on the IWR if he's been in a position to actually vote on it.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

72. You're 100% Right, Which Is Why Almost Everyone Here, Obama Himself, And The Pundits, Have All Been

monumentally disingenuous in their representation of it. Anyone classifying her vote as one for rushing to war without those other caveats, is doing so ignorantly or disgracefully. Oftentimes it's the latter, and I find that behavior to be disgusting since it is much like swiftboating. It shows a lack of integrity on their part and an intent to deceive. That's never honorable behavior.

[tekisui]

89. The entire conception of a need to act was manufactured.

Their was no need to start down the path of confrontation that lead to the IWR that lead to an illegal invasion. It was a neo-con propaganda job. Saddam was contained, he had no WMD's, he had no weapon delivery system that could have reached Israel.

It may have been a vote for War at last cause, but it was unnecessary, contrived and was in the end, a vote for war.

[Political Heretic]

93. The vote in favor of authorizing war is a vote to authorize war. A = A.

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 can 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.

[otohara]

85. Oh I See, The People Who Voted NO Were The

one's with bad judgment and no foresight!

Thanks for clearing that up for me!

[mudesi]

86. Excuses excuses excuses

That's all it comes down to.

[fortyfeetunder]

87. Last resort?

What is that supposed to mean?

[hfojvt]

90. then she spent February and early March - saying there was no other resort

Just like Bush. And when the war started she didn't criticize Bush for going to war as a first resort. She said "we've gotta support the troops now." Just like Bush.

[Political Heretic]

95. ding ding ding ding!

[tekisui]

91. A vote for war as a "last resort" is still a vote for war.

The entire concept was manufactured crises propaganda.

[zulchzulu]

92. Hillary voted for the IWR because she didn't think it would pass...

:rofl:

As for the continuing LIE about Obama, that's cherry-picked to take out that from his vantage point, "the case was not made".

Why do Hillary supporters have to lie and cheat about Obama to make their candidate appear "reasonable"?

[Political Heretic]

96. A vote to authorize war is a vote to authorize war.

Hillary's "hopes" for how it would be used are irrelevant. She voted 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 (or leverage or any other reason) 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 leverage 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 can 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 twenty three other senators, some privy to all the same information Clinton was, also had the courage to vote on the basis of the truth, rather than on the basis of what was politically popular.

I knew there was no justification for authorization. And she could have known 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.

[Forkboy]

97. Kick for any story about the war, especially from Hillary supporters.

You guys are your own worst enemy. Hope to see more stories about the vote soon!

[Levgreee]

98. If you vote to kill baby seals, you can say you voted to just put down sick ones,but thats not true

She voted for what the passages allowed, plain and simple. AUTHORIZING WAR FOR BUSH.

She can say she voted that the skies were purple, or for unicorn farms, but that doesn't make the vote for unicorn farms, it still makes it an authorization of war vote.

She voted for what was legally allowed, through the IWR. She gave a simple YES, to allow war. Her personal 'feelings' or 'interpretations' about it are not what mattered, because they had no legal bearing.

[blm]

99. Then she should have backed up Kerry in 2003-4 when he stood against Bush's DECISION

to go to war when weapon inspections were working to prove it was not needed.

But Hillary and other senators stood by Bush, and let Kerry try and deal with that position on his own that entire time with NO BACKUP from any of them, and certainly not Hillary.