Hillary's vote in 2002 was actually to try and STOP the war from starting!!

[samrock]

20-20 hindsight is such a wonderful thing.. IF you remember what ACTUALLY was going on back in 2002 you will remember at that time there were NO weapons inspectors in Iraq and had been none since Saddam had kicked them out many years before.. If you talked to the many of the democrats at that time they HOPED getting inspectors on the ground would delay the war AND if they found no WMD's ( and they did not find any) would stop the war all together..

Of course George was going in NO MATTER WHAT congress did.. He even said so.. and as we have found out from those who left his administration and the British memos he had made up his mind to go in LONG before October of 2002.. So to blame Hillary's vote is just sad and shows how few differences there are in the issues between Obama and Clinton and how Obama's supporters are really abusing this issue for political gain..

[sniffa]

1. Dradle, dradle, dradle I made you out of clay

I haven't heard this reasoning in a few weeks. Thanks for dusting it off for another run.

[samrock]

2. It is YOU are are spinning

And you are doing a WONDERFUL job I might add..

[Hugabear]

21. Here's the Iraq War Resolution - maybe you can educate us

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

There's the link to it. Notice the title: Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

The act authorized Bush to use military force against Iraq. Plain and simple. Anyone who voted for that and couldn't anticipate what would happen is an IDIOT, and does not deserve to be POTUS.

[gerrilea]

30. Armchair quarterbacks strike again!

since you allowed bush to be president then you shouldn't be allow in this country...hows that for logic! Using your own logical system here of course.

[Hugabear]

48. bullshit

I don't even see how that follows.

How did I allow Bush to be president? I voted against the bastard! If McCain wins, let me know what you plan on doing to not "allow" him to be president. I'm sure the Secret Service would be interested in your plans also!

The IWR is very clear, it authorizes the use of force. How anyone voted for that and couldn't anticipate the actual use of force is beyond me.

[Warren Stupidity]

75. Apparently you should have voted for Bush since he was going to win anyway

and then somehow construe that to be not a vote for Bush but a vote to keep Bush from actually being pretzledent.

But I am convinced now that Clinton's 'yes' to a "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq" was really a 'no' to a "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq", that she was one of the few brave 'yes' voters to stand up and demand that Bush not use the authority just granted by her vote to go to war. Had she not acted so courageously, Bush might actually have taken us into a disastrous war in Iraq without Congressional approval, and then where would we be? Yes I am convinced.

[samrock]

89. Thank you.. ya just made my case

The IWR is very clear, it authorizes the use of force. How anyone voted for that and couldn't anticipate the actual use of force is beyond me

All who voted for the measure KNEW Bush was going in.. for that matter ALL who voted against it knew it as well..


It as just a hope ( all you Obama supporters should know all about hope) and a prayer that maybe .. just maybe if inspectors where sent in and found no WMD's it would embarss Bush enough to stop him.. and ya know it DAMN near did.. He had to order them out cause they were embarssing him by showing there were no WMD's in Iraq..

[FrenchieCat]

97. One name for you defeats your thesis.......

Levin.

The Levin amendment received a NO vote from Hillary Clinton. That states all that needs to be said about Hillary's road to war; she didn't really want any meaningful roadblocks in the way.

Here is the enchilata in a nutshell from the sole Republican, Lincoln Chaffee, who voted against the IWR (he has since left the republican Party, and endorsed Barack Obama on February 14th)

The Senate’s Forgotten Iraq Choice

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

[sniffa]

38. I never THOUGHT about it THAT way

What a BRILLIANT comeback that WAS.

[JackORoses]

77. are all your OPs this bad?

[Joe the Revelator]

3. If you believe that, I've got a bridge in brooklyn you might be interested in.

[samrock]

5. well ya MUST be rich

from all the peeps buying your bridges!!!

[Hugabear]

4. So the Democrats who voted against the bill were voting FOR war?

Huh.

[Adelante]

7. That must be how it works

Thanks for explaining :D

[samrock]

11. Never said that!!

Just said most democrats that voted for the resolution saw getting inspectors in on the ground and hopefully NOT finding WMD's was the ONLY way to stop it from starting..

[Warren Stupidity]

72. Oh so some yes votes were special yes votes that didn't really mean

yes to "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq" but something other than that. Of course. Perhaps Clinton attached a signing statement to her yes vote for war?

[sloppyjoe25s]

ROFLMAO

keep on dreaming...

that is why she spoke at length about what a horrendous threat Sadaam Hussein was to the USA.

that is why she said as she voted "i cast this vote with conviction"

that is why she trumpeted the vote for months as evidence of her "war credentials" and growing hawkishness

that is why she voted against the Levin Ammendment - the only chance to slow Bush down.

that is why she bitterly fought against timetables - saying they "tell our enemenies exactly what they need to know to defeat us"

that is why she only came around to being anti-war when she noticed a challenge in the primaries

YOU ARE FUCKING DREAMING!

In the absolute best possible reading of the vote - she is a mindless fuck.

We all know better - she is smarter than hell. It was PURE POLITICAL calculation to bolster her "military credentials" and to "look tough". Same old Clintons as on every other issue she has ever been a part of.

[earthlover]

31. ON Day One of the Iraq Invasion, Bush had Hillary's vote in his pocket

[gerrilea]

34. "She a mindless fuck", grow up!

Insulting! and disgusting!

[sloppyjoe25s]

43. Read... it's actually smart to READ a post

I said - she is "smart as hell"

I said the ONLY favorable way to read her IWR vote is that she was a "mindless fuck"

that is the BEST POSSBLE EXPLANATION of her vote, BUT It is NOT the accurate one.

SHE IS SMART AS HELL. SHE IS A POLITICALLY CALCULATING CRAY COMPUTER.

She voted for political reasons period. The most important single foreign policy vote in the last 30 years in the
US Senate, and she showed ZERO judgment or conviction.

[CTLawGuy]

6. So Ted Kennedy, Dennis Kucinich

Russ Feingold, Paul Wellstone, etc, WANTED the war to start?????

[sloppyjoe25s]

9. Jeff Bingaman from My State of New Mexico

voted against IWR. I LOVE HIM!

[CTLawGuy]

16. that's awesome!

I hope he has a new Democratic senator friend from NM soon!

[sloppyjoe25s]

44. He will soon... Udall will beat Heather Wilson

and NM will have 2 Democratic Senators!! Yippeee!!!

[Smarmie Doofus]

37. Thanks. AND 18 other DEM Sens. AND the majority...

... of the HOUSE DEM caucus AND 60% of US electorate AND 90% of public opinion around the world.

I find this line of argument from IWR apologists *offensive* ; it insults folks who demonstrated real judgement, leadership and bravery.

Rather than light that fire again they'd be wise to acknowledge the mistake or just NOT SAY ANYTHING.

Alas... they are not wise.

[anonymous171]

64. That Kucinich is such a warmonger...

:sarcasm:

[JTFrog]

8. 20-20 Hindsight?

So what do you call these people? Clairvoyant?









And Hillary knew exactly what she was voting for:

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0303-23.htm

See Hillary Run (from Her Husband's Past on Iraq)
by Scott Ritter

Senator Hillary Clinton wants to become President Hillary Clinton. "I'm in, and I'm in to win," she said, announcing her plans to run for the Democratic nomination for the 2008 Presidential election. Let there be no doubt that Hillary Clinton is about as slippery a species of politician that exists, one who has demonstrated an ability to morph facts into a nebulous blob which blurs the record and distorts the truth. While she has demonstrated this less than flattering ability on a number of issues, nowhere is it so blatant as when dealing with the issue of the ongoing war in Iraq and Hillary Clinton's vote in favor of this war.

This issue won't be resolved even if Hillary Clinton apologizes for her Iraq vote, as other politicians have done, blaming their decision on faulty intelligence on Iraq's WMD capabilities. This is because, like many other Washington politicians at the time, including those now running for president, she had been witness to lies about Iraq's weapons programs to justify attacks on that country by her husband President Bill Clinton and his administration.

"While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq," Senator Clinton said at the time of her vote, in a carefully crafted speech designed to demonstrate her range of knowledge and ability to consider all options. "I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998."

Hillary would have done well to leave out that last part, the one where her husband, the former President of the United States, used military force as part of a 72-hour bombing campaign ostensibly deemed as a punitive strike in defense of disarmament, but in actuality proved to be a blatant attempt at regime change which used the hyped-up threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction as an excuse for action. Sound familiar? While many Americans today condemn the Bush administration for misleading them with false claims of unsubstantiated threats which resulted in the ongoing debacle we face today in Iraq (count Hillary among this crowd), few have reflected back on the day when the man from Hope, Arkansas sat in the Oval Office and initiated the policies of economic sanctions-based containment and regime change which President Bush later brought to fruition when he ordered the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

...much more at link



Scott Ritter served as a former Marine Corps officer from 1984 until 1991, and as a UN weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 until 1998. He is the author of several books, including "Iraq Confidential" and "Target Iran". He also co-authored "War on Iraq" with William Pitt.

[samrock]

22. Hillary never WANTED to go into IRAQ

George Bush was going in NO MATTER WHAT!!!! If you do not believe that ( epically after hearing from those who left his administration and the British memos) YOU are naive!!

Getting inspectors in on the ground.. finding NO WNDS's and getting the world to tell Bush no and embarrass him was the only way left.. But George was NOT going to stop..

[JTFrog]

25. Speed reader are you?

Yes, George finished what Bill started in 1998. You are at least correct in that it was his orders to finish the job.

* on edit - And actually the history goes back further than that. Bush(es) and Clinton(s) have tried to use the hyped-up threat of weapons of mass destruction in order to facilitate an attack against Iraq. To claim good will, innocence, ignorance or naivety on the part of any of these parties is ridiculous.

[YvonneCa]

69. I believe you...

...and I don't think Hillary wanted war in Iraq. Neither did John Kerry, who voted the same way. Neither did John Edwards, who voted the same way.

But they all believed George Bush...and that was their mistake. Bush made promises he had NO INTENTIOB of keeping...and these good Democratic Senators believed him. They did make a mistake...and Kerry and Edwards have said so. Hillary has almost said so (last debate).

It is sad when the word of a United States President means nothing. That is the crime, IMHO.

[Kahuna]

81. That's what makes it so tragic. She knew it was the wrong thing to do,

but figured when dumbya went in that it would be over quickly with few casualties like the first Gulf War. Heck! I wrote to her and told her that she could not trust bush. But she didn't read any letters. Her mind was made up. If she was going to be president, she had to appear tough. So what if a few people got killed. :eyes:

[billybob537]

10. It'll all be over tues.

Hillary will endorse Obama.
No-one is forgetting hillary trusting a criminal serial liar who had just stolen an election, with the power to invade a sovereign nation on his own accord!
So long Hillary.

[mckeown1128]

12. Ummm... I am pretty sure I remember the IWR as being a

vote to go to war. But, nice revisionism.

[zulchzulu]

13. She voted for the IWR hoping it wouldn't pass!

:rofl:

[JTFrog]

19. LOL! n/t

[Lint Head]

14. George went in to revenge the attempt on his daddy's life.

George is a petty piece of shit. The vote was to authorize the criminal in the White House to invade Iraq. The inspectors were already doing there thing. Saddam hated Bin Laden. Bin Laden is the target. They took their eyes off of the target. Anyone that voted for the resolution was blind to the facts. :dem:

[slick8790]

15. Then why did she vote against the Levin Amendment to the IWR?

"The Levin Amendment

Urged to U.N. Security Council to adopt a resolution demanding that Iraq grant immediate and unconditional access to U.N. weapons inspectors. Authorized U.S. use of force only if Iraq failed to comply with the U.N. resolution. Sponsored by Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI)

Defeated 24 - 75."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#The_Levin_Amendment


New York: Clinton (D-NY), Nay

http://iddybudjournal.blogspot.com/2008/02/levin-amendment-who-voted-for-it.html

[slick8790]

57. Kick. I'd like an answer to this. n/t

[workinclasszero]

17. Uh huh... Truth is Lies, War is Peace, Up is Down

Got it.

Is that the latest meme from the Hillary campaign??:rofl:

[monomach]

18. I believe you.

In other news, Dick Cheney shot a guy in the face to protect him from being shot.

[cali]

20. OK, Tell it to Pat Leahy:

<snip>

The opportunity and responsibility to have this debate is one of the cornerstones on which this institution, and indeed this country is built. Some have suggested that expressing misgivings or asking questions about the President's plan to attack Iraq is somehow unpatriotic. Others have tried to make it an election year issue on bumper stickers or in TV advertisements.

These attempts are misguided. They are beneath the people who make these attempts and they are beneath the issue. This is an issue of war. An issue of war should be openly debated. That is a great freedom of this Nation. We fought a revolution to have such debates.

As I and others have said over and over, declaring war is the single most important responsibility given to Congress. Unfortunately, at times like this, it is a responsibility Congress has often shirked. Too often, Congress has abdicated its responsibility and deferred to the executive branch on such matters. It should not. It should pause and read the Constitution.

In the Senate, we have a duty to the Constitution, to our consciences, and to the American people, especially our men and women in uniform, to ask questions, to discuss the benefits, the risks, the costs, to have a thorough debate and then vote to declare war or not. This body, the Senate, is supposed to be the conscience of the Nation. We should fulfill this great responsibility.

In my 28 years in the Senate, I can think of many instances when we asked questions and took the time to study the facts. It led to significant improvements in what we have done here.

I can also remember times when Senators in both parties wished they had taken more time to carefully consider the issues before them, to ask the hard questions, or make changes to the legislation, despite the sometimes overwhelming public pressure to pass the first bill that came along.

I know following the Constitution is not always politically expedient or popular. The Constitution was not designed to be politically expedient, but following the Constitution is the right course to take. It is what we are sworn to do, and there is no question that having this debate, which really began some months ago, has helped move the administration in the right direction.

Today, we are considering a resolution offered by Senator Lieberman to authorize the use of force. Article I of the Constitution gives the Congress the sole power to declare war. But instead of exercising this responsibility and voting up or down on a declaration of war, what have we done? We have chosen to delegate this authority and this burden to the executive branch.

This resolution, like others before it, does not declare anything. It tells the President: Why don't you decide; we are not going to.

This resolution, when you get through the pages of whereas clauses, is nothing more than a blank check. The President can decide when to use military force, how to use it, and for how long. This Vermonter does not sign blank checks.

<snip>


I'd love it if you responded to Leahy's statement. I doubt you'll have the guts.

[samrock]

28. George was going in NO MATTER WHAT!!

He said he already had the authority.. If he had lost the vote.. he would have lied and made up some other reason to go in..

[CTLawGuy]

29. but then the Dems fingerprints would not be all over it

where does it make sense to say, "he's going to do it anyway, why not just go along with it then?"

[samrock]

33. The dems have NO fingerpprints on this war

None, 0, zip, nada, nunca!!

This is ALL on George W and his administration.. to say otherwise lets them off the hook!! How DARE you!!!

[Hugabear]

52. Have you even read the resolution?

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

The resolution authorizes the USE OF FORCE. What the FUCK do you suppose that means?

I'm sorry, but this idea that people voted for the resolution, but didn't think that Bush would actually do it is idiocy at worst, criminal negligence at best.

[samrock]

88. It placed the ball in Bush's court

It made it up to him to decide ( which we know he already had!)... To go in.. the HOPE for most democrats who voted for this was IF inspectors were send in and IF they found no WMD's.. there would be a ground swell of opposition that would stay Bush's hand from going in!

[Hugabear]

101. That is such a crock of shit

"It placed the ball in Bush's court"

The very title of the resolution calls for the USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

If Hillary and every one else couldn't foresee that Bush wouldn't take that authorization and actually USE it, shame on them.

[cali]

35. That's NOT the fucking point. NOT EVEN CLOSE.

YOU posted a stinking pile of shit. It makes me sick. YOU fucking claimed that it wasn't a vote for war. Leahy's words AT the time of the vote makes it completely clear to everyone who isn't a moron or a filthy liar, that it was a fucking vote for war.

[samrock]

42. read my WORDS!!!

I said .. most of those voting for it ( from the democratic side).. Saw it as the last/best chance to STOP a war that was about to start no matter what!! The democrats had to work hard to get the language IN that bill about the inspectors!! There were NONE there!! Remember???? It was hoped once they were on the ground and if no WND's were found therey would BE no war..

[cali]

53. bullfucking shit.. disgusting vile bullshit.

read why they did it in Linc Chafee's new book. Read what Leahy said. Excusing this and revising history this way is NO better than holocaust denier types. It's only of a lesser magnitude, but it's still the same fucking ugly thing.

[gerrilea]

36. the idiot already had the authority to attack Iraq through the UN

wake up...quiet time is over...wake up sleeepy head...come on now...

[cali]

51. Hopelessly stupid. That's not the point.

Read Pat Leahy's speech. He's clearly a thousand times more intelligent and more informed than the likes of YOU.

[HooptieWagon]

23. LMFAO

OP is almost as ridiculous as Rove's lame attempt to claim that the Senate forced * to go to war in Iraq...

[BearSquirrel2]

24. That's the Kerry line ...

That's the John Kerry line. While I agree with the reasoning. The truth is that neither of them put up a big stink when Bush proceeded prematurely. So now they're both stuck as being Iraq War enablers.

[YvonneCa]

73. Not true. Kerry took to the Senate...

...floor to explain what Bush should do. His position was clear...and he has consistently spoke out about it. NO ONE covered it...NO ONE. The media marched down the road to war with Bush...and they now admit it.

[BearSquirrel2]

99. I think by now we all agree that Kerry and Hillary erred ...

I think by now we agree that Hillary and Kerry both erred on this issue. They tried to be responsible by giving power to an irresponsible man.

Honestly, it's best to just move on someone whose views on the issue were very plain at the time.

[DemGa]

26. Love the smug tenor of the Obamanation

It won't be forgotten should BO become the nominee -- alienating the base could prove disastrous.

Of course you'll always have the indies and repugs.

And you make great points samrock, it's amazing the audacity of BO and his followers to make political gain of this -- when BO was not even there. More of the upside down cult world of the Obamanation.

[Warren Stupidity]

70. Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Yes that is so smug.

[Adelante]

103. "alienating the base"

I am the base. Forty years a Democrat. :shrug:

[gerrilea]

27. Welcome to DU Samrock...great post!

The O supporters are part of the "mindless masses"...and don't want anyone defending Hillary, they will soon find out when the Dems loose the GE and the WH once again, the MSM doesn't report truth, just what their corporate masters want us to hear and believe...and I agree with you on Hillary's IWR understanding.

Good luck here, they've been throwing insults and personal attacks against me for 2 weeks now when ever you point out the truth to them...

[Adelante]

104. "mindless masses"

That's not an insult? Look at yourself.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

32. *

[indimuse]

39. Someone here one posted her entire speech...

I wish they would again! I think it was rodeodance.. including the video...too busy moving or I would find it..

[Exilednight]

40. So the choices for me to believe are - a. she voted for war - or - b. she got duped by.....

a man who can not string two coherent sentences together.

Either way it doesn't look good.

[samrock]

46. Option c!

C) The republicans had the votes to pass this. Adding lanaguge to get inspectors was the last/best chance to avoid a war.. None of the Obama supporters seem to acknowledge that there were no inspectors there at that time.. After the vote they went in and found NO WMD's.. but George went in any way..

[Exilednight]

50. That's grasping for a very, very short straw. n/t

[Hugabear]

59. She voted for a resolution that authorized the USE OF FORCE

Not everyone voted for that resolution. She didn't have to either.

Funny how you keep sidestepping the very title of the resolution!

[HooptieWagon]

47. or c)...

She voted for the war as a political calculation (wanting to appear "tough"), and didn't fore-see *Co's incompetence getting us into a quagmire.

[Unsane]

41. 2 + 2 = 5!!!!!

[dansolo]

45. Then why did she vote NO for the Levin amendment?

If she was voting merely to let inspectors in, and not to give Bush the authority to invade, then she should have voted for the Levin amendment which, unlike the IWR that passed, did exactly that.

[Oilwellian]

58. I've noticed Samrock hasn't answered this question

And many have asked it....samrock, what say you....

[Hugabear]

60. Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer

Just like I'll probably never get a rational response to my pointing out the very title of the resolution.

Obviously not everyone voted for the resolution, precisely because they knew what * intended to use it for.

[Hugabear]

61. See, you'd be dead by now

Obviously samrock has no answer!

[samrock]

66. Look I'll be honest

I have NO clue about that.. BUT.. lets be honest and put our cards on the table..

Are you soo naive to belive that IF this measure had NOT passed that George would STILL not have sent our forces into Iraq using spin and lies to cover his worthless ass???

[Hugabear]

71. I have no doubts about that

Bush would have gone into Iraq regardless, you're right about that. It was one of his goals coming into office, to avenge the attempt on his daddy's life, and to finish what his daddy started.

However, it doesn't excuse those who voted for the IWR. I remember the debate around that time, it was quite obvious that Bush wanted to go into Iraq, and that he wanted Congressional authorization. Bush was pushing this resolution as the 'patriotic' thing to do.

The fact is, Hillary and many other Democrats did vote for the resolution, therefore they have blood on their hands as well.

[samrock]

76. no! No! No!!

You can NOT say that!! If you agree with me that George would have gone in no matter WHAT!! Than the blood is all on HIS hands... and his advisors hands!! They are the ones who started this GOD DAMN war.. If ya want to vote for Obama for what ever reason.. go ahead.. but do NOT try and place the blood where it does not lie.. This is HIS WAR!! If Hillary, or Bill or ANY democrat had been president when the IWR passed NONE of them would have sent troops INTO Iraq!! Please tell you belive THAT statement????

[Hugabear]

79. Sorry, keep trying to spin it

The UNDENIABLE fact is that Bush decided that he was going to act within the framework of the Constitution, and sought authorization from Congress to use military force against Iraq - which Congress GAVE him.

[samrock]

83. Bwhahahahahahaha

Bush decided that he was going to act within the framework of the Constitution..


boy NOW you are getting weak!!!

[Hugabear]

85. He was, at least back then

You're having an awful tough time trying to justify your candidate voting FOR the authorization to use military force, aren't you?

Bush went before Congress to get authorization. Congress GRANTED him that authorization. Bush used that authorization to invade Iraq.

Is any of that sinking into your head?

[samrock]

87. ok answer this...

IF congress had NOT passed the IWR are you SO naive to think Bush would have not come up with some other lame excuse covered in lies to get the troops into Iraq??????

[Hugabear]

100. Is that all you can come up with?

Seriously - the only rebuttal you have is "well, IF they hadn't, blah blah blah"

We can talk hypotheticals all day long, but the fact remains that Congress DID authorize the use of force.

I am NOT going to sit here and entertain your stupid hypothetical questions because they are pointless.

[still_one]

49. The IWR over rode the WAR POWERS ACT. It had nothing to do with whether bush

could or could NOT go into Iraq

What it did do is REMOVE MANDATORY CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT if bush DID go into Iraq

Why would Congress want to take Congressional oversight if bush decided to go into Iraq?

The War Powers Act says very clearly:

If troops are comitted to an area, the War powers act would kick in 60 days. At that time Congress could do one the following:

1. Declare war
2. Remove troops immediately from the conflict
3. Extend the troops stay for clean-up operations

That is the outrage of the IWR, because it over-rode the War Powers Act

I would love someone to ask ANYONE who voted for that resolution if they understood that it overrode the War Powers Act?

[Window]

54. Bull

Pre-War Militarism
Senator Clinton’s militaristic stance on Iraq predated her support for Bush’s 2003 invasion. For example, in defending the brutal four-day U.S. bombing campaign against Iraq in December 1998 – known as Operation Desert Fox – she claimed that “he so-called presidential palaces … in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left.” In reality, as became apparent when UN inspectors returned in 2002 as well as in the aftermath of the invasion and occupation, there were no weapons labs, stocks of weapons or missing records in these presidential palaces. In addition, Saddam was still allowing for virtually all inspections to go forward at the time of the 1998 U.S. attacks. The inspectors were withdrawn for their own safety at the encouragement of President Clinton in anticipation of the imminent U.S.-led assault.

Senator Clinton also took credit for strengthening U.S. ties with Ahmad Chalabi, the convicted embezzler who played a major role in convincing key segments of the administration, Congress, the CIA, and the American public that Iraq still had proscribed weapons, weapons systems, and weapons labs. She has expressed pride that her husband’s administration changed underlying U.S. policy toward Iraq from “containment” – which had been quite successful in defending Iraq’s neighbors and protecting its Kurdish minority – to “regime change,” which has resulted in tragic warfare, chaos, dislocation, and instability.

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4802

[leftofthedial]

55. what a crock.

Saddam never "kicked out" the inspectors.

The meaning and intent of the IWR was and is self evident. It gave king george the unilateral right to do whatever he wanted regarding Iraq. His administration was led by neocons who had spent YEARS calling for an invasion of Iraq and who had spent the last months threatening to do just that.

Anyone who claims otherwise now is lying. Anyone who did not know then that king george would use the IWR to invade Iraq, was as stupid as a mud brick.

[gerrilea]

62. Wait a minute, weren't there plans to invade Iraq already drawn up

during his 1st month in office...and I really wish someone could explain how any of the Senators that voted for it could possible know these facts, the *ush administration has been the most secretive in our history...let alone how could an oppposition Senator, i.e Hillary, have any knowledge of this prior to the IWR? Now she must be psychic too?

[Warren Stupidity]

68. Yes there were and this was the legislation that authorized the execution

of those plans. But that is irrelevant. Everyone knew, including Clinton, that 'yes' on this resolution was a vote for war.

[neverforget]

78. It doesn't matter when the plans were drawn up but the fact that they were

debating a resolution to authorize the use of force should have been the first clue that war was close.

[leftofthedial]

90. I knew. 90% of the people on this board knew.

Millions of people who protested during the lead-up to war knew.

All our traditional western allies knew. Only Britain (for reasons only Tony Blair and the Carlyle Group know) supported king george.

But most of the "democrats" in the Senate supported him.

It din't take a psychic. It took someone with two brain cells and a spine.

[whatchamacallit]

56. Cue the calliope, a clown's entered the ring

:crazy:

[Johnny__Motown]

63. Welcome to DU, good luck out there

[mmonk]

65. Better let the Iraqis know.

[Warren Stupidity]

67. Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

There is nothing else to say.

[neverforget]

74. Explain this to me: if bush was going to invade no matter what, then why

did Clinton (and other Democrats) give him authority to do so? why would giving him authority help the Democrats if they knew this war shouldn't be fought? What do you think of those Democrats that voted against the war? I think they had the courage to stand up against a President who used fear (terrorists/Saddam/"nukular" weapons/drones attacking the US) as a weapon to get what he wanted. Were the ones who voted against the war resolution just smart enough to see through the lies of Bush or were the Democrats who voted for the resolution gullible enough to believe those lies? The easy vote at the time was a vote for the resolution because of Bush's popularity, the media drumbeat for war and the closeness to 9/11. The difficult vote was going against Bush and the media. We invaded and we all know how that worked out so what does that say about the judgment of those voting for that resolution?

[samrock]

86. Explaning..

Explain this to me:

if bush was going to invade no matter what, then why did Clinton (and other Democrats) give him authority to do so?

They were after getting inspectors INTO Iraq and HOPED if they found no WND's Bush would not go into Iraq.

why would giving him authority help the Democrats if they knew this war shouldn't be fought?

I think most of the democrats who voted for where not thinking.. Gee I wonder how this helps me??? But try to throw roadblocks on to the road to war as they KNEW as things stood at that time nothing was going to stop it..

What do you think of those Democrats that voted against the war?

They probably thought that they were doping the right thing.

I think they had the courage to stand up against a President who used fear (terrorists/Saddam/"nukular" weapons/drones attacking the US) as a weapon to get what he wanted. Were the ones who voted against the war resolution just smart enough to see through the lies of Bush or were the Democrats who voted for the resolution gullible enough to believe those lies?

No most who voted yes saw thru the lies as well they just HOPED putting in inspectors might dely and even stop the war from happening..

The easy vote at the time was a vote for the resolution because of Bush's popularity, the media drumbeat for war and the closeness to 9/11. The difficult vote was going against Bush and the media. We invaded and we all know how that worked out so what does that say about the judgment of those voting for that resolution?

That Bush did not care if inspectors where there are not.. as a matter of fact he order them out when he saw what a good job they were doing and was afraid they might ruin his shot to be a war time president..

[neverforget]

94. HOPE is not a plan.

[AtomicKitten]

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

[Why Syzygy]

82. Ha ha . I thought you were kidding. nt/

[MadBadger]

84. Congrats on your DUmbzy!

[AZBlue]

91. Of all the delusional posts here lately, I believe this one wins Most Ludicrous.

Congrats!
:crazy:

[DUyellow]

92. LOL, really, this is the best you can do?

[Alexander]

93. So why did she vote "no" on the Levin Amendment?

The one that required Bush to get congressional approval before waging war.

You're ridiculous. Everyone here is laughing at the bullshit in your OP.

:rofl:

[HooptieWagon]

95. OK, question for you...

Recently, when asked if there was anything she regretted, Hillary said her IWR vote. So, she regrets voting to prevent war?

[mudesi]

96. Is it opposite day today? (nm)

[Forkboy]

98. Hindsight is 50/50

[workinclasszero]

102. What f'in bullshit!

Up is down, war is peace, etc. Your revisionist history is pathetic.

Hillary voted to let King George invade a country under false pretences...WMD!!!:scared:that was no threat to us. Period.

The fact that she has refused to apologize for it is why she doesn't deserve to be elected President.

Take that warmongering bullshit over to the Rethug party where it belongs!

[Hugabear]

105. I have a few questions that I'd like to see you answer

1. Why did Durbin, Kennedy, Feingold, Leahy, Levin, and 18 other Senators vote against the resolution?

2. Why did Hillary vote against the Levin amendment, which would have limited Bush's ability to act.

[Political Heretic]

106. This is the ninth thread with the same talking points - and you don't think its coordinated?

:eyes:

[Political Heretic]

107. A vote to authorize war is a vote to authorize war - for the ninth time.

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.

[RBInMaine]

108. You need a history lesson.

[Political Heretic]

109. PS - CNN 9/17/2002 IRAQ agrees to unconditionally allow weapon inspectors in

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/16/iraq.un.letter/

When was the Authorization of the Use of Military Force in Iraq 2002 resolution passed? OCTOBER FUCKING 16, 2002

So spare me your "we had no inspectors on the ground, this was leverage blah blah blah" bullcrap.