If Hillary had vociferously opposed the Iraq War Resolution

[lovemydog]

and really taken the lead on opposing it, is there a chance it would not have passed?

[Bluzmann57]

1. We'll never know.

[lovemydog]

5. True, we'll ever know for certain.

I'm hoping some smart people here can give some indication of their views on it. I know it's pure speculation. But I'm really interested in others' thoughts.

I opposed the IWW. Even wrote to both my senators and my congressman asking them to oppose it. One senator and my congressman voted no. I remember at the time, a day or two after the vote, having lunch with my dad. He said 'I think her vote will cost her the presidency.' Of course he was referring to the next election and he proved correct.

I know it's been a long time. But I still have a very serious question about her poor judgement on that vote. If my dad and I, my congressman and a senator in my State voted no on that resolution, I know a lot of other people at that time did not trust or believe the Bush Administration's proclamations.

I believe the Iraq War was an absolute disaster. It set our country back, massively increased the deficit, de-stabilized the region, let to the rise of ISIS, cost us dearly in terms of the money spent, and (perhaps this is more debatable but I really do believe it) led to our financial crisis of which we still haven't fully recovered.

[1StrongBlackMan]

2. Ahhh ... I think results matter more than symbolism ...

that's so precious!

[PoliticAverse]

3. It would have passed anyway but she likely would have defeated Obama in 2008. n/t

[virtualobserver]

4. Is she the great leader that Hillary supporters believe her to be?

I would have appreciated it if she had tried.

[lovemydog]

6. Same here.

[virtualobserver]

8. unlike most Senators, she was a national figure

If she was forceful, she could have had an impact.

Like many ambitious Democrats, she was afraid to be caught on the wrong side.

She bet the wrong way and ended up on the wrong side anyway.

[lovemydog]

10. That's how it strikes me too.

I'm hoping for different opinions on this thread.

But yes, that's how I feel. As I recall, she didn't want to be seen as being against the war, because that could hurt her chances in the general election. And that's one of the reasons I started giving the other candidates a strong look and when I saw Barack Obama speaking I liked him and supported him strongly. I still support President Obama to this day.

[virtualobserver]

13. There are so few people who could have changed things...Bush's father would be the only....

person who could have had more of an impact than Hillary......He tried, with a surrogate, Brent Scowcroft.
If he could have done it personally....he could have achieved it.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1029371773228069195

[lovemydog]

14. If all Democrats had voted against it

would it have passed?

I'm sorry I don't remember it all so well.

Fascinating anecdote that H. tried to stop W. via Scowcroft.

What a tragedy all the way around.

And so bizarre seeing Jeb in last night's debate saying the war was a mistake but now we should go back in and bomb the region to smithereens. I'd never vote for that guy.

So tragic also, of course, that Gore didn't assume office. I don't think his Administration would have started that war.

[virtualobserver]

19. if all Democrats had voted no, it would have lost 52-48 in the Senate

Gore wouldn't have even thought of Iraq. There was no reason to do so.

9/11 might not have happened under a President Gore.

But....if it had, the Republicans would have behaved like traitors.....

It would have been Benghazi times 1000....they would have tried to impeach Gore.

[PoliticAverse]

21. If all Democrats had voted against it it wouldn't have passed. n/t

[NCTraveler]

7. +1 nt

[ljm2002]

9. Never underestimate the power...

...that one person can have. Had Hillary Clinton or any other Senator opposed the IWR, there is a chance they could have swayed their peers. Not likely, of course, but a chance.

What we DO know, is that if NO ONE has the courage to oppose something like the IWR, there is no chance of stopping it.

IMO, Hillary Clinton (along with many others) voted as she did for political reasons. She knew it was flawed but she was loathe to take a principled stand at a time of high patriotic fervor. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that she lacks political courage -- regardless of whether she could have changed the outcome had she actively opposed it.

This conclusion is further reinforced by her positions on things like gay marriage, where she was against it until it was politically expedient for her to be for it. Maybe she was for it all along, as some here contend; but if so, she should have had the courage to say so when it didn't help her politically. And of course most recently we have heard her refuse to take any position at all on the Keystone XL pipeline, saying we should wait until she is elected to find out her position -- which is even worse, as it combines political cowardice with political arrogance.

[lovemydog]

11. Yes, quite true.

That time period really pissed me off and I found it incredibly depressing.

I generally don't come out and attack other democrats too strongly.

But I think this is an issue worth discussing.

It's probably the biggest reason why, while I like her very much on many other issues, I'm still critical of her on this one.

I would vote for her over any republican in the general election, though.

[ljm2002]

12. Agreed -- I would vote for her...

...over any republican in the general election.

She is not my first choice though.

[lovemydog]

16. I'm still undecided

but really trying to give every candidate a fair shake - including Martin O'Malley.

[dsc]

22. several Senators did

including the then longest and second longest serving Democrats in the Senate (Byrd and Kennedy). If they couldn't get the Senate to agree to oppose the war just how would Clinton have.

[ljm2002]

26. Who are you arguing with?

I said, and I quote: "...there is a chance they could have swayed their peers. Not likely, of course, but a chance."

NOT LIKELY, OF COURSE

I know what the political realities were at the time.

However, if more Senators had had the POLITICAL COURAGE to stand against the IWR, it might have been different.

We'll never know. And at this point it's water under the bridge.

However, I have found Hillary Clinton's stances on foreign policy to be a lot more war-mongerish than I like anyway.

[TM99]

15. Yes, I believe if she had taken a strong leadership role

then quite possibly it would not have passed. Now that does not mean Bush would not have had his war, but he would not have had the tacit support of Congress.

Clinton, as one of the senators from New York, could have stood up and said bluntly that Hussein and Iraq were not responsible for 9/11. To use this as an excuse is uncalled for and a brazen act of emotional propaganda. Bring to justice Bin Laden, yes. Attack Iraq using the pretense of 9/11, no.

Had she done something like that, people would have listen. She is also a former First Lady. This would have started a dialog about what other lies were being told to gin up support for this war.

Sadly, Clinton is just not cut from that type of leadership material. She went along to get along. She did not want to look weak on terrorism. Or she did not want to look weak in general on foreign policy especially since she and everyone else knew she was going to run for president. Or she really didn't give a shit because her foreign policy stances are equally neo-conservative. She may have supported PNAC plan from the get go. She knew who they were and what they wanted. Hell they lobbied her husband when he was president to act more decisively with regards to their foreign policy world view.

We will never know. We simply know that she did not speak out. She, like too damned many other wussy Democrats, allow Bush and company to get their war on.

[lovemydog]

17. Thanks for your thoughts.

I'm wondering if the resolution would have been defeated if every democrat had voted against it.

[TM99]

18. If every Democrat had, I don't know.

I am not sure Dems had the numbers to control congress enough to effect that but they certainly would have been the opposition party we fucking bloody well needed at the time for them to be.

[PoliticAverse]

23. If every Democrat in the Senate had voted against it it wouldn't have passed....

As it actually happened though the vote wasn't close, it was 77-23:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

[lovemydog]

25. Thank you.

Tragic. That time period was so strange. I think I've blocked a lot of it out of my mind. The rush to war. It was surreal. All that nonsense about the liberators being greeted with flowers. All the death and injuries both mental and physical. Getting called unpatriotic by a (former) friend was one of the many low points for me.

[dsc]

28. Yeah but if just one had it would have

and that is if they couldn't twist Chaffee's arm who was the only Republican no vote. I don't know when he announced opposition but it is likely he did so after two Democrats announced support.

[artislife]

32. These are the people who paid

the price for everyone who thought political career or God and voted for that war.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-children-of-iraq-was-the-price-worth-it/30760

[dsc]

20. No

Remember Byrd and Kennedy who had been in the Senate for literally ages by that time opposed it vociferously. If they couldn't convince their fellow Senators it is hard to believe that a Senator who had been there for less than 3 years could do so. They got every Republican but one, and thus needed only one Democrat with Cheney breaking the resulting tie. No way, no how would a vote for war been filibustered but even if it could have been they only would have needed 11 Democrats or less than half of those who did vote for the war.

[JI7]

24. it wouldn't have stopped the war itself

As long as bush was in office

[HassleCat]

27. No difference

The blood lust was running high. Bush wanted to be a "wartime president" and America wanted revenge for the 9/11 attacks. Those who spoke out against the resolution knew they were standing in the path of a bison stampede.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. Given the fact that 77% of Senate Democrats voted for IWR the answer would seem to be no.

eom

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. 58%, not 77% . I made a mistake. My answer is still no.

[Cheese Sandwich]

30. The vote shows bad judgement.

I think that's the reason people get criticized for supporting horrible wars. Not because their vote was literally the one deciding vote. But because it was was of many deciding votes. It shows that while serving as a US Senator the person didn't have enough common sense to vote against a disastrous military adventure. Also when combined with several other examples of bad judgement it shows a pattern.

[lovemydog]

31. Those are good points.

Thanks CS.

[artislife]

33. This is an example

Of saying no one thing matters. It wouldn't change anything. Go with the flow. Work inside the system.


People die every day around the world due to conflict. This one moment in time, changed our country


Why should there be war journalists, they can't stop the war? They don't have the power....

I say make the stand, be the first one....don't be the 100th one.

~

So one vote can lead to another and to another.

Why do they have hostage negotiators? To talk it out.

[Cheese Sandwich]

35. Yes and for the Iraq war vote, it really wouldn't have taken much leadership to be on the right side

Sen. Clinton wouldn't even have had to be a "leader" or go first or go out on a limb.

There were already leaders on both sides of the issue, and the Democratic Party was very split.

It was simply a question of picking a side. A question of choosing which side one was on.

[restorefreedom]

34. i tend to doubt it

I think she may have been able to sway other senators, but I'm not sure it would've made a difference in the final results. Darth Vader and his evil minions worked very hard to sell the war, and they had a lot of people scared from bush saying terror terror terror, and they managed to convince a number of people that saddam actually had something to do with 9/11.

I doubt it would've made a difference, but it would've gotten her on the record as opposing it. I think it might've made a big difference in her career both in 2008 and now. I know I would be thinking of her differently if she had opposed it.

[BlueMTexpat]

36. There were several Dem Senators who voted against the IWR.

Both of my MD Senators did, as did Paul Wellstone, who was extremely courageous in doing so, especially as he faced re-election in 2002. But as we know, he was tragically killed. I truly love what the Wellstone family have been doing since their tragic loss to promote activism among Democrats. http://www.wellstone.org/splash

Even Lincoln Chafee (R) voted against the IWR. http://www.democrats.com/node/6890

Generally speaking, however, it was certainly NOT the Democrats' finest hour: Harry Reid, John Kerry and Joe Biden ALL supported the IWR. Biden was Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee so he, of ALL people, certainly should have known better. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2002/10/dems-o11.html

Hillary Clinton in 2002 was the Junior Senator from New York. New York itself was still pretty traumatized from 9-11 and warmongering hawk (current traitor) Charles Schumer was the Senior Senator. It's not really an excuse but Hillary was still learning the ropes in the Senate and may have taken her cue from Schumer.

She has since admitted that her vote for the IWR was a mistake. No one can have do-overs on it, so we have to live with the reality of her vote.

Given all of the so-called Dem Senators in power who supposedly had expertise in foreign policy and who still supported it, I think that it is highly unlikely that anything Hillary had to say would have changed their minds.

[Cosmocat]

37. None, but

It is very likely she would be the outgoing potus right now ...

[oasis]

40. Hillary "vociferously" asked questions about Bush's pre-9/11 knowledge.

She addressed the Senate in May of 2002, months before the IWR vote, to ask why Bush didn't act on the intelligence he had.

Given the climate of the period, it was a brave thing to do. What would have happened if her courage in the Senate that day would have created a large enough media storm to make Bush play defense? His eroding credibility under those circumstances would have made it more difficult for members of congress to line up behind him on IWR.

[BainsBane]

41. Even better question: Would it have made any difference in the opposition to her?

Clearly not, since people admire so many others, like John Kerry, who voted for the war.

[lovemydog]

45. I opposed both Clinton and Kerry on this matter.

So did millions of us.

Would you agree that we were correct?

[jwirr]

42. What does it matter? What matters is taking a stand for right. Same on welfare reform and

Glass-Steagell. They may not have been able to stop them but they did not have to become a cheerleader. What happens when we vote with or support the Rs on issues is it gives them the right to say - "well the Democrats voted with us so we are not to blame".

I live by RFK's statement:

"Each time a man stands up for an ideal or acts to improve the lot of others or strikes our against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and caring those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance."

Hillary and Bill could have been one hell of a ripple but they chose to vote the other way. If I remember there was a huge protest against the war she voted for. Imagine what a ripple she could have added to that protest.

[Android3.14]

43. Lack of leadership is the thing

Hillary Clinton has never-ever-ever led the way on any progressive issue.

[Ken Burch]

44. At least she could say that no blood was on her hands. n/t.