Hillary Clinton vs Bernie Sanders on Whether to Invade Iraq - 2002

[Uncle Joe]

[BlueStateLib]

1. the democratic vote was to divert war and bring in the united nations and diplomacy

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=477670

[Uncle Joe]

3. Yes some of them did take "George W Bush at this word."

Who could possibly have forseen that Bush and Cheney would abuse their power and lie?

[Maedhros]

4. Yes - the best way to push for diplomacy

is to give Cheney and Rumsfeld the authorization to make war.

[pnwmom]

17. Not approving the IWR wouldn't have stopped the war because there was an incoming Rethug congress

which was set to give a blank-check authorization.

So some Dems agreed to give Bush an IWR subject to the UN conditions. He violated the IWR when he went in anyway,.

[George II]

23. You're being WAY to logical......

Now repeat after me:

.....Clinton voted for war, Sanders voted against it - Sanders knew bush would lie, Clinton SHOULD have known it
.....Clinton voted for war, Sanders voted against it - Sanders knew bush would lie, Clinton SHOULD have known it
.....Clinton voted for war, Sanders voted against it - Sanders knew bush would lie, Clinton SHOULD have known it
.....Clinton voted for war, Sanders voted against it - Sanders knew bush would lie, Clinton SHOULD have known it
.....Clinton voted for war, Sanders voted against it - Sanders knew bush would lie, Clinton SHOULD have known it
.....Clinton voted for war, Sanders voted against it - Sanders knew bush would lie, Clinton SHOULD have known it
.....Clinton voted for war, Sanders voted against it - Sanders knew bush would lie, Clinton SHOULD have known it
.....Clinton voted for war, Sanders voted against it - Sanders knew bush would lie, Clinton SHOULD have known it
.....Clinton voted for war, Sanders voted against it - Sanders knew bush would lie, Clinton SHOULD have known it
.....Clinton voted for war, Sanders voted against it - Sanders knew bush would lie, Clinton SHOULD have known it
.....Clinton voted for war, Sanders voted against it - Sanders knew bush would lie, Clinton SHOULD have known it
.....Clinton voted for war, Sanders voted against it - Sanders knew bush would lie, Clinton SHOULD have known it
.....Clinton voted for war, Sanders voted against it - Sanders knew bush would lie, Clinton SHOULD have known it
.....Clinton voted for war, Sanders voted against it - Sanders knew bush would lie, Clinton SHOULD have known it
.....Clinton voted for war, Sanders voted against it - Sanders knew bush would lie, Clinton SHOULD have known it

[bvar22]

64. Oh Yes!

That is WHY Hillary gave such an impassioned Press Conference decrying the abuse of the Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq during Shock & Awe.
When she accused Bush & Rummy of illegally invading Iraq, I thought I would have a heart attack.
.
.
.
.
.
Oh, wait a minute.
That NEVER happened.
Hillary seemed just fine with her vote that needlessly killed a MILLION Innocent Iraqis until YEARS later.
.
.
.
.
I wouldn't be able to live in my skin if I had those Million innocent deaths dragging along behind me every day.

[Martin Eden]

15. Do you think Hillary Clinton really believed Bush/Cheney would act in good faith regarding Iraq?

I ask the question because anyone who actually believed they would act in good faith had to be woefully ignorant about the neocon agenda and the Bush administration's utter disdain for the UN ... or they lacked the intellectual capacity required for the job of US senator/representative.

When the Bush administration was ready to plunge into war before the UN inspectors could complete their work, did Hillary Clinton lead the charge to demand the inspectors be allowed to continue?

The inspectors were already beginning to conclude the extensive infrastructure necessary for a nuclear weapons program simply didn't exist in Iraq. The real imminent threat was that the primary rationale for the war would vanish along with the "mushroom clouds" Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice told the American people to fear.

By the time March 2003 rolled around there was more than enough BS rhetoric coming out of the White House Iraq Group to conclude they were engaged in a fraudulent marketing campaign to sell the war. The time for Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Biden, et al to make amends for their inexcusable IWR vote was BEFORE Bush forced out the inspectors and launched Shock & Awe.

Real Democratic leadership was desperately needed to avert this disaster. It may have been too late once they stupidly gave GW authority to launch the war at his discretion, but the least they could have done was stand up and demand the UN inspectors be allowed to complete their work.

When they failed to do that, they forfeited my support in any Democratic future primary. It was the most critically important test of their careers in Congress, and they betrayed the trust the voters placed in them.

[ozone_man]

20. One would be naive to think

That the neocons wouldn't rush to war, wouldn't find a pretext to war, a false flag like yellow cake uranium, or chemical weapons, WMDs. I guess HRC and JK are enablers, not leaders able to see through the BS. Or, simply covering their asses, which I think most likely.

I had a lawn sign in my yard that said "No Iraq War", for about 3 months as the shameless Democrats caved to support that war. I always hold their noses to the atrocity that they enabled, ISIS, killing a million Iraquis, the destruction of the Fertile Crescent, birthplace of civilization. Any candidate who couldn't see that coming is not worthy of my consideration. Bernie did. Many of us did. But we were all speaking truth from our hearts.

[George II]

24. Yeah, years later "one would be naive to think"

[leveymg]

34. Some are so naive that they never learn. They just double-down.

No war is so ruinous that it can't be redeemed by a bigger one. "Real men do Tehran", right?

[PowerToThePeople]

37. It is funny to me, the view you are taking

When I see George II, one specific person comes to mind.

[George II]

40. Who might that be?

[John Poet]

47. King George the 3rd. LOL

But I think they meant George W. Bush

[ozone_man]

45. No, not years later, in 2002,

when this all went down. Anyone of moral fiber could see that there was no reason to invade, or any reason to vote for the Iraq War Resolution.

[sibelian]

59. ... how weird. You know, that kind of *sounds* like a criticism...

... but I can't see even how anyone realising years later that one might have been naive about something would be the wrong position.

[cali]

63. bullfuckingshit. as Leahy told her, it's giving Bush a blank check to go to war.

Hillary chose to believe Bush Cheney over Leahy, Kennedy, byrd, Wellstone, etc

[pnwmom]

27. Do you really think it mattered whether Bush got the conditional IWR that fall

or had to wait till January to get his blank check IWR from the new Rethug Congress?

He would have gone to war that spring no matter what.

[Martin Eden]

31. There was not a rethug congress when the IWR vote was taken in October 2002

And if the Democrats would have shown some spine and stood up against the lies and the looming disaster, there might not have been a rethug congress. REAL Democrats have a better chance to win than rethug-lite Democrats.

To answer your question more directly, HELL YES IT MATTERED regardless of how the November midterm election turned out.

IT MATTERS that our elected representatives stand up for the interests of the American people and vote against a disastrous rush to war -- even if they lose that vote.

If you have to ask the question WHY it matters, let me ask you this:

If rethugs controlled Congress and the White house and introduced legislation to privatize Social Security or to completely defund Planned Parenthood -- and they were sure to win that vote -- would you have no objection to Democrats going along with that and voting with the Republican majority???

Elected representatives who stick their finger in the wind and vote with the majority regardless of how utterly wrong the policy, DO NOT represent the interests of the people who voted them into office. THEY DESERVE TO LOSE in a Democratic primary, and anyone who supports them is seriously misguided.

[pnwmom]

46. You're forgetting the atmosphere of those post 9/11 days. The "law and order" party was a shoe-in

for that election.

[Martin Eden]

51. WTF does "law and order" have to do with invading Iraq?

A solid case can be made that the invasion and the lies leading up to it were crimes, if you want to talk about the law.

I haven't forgotten the fraudulent fearmongering and people running out to buy duct tape & plastic sheeting to seal up their windows against biochem weapons. I was here at DU in 2002.

What kind of leadership do you want for the Democratic Party -- calculating politicians who stick their finger in the wind and jump aboard the war wagon that's heading over the cliff -- or strong leaders who are not afraid to speak truth to power and stand up for the interests of the American people?

Doing it the way you apparently support (jumping aboard the war wagon) was NOT a winning strategy for the 2002 midterm elections. Democrats lost control of congress.

And Democratic voters along with independents had equal contempt for both parties when "Mission Accomplished" devolved into protracted bloody chaos like so many here predicted. I'm not saying a strong principled stance would have won the 2002 election, though I'm not ruling that out. I'm saying the Democratic Party and its leaders (including Hillary Clinton) would now be in a much stronger position politically if they had the smarts and the courage to oppose the idiotic rush to war in 2002 & 2003.

No matter how you slice it, congressional Democrats who voted for the war (slightly less than half the Senate/House total) helped to enable a disaster that has been extremely costly in blood, treasure, and national security. They failed us when we needed them the most.

Those who try to rationalize or excuse that failure really need to step back and ask themselves why, then consider supporting candidates who showed much better judgement.

[pnwmom]

52. Terrorism. The Rethugs had convinced the majority of voters that Iraq was a terrorist threat,

in the wake of the trauma of 9/11.

[Martin Eden]

53. Should no effort have be made to dispell the lies or to prevent a disaster?

You have been consistently trying to defend Democratic "leaders" who failed to make that effort.

If their strategy was to hold on to Congress, it was a losing strategy and can't be defended for that reason.

But that's a secondary reason. First and foremost is don't go along with the cabal that is misleading the American people into a costly disaster. Apparently that's not a deal breaker for you in terms of who you're willing to support in a Democratic primary, but it is for me and many others.

[pnwmom]

61. They tried to prevent the disaster by making going into the war CONDITIONAL

upon meeting the UN conditions, including finding weapons of mass destruction.

But the Bush administration simply ignored the conditions.

[Martin Eden]

66. If Hillary believed GW would abide the UN, she's an idiot

The only condition with any reigns on the Bush administration's obvious intent for war would have been to take the decision out of his hands. A vote for the IWR in October 2002 was a vote for war, period.

When it became obvious Bush was going to kick out the inspectors and start the war, did she stand up in the Senate and demand the "conditions" be met?

No. She was on board with the neocon agenda, and is not to be trusted.

[Duppers]

48. +100

Zing.

[jeff47]

16. Great! Link me the massive Democratic revolt when Bush "double-crossed" them. (nt)

[cali]

62. bullfuckingshit. they should have listened to their wiser peers

As pat Leahy said, vote for the fucking iwr and you're voting to give George Bush a blank check to go to war.

[99th_Monkey]

2. More "Hillary-hating"?

Bernie's running ON his record, Hillary's running AWAY from hers.

[Maedhros]

6. Oh, come on now!

You can't hold her own actions against her!

[George II]

25. Yep.

[sabrina 1]

5. Bernie was so right in his predictions back then. What a horrific tragedy it has all been

one that will be remembered hundreds of years from now.

And that was the night I learned that 'my' party wasn't going to stand up against the war criminals who were so obviously lying to us, so despicably USING 9/11 so they get their War For Profit going. I still cannot believe that our elected officials were not able to see the con game that was being played.

[Uncle Joe]

8. I agree, sabrina, Bernie was most prescient and

on more than just the war issue.

[George II]

26. So then why is "your" candidate running for President after rebuffing "your" party for decades?

Convenience?

[sibelian]

56. No party is above it's actions, George.

Not even the Democrats.

[AtomicKitten]

7. Thank you for this.

The vote that enabled this immoral and illegal not to mention ill-advised 'preemptive strike' invasion needs sunlight. Voters need to reflect on this vote.

Again, thank you for taking the time to post this. It will serve to reinforce the resolve of those determined to enforce encountability.

[Uncle Joe]

11. Congresswoman Barbara Lee.

Thanks for the addition, AtomicKitten.

[whatchamacallit]

9. A powerful contrast of judgement n/t

[WillyT]

10. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[Vattel]

12. Sanders' standard was the right one. He demanded an imminent threat

and pointed out that the available intelligence indicated that no such threat existed. Clinton was willing to go to war without an imminent threat, even invoking 911 in a pathetic "we can't risk it happening again" argument. The difference in the quality of their thinking about the issue is stark.

[Uncle Joe]

13. Yes but who could've predicted that Bush and Cheney would abuse their power and lie?

In all honesty Bernie was spot on "war should be the last resort, not the first."

[PowerToThePeople]

38. Uh, everyone who was paying attention.

I am fairly sure there was a time when support for the AUMF would have resulted in a tombstone on DU.

Man, this place has gone downhill.

edit - I did not catch the sarcasm in your post when I first read it.

[Uncle Joe]

39. And this is especially true for those in power. n/t

[dflprincess]

42. I don't know --

anyone who paid attention on how they "won" the 2000 election? Those who were aware of Cheney's past membership in PNAC? Those who remembered he had been CEO of a company that was near bankruptcy but stood to make a hell of a lot of money of a war?

Maybe those people would have suspected they might have a tendency to abuse power and lie.

[Uncle Joe]

43. A most astute observation, dflprincess.

Peace to you.

[dflprincess]

44. And to you

back

[Zorra]

14. I was at an event in early 2000, where Barbara Kingsolver was speaking.

Last edited Wed Aug 19, 2015, 09:04 PM - Edit history (1)

She was speaking about the many differences between Al Gore, and George W. Bush, and making comparisons between them.

That particular segment of the discussion ended with her saying this:

"So who are you going to vote for? The smarter one, or the other one?"


I voted for the smarter one.

Always vote for the smarter one, sisters and brothers.

Smart (adj): having, or showing, a quick-witted intelligence.

Example of usage: "If she was smart, she never would have been tricked".

[slipslidingaway]

19. ^^^^^^^^^^^^ n/t

[George II]

28. Excellent logic - I'm voting for Clinton.

[TheKentuckian]

50. Tricked is actually what poorer excuse than just being wrong in my eyes.

Especially someone that is supposed to have a broad and deep understanding of foreign policy.

Iraq was under a fucking aircap and and a blockade, they posed less of a threat to us than Belgium and 70 years of bipartisan policy would be a blaring bright red tell tale that the risks of regional destabilization were extreme.

Being tricked would require both a high level of contextual ignorance and a heaping helping of plain old, unfixable stupidity.

Wrong is at least something that can be learned from, tricked means rock skulled stupidity for folks that are supposed to be in the loop.

For tricked to be a redeeming excuse the story has to at least be reasonably plausible. I've not heard a reasonable explanation for not seeing right through the 3rd grade level lies and nonsense used to sell the whole thing.

I also have to point out in regards to Clinton that there is precious little indication she has learned anything and plenty to indicate she is just a hawk. She was still defending the shit in 2007 and 2008 which I'm calling well past any possible "tricked" window.

All she did was as quietly as a church mouse walk it back a little by finally admitting be wrong with a snippet in a book for fans and supporters and that only because it costed her an election so she had to weakly patch that flank while continuing to be one of the most saber rattling and even scary in a John McShame kind of way people you can find, the best and only reasonable hope is a facade to stave off accusations of being "weak on defense" and "too timid to be Commander in Chief".
Not particularly encouraging because I'm not seeing the crack in the presentation or catching any winks and nods nor am I comfortable with how one gets escape velocity from the heavy drag of the gravity of this multi decade tactic but at least something with at least some internally consistent logic.

If people would at least accept that doesn't at least equal "the dog ate my homework" is best left unsaid.

At least it is reasonably possible for a dog to get a hold of a piece of paper but it is also universally held as weak sauce so we ought to make that the floor.

No way, no how were people as connected, educated, experienced, and intelligent as the likes of Kerry, Clinton, and Biden tricked. Practically impossible particularly for Biden who had all the plum chairs to allow what should be high level awareness and Kerry nearly as unexcusable.

Clinton bugs because it just fits right in her SOP too well. I see a person who is just ideologically at least leans interventionist but it isn't the easy sell it used to be and a good portion of those who can be sold turn sour pretty quick.
Kerry at least had a life story that made it possible to buy a one off/would never initiate fable.

[Uncle Joe]

54. I agree, TheKentuckian the story was never reasonably plausible and this

would hold especially true for people in the know, those in power.

You make many good points.

[Zorra]

58. Thanks. You make some good points. Unfortunately, the alternatives to

"tricked", or "wrong", in the scenario you have described, in terms of the (ostensible at least) cultural mores of US society, are descriptors like "morally corrupt", or "deliberately evil".

Some would argue that there are gray areas. But there are no gray areas in taking deliberate, informed action to commit unjustified acts of mass destruction and genocide. You either do the right thing, or the wrong thing. There is no in between, no wiggle room, no 'splainin it away.

What kind of human being would deliberately help initiate mass destruction and genocide? George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are two examples of this type of human being.


What kind of human being do we, as responsible and informed citizens, want to elect to be POTUS and Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces? Who do we want to trust the lives of our children, grandchildren, family, friends, neighbors, and communities with?

I will posit here that it is not someone who takes deliberate action to engage in unjustifiable acts of mass destruction and genocide. And even if we run with scenarios like "tricked", or "wrong", there is still the stark reality of poor judgment leading to mass destruction and the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and the tragic, senseless waste of the lives of US soldiers, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

Whatever the case may be, I'm not taking any chances. I'm going with the clearly ethical choice here, the candidate who clearly demonstrated moral integrity and sound judgment, who advocated against, and acted against, deliberately committing unjustified acts of mass destruction and genocide.

The good guy. The smart one.

[Kenjie]

18. This is one reason why

I trust Bernie. This is why I believe him more than any other politician when he tells us what he believes and what he intends to do. We need his kind of wisdom in the White House. The Iraq war vote was one of the most important issues in our recent history and right here for everyone to see is the report card on both candidate's judgement. I really hope that Democrats and the American people as a whole will be as sober with our votes as Bernie has so often been with his.

[jfern]

21. Hillary was pants on fire lying about Saddam Al Qaeda connection

In her speech when she voted for a $2 trillion war without reading any of the intelligence report, she said

He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001."

Former Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Sen. Bob Graham, D-Florida, said it was a spurious claim: "I don’t think any agency pretended to make a case that there was a strong linkage between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. It wasn’t in the N.I.E."

Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., "actively assailed the reports of Al Qaeda in Iraq, calling them ‘much exaggerated.’ Senator Dianne Feinstein of California described any link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda as ‘tenuous.’ The Democratic senator who came closest to echoing Clinton’s remarks about Hussein’s supposed assistance to Al Qaeda was Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut. Yet even Lieberman noted that ‘the relationship between Al Qaeda and Saddam’s regime is a subject of intense debate within the intelligence community.’"

Not even Lieberman was willing to say it was a sure thing. And Hillary did. She sent 4000 Americans to their grave for her lie. She is a lying warmonger.

https://web.archive.org/web/20150325230101/http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2007/10/how-hillary-cli/

[Uncle Joe]

29. WMD Lies

But who expected anything better from these people?

That's what boggles the mind.

[George II]

22. WHY is the bush recount video included in a post about Clinton and Sanders in 2002?

[Uncle Joe]

30. It's a testament to the Bush cabal's lack of integrity, an early warning and the same MO was used

in the run up to the war with Iraq.

The only difference being you need to substitute the words "the votes have been counted and recounted" which was a blatant lie and this was repeated ad nauseum.

With Iraq the words were Saddam Hussein, 9/11, and WMDs all blatant lies but they were repeated ad nauseum as well by Bush, Cheney et al along with the corporate media until at one point 70% of the American People actually believed Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Anyone paying attention to the selection of 2000 had to know Bush and Cheney had no moral fiber or integrity and in short they could not be trusted, this goes double for a sitting United States Senator and one would think especially so for one from the opposition party representing the very people that were screwed out of their right to vote and have their votes counted.

[punguin54]

33. amen

[punguin54]

32. Almost starts out as a Sanders vs Clinton debate

Bernie will (should) destroy Hillary in the debates if the dnc allows them.

[PowerToThePeople]

35. K&R to the max. n/t

[Catherina]

36. "I cast it with conviction". Well my conviction is that you're unfit Hillary

Thanks for this thread and especially the videos, Uncle Joe

[Uncle Joe]

41. You're most welcome, Catherina.

Peace to you.

[Duppers]

49. Great post, Uncle Joe.

Big thumbs up for many of the replies too.

[Uncle Joe]

65. Thanks, Duppers.

Peace to you.

[brooklynite]

55. And your point in bringing this up?

I ask because, while you're perfectly free to make your decision on this and this alone, the same issue was brought up in 2008, and Clinton got as many votes as Barack Obama (the anti-IWR candidate). Do you expect a different result?

[sibelian]

57. I don't see how her vote count in 2008 ameliorates her position?

What are you actually saying, brooklynite? That we should support people who act as enablers of America's abuse of other nations because people are more likely to vote for them?

[Uncle Joe]

60. I'm not making my decision on this and this alone, I support Bernie Sanders

on a wide range of issues.

Having said that trust is critically important as is judgment and on both criteria, I feel that Bernie is second to no one.

As for different results, two points.

1. Today's reality is different than 2008 as Isis has spread across the region and the Republicans are screaming for war with Iran.

2. Some here have stated that Bernie wouldn't come close to Hillary Clinton's vote totals, so 1% less or more would be considered a victory by many, of course I prefer for Bernie to win.

[morningfog]

67. Wow! DUers supporting the IWR now. UN fucking believable.

If one bends to defend that vote, they cannot be viewed as critical thinkers, credible, or good faith debaters. Fuck that.