Please, no more revisionsist history about Clinton's IWR vote

[Vattel]

There has been an attempt by some Clinton supporters to revise history and suggest that voting for the Iraq War Resolution authorized Bush to go to war only if doing so would be necessary to enforce UN Security Council resolutions. The claim is made that Bush "violated the resolution" by going to war even though war was not necessary to enforce those resolutions.

In fact, Bush was pretty much given a blank check. He was authorized to go to war should he determine that &quot 1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

The "or" is crucial. Bush wasn't required to enforce UN resolutions; merely determining that the "threat" to the US posed by Iraq could not be addressed without war (and that going to war was consistent with the war against Al Qaeda and her allies) was sufficient.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm

[Autumn]

1. I saw the one where she voted for it just to get the inspectors in

that was a big for me

[merrily]

4. That level of dishonesty about a war vote is dishonorable beyond words.

[Autumn]

9. No honest person who is old enough to post on a message board

could ever be a democrat and post that with a straight face. That was out and out trolling.

[merrily]

30. And then, there are some of the posts on this very thread.

[sabrina 1]

24. Yes it it very dishonorable. n/t

[Armstead]

2. Bush wasn't required to do jack shit

Just do a little kabuki dance, and then do whatever the hell he wanted.

That was obvious from the git go. Any claims otherwise is just an attempt to excuse either political cowardice or active support for what Bush wanted to do.

[saturnsring]

3. Summaries for Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002

Summaries for Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002



Library of Congress









Library of Congress Summary

The summary below was written by the Congressional Research Service, which is a nonpartisan division of the Library of Congress.


Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 - Expresses support for the President's efforts to:

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.Authorizes the President to use the U.S. armed forces to:

(1) defend U.S. national security against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. Directs the President, prior to or as soon as possible (but no later than 48 hours) after exercising such authority, to make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that:

(1) reliance on further diplomatic or peaceful means alone will not achieve the above purposes; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

Declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization for use of the armed forces, consistent with requirements of the War Powers Resolution.Requires the President to report to Congress at least every 60 days on matters relevant to this resoluti

[Vattel]

10. You should read the full resolution. The summary is less clear.

[jfern]

5. "This is the Tonkin Gulf resolution all over again" - Robert Byrd

"Let us stop, look and listen. Let us not give this president or any president unchecked power. Remember the Constitution."

That's what he said BEFORE the vote. Senator Byrd, a former Senate Majority leader, and future longest serving Senator attempted to filibuster. Hillary voted o end debate and give a blank check to wage a $2 trillion war that led to the creation of ISIS.

[marym625]

6. this stuff is mind blowing

I wonder what color the sky is in that world. It ain't blue.

[merrily]

34. In one of his videos, Ben Ladin said he made up his mind to strike us when he saw the

blood of Lebanese children running in the streets. Whether he lied or not, how many minds do you suppose have been made up in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Egypt, etc.? A horrific harvest that may await us within this generation or the next--and not because of any caliphate bs, either.

[marym625]

92. I would hate us.

Bin Laden would have done what he did regardless, I think. Barring the US paying attention to warnings that is

But I agree that what we keep doing in that region is reprehensible

[merrily]

95. I am surprised we have been as fortunate as we have.

But, if we start thinking about that, we'd never come out of the bathroom.

[marym625]

108. I know people that have moved out of the US and renounced their citizenship

Because of the constant wars

I would just stay in the bathroom too.

[merrily]

110. That's what I call a statement.

[merrily]

7. Hillary did not simply vote to authorize the invasion, which would have been bad enough.

She made a speech that was carried on TV. Her fellow Senators were not going to be swayed by that speech. However, it may have helped sell the invasion to America.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=756644

[Vattel]

8. good point!

[jfern]

32. Specifically she said that there was a Saddam Al Qaeda connection

Even Joe Lieberman said that wasn't proven, but she stated it as fact.

[840high]

38. ty

[Scuba]

11. She didn't just vote for it. She pounded the drums on the floor of the Senate.

[merrily]

31. I very much doubt she thought that speech would sway the vote of a Senator.

Much like Powell's speech at the UN was not the reason for the vote of any nation. That's not how Senators or nations determine how they will vote on a war--by listening with an open mind too speechifying from all sides and voting with the one who made. the best speech.

Both Powell's speech and Hillary's were televised. They were intended to sway us.

[Scuba]

50. Bingo!

[Warren DeMontague]

12. It's amazing the turds some people will try to polish up, after the fact.

That one, I would think, we all could agree was beyond redemption. Just apologize for it, accept is was a shitty vote, and move on.

But there's just no way to justify it.

[merrily]

25. There's really no way to apologize for it, either. Unnumbered Iraqis injured, killed,

displaced, etc. IIRC, over a million Iraqis had been displaced during year one alone--though I am not sure on that one.

And, of course, the US killed, maimed, suffering from PTSD. How does the mother, spouse or child of a deceased troop, or one who is paralyzed or brain damaged for life, hear, "I'm sorry. My vote was a mistake." WTF? You HAVE to get it right to begin with.

Besides, is "mistake" even accurate? I knew that war was being ginned up by Bushco and the media. Everyone I knew knew it was being ginned up. Susan Sarandon knew it was being ginned up. Not a one of us had access to any info that was not in the msm, no ability to grill CIA members on the intel, etc. Yet, we knew the war was being sold to us without good reason.

How come the only Democrats I ever heard of who didn't know all that were in Congress? 29 of 50 Democratic Senators voted with the Republicans. And I am supposed to want one of them to be the next CIC?

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2002/s237

[Warren DeMontague]

44. You don't have to tell me.

But the point being, it's the height of ludicrousness to somehow try to spin it, as I've seen done here, as somehow a reasonable or even admirable vote to have cast.

[merrily]

45. Yes, ludicrous and shameful, like some of the posts on this very thread.

[saturnsring]

13. Text of Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002

HJ 114 IH



107th CONGRESS



2d Session



H. J. RES. 114

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.



IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES




OCTOBER 2, 2002

Mr. HASTERT (for himself and Mr. GEPHARDT) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations




JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq’s war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in ‘material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations’ and urged the President ‘to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations’ (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President ‘to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677’;

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it ‘supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),’ that Iraq’s repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and ‘constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,’ and that Congress, ‘supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688’;

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to ‘work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge’ posed by Iraq and to ‘work for the necessary resolutions,’ while also making clear that ‘the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable’;

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq’s ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all

relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ‘Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq’.


SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.


SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.


SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

[Vattel]

14. That's better.

[saturnsring]

18. i just wanted to post it so people can read it

[Vattel]

37. Yes, I assumed so. Thanks.

[madinmaryland]

15. What I remember is that in 2002 shortly before the mid-terms,

the Democrats were running scared shitless that they were going to be on the wrong side of history with this vote and lose their seat. It was difficult for those watching this from the outside to follow what was going on. EVERYONE was told that there was worse to come (WMD's, nuclear attacks, and so on). All of the BS was later to be shown for what it was. BULLSHIT.

9/11 fucked up this country for at least a good five years if not more. It wasn't until people finally figured out the lies that things started to change.

[jfern]

33. Hillary wasn't up for election for 4 years, she had no excuse about the immediate election

And obviously the vote was designed to be taken right before the election for maximum impact. Bush's Chief of Staff Andy Card said "From a marketing perspective, you don't introduce new ideas in August". Imminent threat had to wait for the fall.

[madinmaryland]

36. The political climate was completely different in 2002 than it is now or even in 2008.

John Kerry took massive shit for his voting for authorization in 2004, which killed any chance he had (well, except for some voter fraud).

[SheilaT]

16. Back then far too many who voted for the Iraq War tried to claim

it was only if all else failed. Those of us who were paying any attention at all understood we were going to get into a war that would NOT be a cakewalk, although I don't think any of us thought it would have dragged on even half this long.

I'm utterly dismayed that Obama has not gotten us out of any of our wars. Yeah, there are somewhat fewer troops overseas, but I don't think a single base has ever been closed, and we still spend far, far too much of our budget on the military. It's that spending that is slowly destroying this country.

[CharlotteVale]

17. I don't call it revisionist history. I call it lies.

[Kalidurga]

55. That's just because it is.

[Yurovsky]

86. And she can't wash that blood off of her hands...

despite the efforts of her minions to divert attention away from her complicity in W's criminal war in Iraq.

Between her blood-lust and her affection for the robber-barons of Wall Street, it's kind of hard to buy into her self-proclaimed "progressive" status. I usually call people with such views Republicans...

If Bernie doesn't win, I don't know if average Americans will ever get another shot to take back this country. We've started to make some progress with President Obama, why in the hell do we want to grab the wheel and yank it back to the right?

[Kalidurga]

91. It makes no sense to me.

But, I suspect that there are a few surprises yet to come.

[R B Garr]

19. Bush was elected a second term even after his

Administrations malfeasance was exposed. That should tell you something about how hounding Hillary regarding something from 12 years ago will go over.

[Vattel]

22. I think it is important to correct the record. You are free to disagree.

[merrily]

28. His "malfeasance" was exposed to political junkies, the ones who post on message boards and

watch Frontline. And no wartime incumbent has ever been voted out of office in all of US history. Zero. At that, Bush got something like only 50.02% of the popular vote.

Hounding Hillary? Good God, who is doing that? And how are they doing it? By saying they'd rather vote for someone who know that invasion would de-stabilize the entire Middle East? Who knew that exercising my right as a Democratic primary voter equals trying to hound Hillary? Does victimhood have no bounds whatever?

Something from 12 years ago? You've got to be kidding. You know we're still suffering from that decision and will be for a long, long time, right? The troops, the Treasury, the wheels coming off everywhere in that region, thousands upon thousands of people and their kids wanting revenge?

But, is a horrific war vote really about how something "goes over" for you? No words.

[R B Garr]

35. OMFG seriously keep this up, the sermonizing

is hilarious. Feel free to ad lib and bastardize what is written so you can maintain your superior attitude and polish your halo.

And BULLSHIT that his malfeasance was only exposed to political junkies. It was all over the news. Even Biden said Bush was running on 9/11 -- a noun, a verb and 9/11.

So much for the purpose of this thread to correct the record -- you can't even tell the truth about Bush's re-election.

I can see why people don't bother posting to these threads with such unbridled hostility and moral nonsense.

[merrily]

39. I'm not having any trouble with selective memory, telling the truth or assessing morality of a bad

war vote None at all.

All of America definitely did not go to the polls in 2004 thinking people had been put in harm's way, killed, maimed, displaced, etc. for no reason. What actually was all over the news were statements that getting Saddam had been a great thing: The world was a much better and safer place without him. Talking head show after talking head show, newscast after newscast.

2003 poll: Over 70% of Americans favor war in Iraq. http://www.gallup.com/poll/8038/seventytwo-percent-americans-support-war-against-iraq.aspx

In 2004, the year of Bush's re-election, it was 2/3 of Americans who were still in favor of the Iraq War. That figure never would have been that high if the truth had sunk in with most Americans.

The poll number didn't get to a majority against the invasion until well after Bush's re-election. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_opinion_in_the_United_States_on_the_invasion_of_Iraq

And again, no wartime incumbent US President has ever been voted out of office. So, Bush's re-election did not show what you claim.

I'm good with the morality of condemning the Iraq War vote, not so good with the morality of pretending it was something other than what it was.

As far as hostility, the level of hostility in my post was nowhere near the level in your reply.

If you want to stay away from threads like this, you get to make that choice. But you can't just post whatever you want and expect no rebuttal.

[R B Garr]

56. Ugh, the pious dishonesty is a waste of time.

How LAUGHABLE that you are now claiming to know what "all of America" thought when they went to the polls.

You must not get out much if you think that only Saddam was ever discussed on the news. WAR on Terror, WMD, 9/11, etc.

Wouldn't trade with you either. What a juvenile thing to say.

[merrily]

57. Um you did the same thing in Reply 35. The difference is I posted some support from my statements.

You've posted nothing but unsupported lashing out, personal insults and highly selective recollection.

Proving that a post is dishonest is relatively easy. An unproven claim that a post is dishonest is worthless and not very credible.

[R B Garr]

60. YOUR emotions are not support.

[merrily]

62. I posted links and info. If posting emotions is possible at all, it's more your area than mine.

Your posts seem much more emotional than mine.

[R B Garr]

63. You edited then, what a croc

No need to link to common sense. You said you know what all Americans think when they go to the polls. What a laugh.

You say that no one talked about the war when it was all over the news. WAR ON TERROR, every day, all day. You're not credible.

Bush won reelection because of the WAR ON TERROR, despite what anyone voted on 12 years ago. Too bad that fact hampers your Bernie-fest.

[merrily]

65. Now you're just making up stuff about what my prior posts said. Good thing everyone can read them.

Oh, and I hope you do know that there is a difference between knowing about the War on Terror and knowing that our troops were sent to fight for no good reason. Your post gives no indication that you get the difference.

You've been doing nothing but spewing bile for the last few rounds. It's really not worth responding to, so I'm going to bid you a pleasant evening--and an ample supply of antacid.

[R B Garr]

72. What a joke. You got caught being

a moralistic sermonizer and I called you on it, now you're trying to pretend you won something. The posts are numbered, so, yeah, people can read you said you know what all people think when they go to the polls. What a joke.

I also told you to make up whatever you want from my initial statement, and you continue with that bullshit, so, Yes, people can read that.

And more laughs that you can't even remember the WAR ON TERROR except for what you can use to bash Hillary. So lame.

[Hydra]

46. Bush was never elected

Although I find the fact that you are defending a D candidate with a Bush to be a perfect sum up of the situation.

[R B Garr]

59. LOL, now I'm "defending"

Tjis is why I abhor the Berniebros -- moralistic, emotional pablum. Gag.

[Hydra]

64. Lol

I'm not a Berniebro- I just don't like it when people cover for the Bush Family, of which Hillary and Bill are now adopted members. I'm sure they appreciate your work on their behalf.

[R B Garr]

77. Typical nonsense. Too silly to take seriously

There was a body in the roll of President in the White House for 8 years between 2000 and 2008. Play all the silly games you want with that fact.

LOL, I love how desperate the Berniebros are to claim a phony moral high ground just because you bring up common stats about the past.

[BlueStateLib]

20. If IWR was a vote for war, why was IRAQ invaded by Hans Blix and the U.N. Weapons Inspectors

Senate A.U.M.F. Debate 10/10/2002

Mr. KERRY : My vote was cast in a way that made it very clear, Mr. President, I'm voting for you to do what you said you're going to do, which is to go through the U.N. and do this through an international process.

Mr. KENNEDY :The better course for our Nation and for our goal of disarming Saddam Hussein is a two-step policy. We should approve a strong resolution today calling on the United Nations to require Iraq to submit to unfettered U.N. weapons inspections or face U.N.-backed international force. If such option fails, and Saddam refuses to cooperate, the President could then come to the Congress and request Congress to provide him with authorization to wage war against Iraq.

Mr. BIDEN: The President has not asked us to go to war. He has said he wants the power to be able to go to war

Mr. WELLSTONE. There is a critical distinction between going it alone and taking action in conjunction with our allies. Our focus should be going to the United Nations Security Council and asking for a resolution that makes it clear to Saddam Hussein that he must disarm. Saddam must give arms inspectors unfettered access. And, if he does not comply with this new UN resolution there will be consequences, including the use of appropriate military force. But we must do this together with our allies. We must bring the international community on board. This resolution allows for a preemptive, unilateral strike, which I believe would be a huge mistake.

Mr. DODD: As I said earlier, I accept the proposition that we must deal with the Iraqi threat. I stand prepared, as almost all of our colleagues do, to support the unilateral use of force against Iraq but only if U.N. or other multinational efforts prove ineffective, or if Saddam Hussein is using them as a guise to rebuild his offensive weapons capabilities

Mrs. BOXER: This administration did not want to bring the debate on this war to Congress. We have many quotes I have already put in the RECORD on that subject. They did not want the President to go to the United Nations. Indeed, they said he did not have to go there; he did not have to come here; he did not have to do anything.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suppose this resolution is something of an improvement. Back in August the President's advisors insisted that there was not even any need for authorization from Congress to go to war. They said past resolutions sufficed.

Others in the administration argued that the United States should attack Iraq preemptively and unilaterally, without bothering to seek the support of the United Nations, even though it is Iraq's violations of U.N. resolutions which is used to justify military action.

Eventually, the President listened to those who urged him to change course and he went to the United Nations. He has since come to the Congress. I commended President Bush for doing that.

I fully support the efforts of Secretary Powell to negotiate a strong, new Security Council resolution for the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq, backed up with force, if necessary, to overcome Iraqi resistance.

Mr. BIDEN. As late as August 29 of this year, the White House counsel--the White House counsel--reportedly told the President that he had all the authority he needs to wage war against Iraq--there was a big deal about leaking a memorandum from the White House counsel to the world that Congress need not be involved, Mr. President. I had two private meetings with the President myself, where I made clear that I thought that was dead wrong and he would be--to use the slang on the east side of my city--``in a world of hurt'' if he attempted to do that.

Mr. DURBIN. Initially the White House said: We don't need congressional approval. We can move forward. They went on to say: We can do it unilaterally. We don't need any allies. We can attack Iraq if necessary by ourselves. And the President said our goal is regime change. We want Saddam Hussein gone.

Mr. SPECTER. I commend President Bush for coming to Congress. Originally he said he did not need to do so and would not do so. Later, he modified that, saying that while he might not have to, he was coming to Congress. He initially talked about unilateral action, and since has worked very hard in the United Nations.

It may be that the practical effect of what the President is doing now, through Secretary of State Colin Powell, amounts to what was sought in the Biden-Lugar resolution, and I do believe the likelihood of getting UN action is better if we proceed to give the President the authority to act without UN support because if we said, as Senator Levin proposed, that his authority to use force would be conditioned on a UN resolution, it would be, in effect, an open invitation to the UN not to act, knowing the President and the United States, were limited from acting if the UN did not, and subjecting our national interests to China, Russia, or France's veto.

Mr. KOHL. The President has vowed to seek the support of the international community against Iraq, and my vote today is cast accepting and supporting that position fully. I Believe we should not commit U.S. troops abroad without the support of the international community. The costs are too great for us to take unilateral action unless we have no other choice. International involvement will strengthen our hand against Saddam Hussein, increasing the likelihood that we will be able to resume inspections and disarm Iraq.

Mr. BAUCUS. Last week, a bipartisan group of Congressmen and Senators brokered an agreement with the President and produced a resolution that strikes a good balance between diplomacy and force. The resolution supports exhausting diplomatic means to disarm Saddam prior to engaging in the use of force.

Mr. JEFFORDS: We should give the United Nations the opportunity to step forward and deal with Iraq and its infractions. In my estimation, the United States stands to gain much more if we can work with the United Nations to deliver a multilateral approach to disarming Iraq, even providing military force, if necessary. If the United Nations fails to press for the disarmament of Iraq or is blocked in its efforts, then I would expect the President to come back to Congress for further discussion of the alternatives

Mr. DASCHLE: Second, the resolution expresses the deep conviction of this Congress and of the American people that President Bush should continue to work through the United Nations Security Council in order to secure Iraqi compliance with U.N. resolutions. Unfettered inspections may or may not lead to Iraqi disarmament, but whether they succeed or fail, the effort we expend in seeking inspections will make it easier for the President to assemble a global coalition against Saddam should military action eventually be needed. Third, this resolution makes it clear that before the President can use force in Iraq, he must certify to the Congress that diplomacy has failed, that further diplomatic efforts alone cannot protect America's national security interests, nor can they lead to enforcement of the U.N. Security Council resolutions

Mr. BIDEN. Yes, with one caveat. He has expressed to me his ability to achieve a tough resolution would be enhanced by our not making it a two-step process. But he personally has told me and my committee he would consider and the President would consider a U.N. two-step process if they had to. The reason for my saying not two steps now is it strengthens his hand, in my view, to say to all the members of the Security Council: I just want you to know, if you do not give me something strong, I am already authorized, if you fail to do that, to use force against this fellow.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, the vote on the Levin substitute amendment is one of the most important votes we will cast in this process. I commend the Senator from Michigan for his fine work on this alternative. The Levin amendment urges the United Nations to take strong and immediate action to pass a resolution demanding unrestricted access for U.N. arms inspectors in Iraq. It also urges the United Nations to press for full enforcement of its prior resolutions on Iraq.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I applaud Secretary Powell. I think his is a vigorous effort to try to resolve the situation through diplomatic means, to send a message to Saddam that he should voluntarily disarm and let the inspectors in.

That might not work. But it is then up to the U.N., as the President said when he spoke to them, to take responsibility; to therefore authorize action to enforce their own resolutions so the United States of America is not doing this all by ourselves. It is not America versus Saddam. It should be the international community against Saddam because, I think you would agree, he is a despicable cad.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Clearly, we need to get United Nations inspectors on the ground immediately. The inspectors must have unfettered access to all suspected sites in Iraq. This is proving to be a major challenge for the United Nations, but the United Nations is much more likely to succeed if the United States is squarely behind its efforts, and not standing off to the side, secretly hoping that it will fail.

Mr. WELLSTONE. There is a critical distinction between going it alone and taking action in conjunction with our allies. Our focus should be going to the United Nations Security Council and asking for a resolution that makes it clear to Saddam Hussein that he must disarm. Saddam must give arms inspectors unfettered access. And, if he does not comply with this new UN resolution there will be consequences, including the use of appropriate military force.

Mr. BAYH. I believe this course presents us with the best opportunity to rally our allies and convince the United Nations to act with us. We should make every effort--as Senator McCain indicated in his colloquy with Senator Lieberman and as the President indicated last night--to convince the United Nations and our allies of the justice of our cause. We are stronger when we act together, so we must seek a consensus for this course of action

Mr. BYRD. We ought to let the inspectors go back in and have restrictions such that they will have a full and free opportunity to inspect wherever they want, wherever they think they should. So I am for all that. I am not one who says Saddam is not a threat; he is a threat.

We should utilize the time we have to let the U.N. marshal its forces and try to get other countries to assist this country in carrying the burden.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this amendment will provide an alternative to the Lieberman amendment. This amendment will authorize the President to use military force supporting the U.N. resolution that he seeks, but then provides that if he seeks to go it alone, if he wants authority to proceed unilaterally, he would then call us back into session.

Mr. BIDEN. only disagreement with my friend from Michigan is I do not think we need a two-step process. We should go to the United Nations, and the President says we should go to the United Nations. We should seek the authority to enforce the inspectors in disarming weapons of mass destruction. And if he fails, my friend says come back and get authorization to proceed anyway. I am prepared to give him the authorization now.

NOTE: The Levin Amendment would of gave veto power over the United States to France, Russia and China. IWR was meant to send a strong message to Saddam "you better comply" and he did

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I am reassured by statements made by the President in his address to the United Nations on September 12, which conveyed a major shift in the administration's approach--turning away from a preemptive strategy and, instead, engaging and challenging the U.N. Security Council to compel Iraq's disarmament and back this with force. I deeply believe that it is vital for the U.N. Security Council to approve a new, robust resolution requiring full and unconditional access to search for and destroy all weapons of mass destruction.

Ms. LANDRIEU. The new U.N. resolution the President and Secretary Powell seek is our best chance to avoid a war. But the threat of force must be present to enforce a new resolution because Saddam only understands force. Again, Charles Duelfer testified before the Iraqis were perfectly willing to thumb their nose at UNSCOM because the U.N. had not authorized force to make Iraq comply.

Mr. KENNEDY. Before going to war again, we should seek to resume the inspections now--and set a non-negotiable demand of no obstruction, no delay, no more weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.


Mrs. BOXER: This administration did not want to bring the debate on this war to Congress. We have many quotes I have already put in the RECORD on that subject. They did not want the President to go to the United Nations. Indeed, they said he did not have to go there; he did not have to come here; he did not have to do anything.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suppose this resolution is something of an improvement. Back in August the President's advisors insisted that there was not even any need for authorization from Congress to go to war. They said past resolutions sufficed.

Others in the administration argued that the United States should attack Iraq preemptively and unilaterally, without bothering to seek the support of the United Nations, even though it is Iraq's violations of U.N. resolutions which is used to justify military action.

Eventually, the President listened to those who urged him to change course and he went to the United Nations. He has since come to the Congress. I commended President Bush for doing that.

I fully support the efforts of Secretary Powell to negotiate a strong, new Security Council resolution for the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq, backed up with force, if necessary, to overcome Iraqi resistance.

Mr. BIDEN. As late as August 29 of this year, the White House counsel--the White House counsel--reportedly told the President that he had all the authority he needs to wage war against Iraq--there was a big deal about leaking a memorandum from the White House counsel to the world that Congress need not be involved, Mr. President. I had two private meetings with the President myself, where I made clear that I thought that was dead wrong and he would be--to use the slang on the east side of my city--``in a world of hurt'' if he attempted to do that.

Mr. DURBIN. Initially the White House said: We don't need congressional approval. We can move forward. They went on to say: We can do it unilaterally. We don't need any allies. We can attack Iraq if necessary by ourselves. And the President said our goal is regime change. We want Saddam Hussein gone.

Mr. SPECTER. I commend President Bush for coming to Congress. Originally he said he did not need to do so and would not do so. Later, he modified that, saying that while he might not have to, he was coming to Congress. He initially talked about unilateral action, and since has worked very hard in the United Nations
http://aumf.awardspace.com/
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011884.php

[Vattel]

21. Do you disagree with something I wrote? If so, please specify.

Last edited Mon Nov 2, 2015, 10:08 PM - Edit history (1)

edited to add: I like what Wellstone said: "This resolution allows for a preemptive, unilateral strike, which I believe would be a huge mistake."

[merrily]

27. And your point is? Read the AUMF. It counts a hell of a lot more than the ass-covering bloviation

for purposes of the Congressional Record.

They knew exactly what they voted for. Most of them are lawyers. Besides that, the language is clear. And Bush did go to the UN and he seek to put together international support. The Coalition of the Willing, remember?

The AUMF was not authority to send "a strong message." What a claim--both incorrect and, IMO< shameful. The authority to use military force was exactly that: an authorization to use military force whenever Bush decided it was time to use it.

If legislators didn't want it that way, they would have amended the language further before voting for it. Or put in appropriate conditions that they always could have eliminated later. If Bush's actions were against the AUMF, they would have screamed the minute the first shot was fired. But, they didn't start trying to backpedal until later.

BTW, I believe Jeffords, whom you quoted with others. voted against the AUMF.

We may have been born at night, but it wasn't last night. I don't think you were born last night, either. Try again.

[Warren DeMontague]

48. Come on, who are you trying to kid.

Everybody knew exactly what that vote was about. It's not that far back in the mists of the past that we can't remember ourselves.

[JDPriestly]

61. Bernie showed more wisdom than any one of those senators, even

more than that whole group of senators.

He asked: HOW DO WE GOVERN IRAQ AFTER WE INVADE?

And he asked: What if there is an insurrection?

I'm paraphrasing his questions.

It appears that none of the other esteemed senators thought about the aftermath of the invasion. Not a word about it in the discussion that you quote, BlueStateLib.

That is what makes Bernie Sanders stand above the rest: he asks probing questions that reach beyond the scope of the questions of others in government.

That's what you call brilliant. And that is what Bernie Sanders is.

Feel the Bern!

[Martin Eden]

93. To answer your question:

The UN Inspectors were part of the deal out of political necessity.

That's the only reason Bushco went that route. It was well known they had no regard for the UN, and the appointment of John Bolton as US Rep to the UN put an exclamation point on that.

If you know about PNAC and how many key policymakers in the Bush administration were members, you would know they were hell bent on invading Iraq since before 9/11.

Bottom line is, the IWR put the decision in the hands of GW Bush.

Anyone who didn't know a vote for the IWR was a vote to invade Iraq doesn't have the competency to be a US Congressman or Senator.

It really is as simple and straightforward as that (your large cut & paste of politicians' rhetoric notwithstanding).

[Uncle Joe]

23. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Vattel.

[sabrina 1]

26. That vote, which she cast no doubt thinking of her own political future, lost her the last election.

And it will lose her this one too.

[840high]

40. I hope so.

[AgingAmerican]

29. The UN weapons inspectors in Iraq at the time were shouting from the rooftops "There are no WMD"

She voted YEA out of political cowardliness, IMHO. Didn't want Republicans to say mean things, etc. Afraid she would appear 'weak' etc.

[840high]

41. Someone posted today that Clinton

is a compasionate person. She certainly didn't care about lives lost.

[AgingAmerican]

43. She has compassion when it polls high

And passes the focus groups. Otherwise, not so much.

[merrily]

54. Her vote aligned with the wishes of PNAC, the DLC and its kin, the Progressive Policy Institute.

I am not sure it was all about political cowardice, though anything is possible. Still, to put the imprimatur of a Democratic Senator and Democratic First Lady of a popular President on a war for personal ambition.....

[stevenleser]

66. There were no weapons inspectors in Iraq until after IWR and UN Sec Res 1441. That's what those

votes were really about and all the media articles at the time talked about that.

The revisionist history is this OP and those agreeing with it.

[AgingAmerican]

68. The weapons inspectors were thrown out of iraq on the eve of the invasion

March 18, 2003 - Inspectors withdraw from Iraq.

March 20, 2003 - (local time) U.S. and coalition forces begin military action against Iraq

The weapons inspectors stated that they had destroyed 95% of Iraq's WMD program. They said the remaining 5% were 'bits and pieces'.

Here is what Scott Ritter said a few days before the invasion:

"There's no doubt Iraq hasn't fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated ... We have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesn't necessarily constitute a threat It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in its totality doesn't amount to much, but which is still prohibited ... We can't give Iraq a clean bill of health, therefore we can't close the book on their weapons of mass destruction. But simultaneously, we can't reasonably talk about Iraqi non-compliance as representing a de-facto retention of a prohibited capacity worthy of war."

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_10/iraqspecialoct02
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter#Commentary_on_Iraq.27s_lack_of_WMDs
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/30/world/meast/iraq-weapons-inspections-fast-facts/

[stevenleser]

69. That's correct. They were admitted after IWR and UN Sec Res 1441 and were thrown out shortly

before the war.

What part of that do you think contradicts what I said.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

42. She is indulging in political CYA by claiming it was a "mistake".

Which is certainly not unheard of by politicians of every stripe. But, in this case she should hire better PR guys to slide her obviously political expedient vote past the public.

[reddread]

85. and it requires EVERYONE to overlook her husbands daily briefings

she had access to every lick of real intelligence available, as opposed to the taxpayers who were spoonfed bullshit by
the govt mouthpieces running the media.

the wrong is so deep and dark here, how many souls will sacrifice themselves to protect it?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

47. The excuse is Saddam wouldn't have cooperated without a real threat....

That's where she gets that extraordinary claim that she voted to authorize Bush to go to war but she didn't think he'd use it.

She and Bill STILL hang out with the Bush family. It shows how much all of this actually matters to these people. It's all theater to them.

[stevenleser]

67. The problem with your thinking is, that is exactly what was talked about at the time.

By everyone. The politicians, the media, the UN, the members of the UN, everyone.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

70. Not by me....

Or France, or Germany, or Knightrider, or Kucinich or Bernie nor more than 100 other Democrats.

[stevenleser]

71. Yes, France voted for UN Sec Res 1441 within two weeks of IWR for the same purpose

As did all of the rest of the UN Security Council. The entire world was behind getting the weapons inspectors back into Iraq by threat if necessary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1441

[Spitfire of ATJ]

73. That was a talking point of the time that Bush invaded to enforce 1441....

It was crap then and it's still crap. Nor was 1441 a result of the US passing the IWR. That was another talking point of the time. They played chicken and egg with those two as well.

Hillary's speech prior to the vote:

The IWR was filled with references linking Iraq to 9/11. She should have been APPALLED that the Bush Administration was trying to enact their PNAC wet dream on the corpses of her people.

[stevenleser]

74. It was the text of the Resolution and France and Russia had a part in the negotiations about it.

All the countries of the world had concerns over Iraq's compliance with the resolutions that ended the first gulf war and wanted the UN Weapons inspectors back into Iraq to verify this compliance.

UN Sec Res 1441 and IWR were both designed to do that and yes, that is how they were sold.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

75. They supported INSPECTIONS. Not INVASIONS

[stevenleser]

76. Correct. nt

[Major Hogwash]

79. Her 20 minute speech on the Senate floor proves that she knew that Bush would use it.

She just didn't want her vote for the war to come back to haunt her when she ran for President in 2008.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

81. The point is she thought it was the right thing to do until it was the wrong thing to do.

[Major Hogwash]

82. Britain was already bombing radar installations in Northern Iraq in early August of 2002.

In preparation for the invasion of Iraq.
So, the IWR vote that took place more than 2 months later was moot.

The Senate Democrats who voted for the IWR were supporting Bush's invasion of Iraq.
They had all been given military intelligence briefings about the situation in Iraq long before the IWR vote was taken.
That vote was just kubaki theater.

Hillary lied about why she voted for the IWR . . . she wanted the Iraq War to take place.
Period.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

83. At least we know she didn't do it for the money....

She said Bill and her were broke after they left office.

[Yurovsky]

88. Ha! That's a good one!

Then again, maybe they'd already spent it on their mansions or Chelsea's $10M NYC digs...

It must be hard being poor like Bill & Hill...

[JDPriestly]

49. Let's face it. Bernie was exceptional in the thought process and

good judgment he showed when he voted against the IWR.

Many, many otherwise capable people mistakenly voted for the IWR. Certainly, Kerry is no fool. He is an example of a capable person who voted for it.

BUT . . . . . . we now have the chance to vote for an exceptional person who voted against that resolution, showing his superior reasoning ability and that he is a leader in terms of thinking through the strategy when it comes to war and peace and foreign policy.

Bernie is just exceptional in terms of his judgment, in terms of the questions he asked before voting against the IWR>

That is one of the reasons that I am supporting Bernie. He is a strategist. He thinks ahead.

Some people are just born like that. Some small children think about processes and strategy and some don't. It's quite surprising that we can be so different in that way.

When it comes to foreign policy strategy, I trust Bernie Sanders. He's a head above the rest.

[Vattel]

53. wow, very well-said

[Maedhros]

51. Millions of people took to the streets to protest the Iraq Invasion

because it was obviously based on lies.

Hillary was either unable to figure that out, or corrupt for knowing it was bullshit and voting for it anyway. Either option renders her ineligible for my vote.

[BlueStateLib]

80. Scott Ritter

17 July 2002

Scott Ritter: I believe Washington D.C. is using the concept of inspections as a political foil to justify war. America doesn't want the inspectors to return. The best way to stop war is to get the inspectors back in. I believe it should be the policy of the United Nations to get the inspectors back in.

[Kalidurga]

52. You want they should lay off revisionist history from 12 years ago?

They can't manage 12 days....

[portlander23]

58. I heard she voted for the Iraq war to stop a federal marriage amendment

[Thinkingabout]

78. Yes Bush was given a blank check with the AUMF, it authorized using military force of which only one

person voted against.

[Vattel]

100. The OP is about the Iraq War Resolution. More than one person voted against it.

[azurnoir]

84. I heard it was to stop even worse war bill from being passed

or something

[Yurovsky]

87. Yeah, that's the ticket!

i wish Bernie could use Jon Lovitz's liar character in ads to demonstrate the blatant dishonesty of the HRC campaign WRT her record, especially when it comes to her support of needless bloodshed.

[NurseJackie]

89. This again? It doesn't appear that this is having the effect that Bernie's followers expect.

Hillary supporters aren't changing their minds.

[Vattel]

90. Ikr? I wish certain Hillary supporters would stop distorting the record,

but they don't. So Sanders supporters are forced to correct the record over and over again.

[Martin Eden]

94. Hillary supporters are turning a blind eye to a critically important issue.

The IWR vote revealed Hillary Clinton's lack of judgment and/or prediliction for military "solutions" -- and her record since then indicates she has not changed.

By the time all is said and done, we will have spent at least $3 trillion on the disastrous war of choice in Iraq that has made the region and our own country less secure.

$3 trillion would have bouight a lot of health care, education, and much needed infrastructure at home. Nearly everything we hope to accomplish on those fronts as Democrats has been sacrificed on the altar of the militarism Hillary Clinton supports.

Do you really trust her to keep us out of the next extremely costly counterproductive military misadventure?

I sure as hell don't -- based on her record as well as her rhetoric.

[NurseJackie]

97. So, don't vote for her then. Your conscience will be clear.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

98. In matters of conscience the law of majority has no place. Gandhi

[Martin Eden]

99. How can you vote for her in good conscience?

You didn't dispute anything I wrote, so you're apparently OK with spending $trillions on insane wars.

In addition to all the vital programs that lack funds at home, these wars take a terrible toll in human lives.

Not sure what your priorities are in a candidate, but that's at the top of my list. Very little good will be accomplished and much harm inflicted, unless we get a president who reverses this disastrous militarism.

[NurseJackie]

101. Well …

… I think it's a waste of time to make any effort to try and change the minds of Bernie's followers. It would accomplish nothing. So why bother? (It's a mistake to assume that people who support Hillary also support insane wars, as you say. But, as you correctly note, you really have no idea what my priorities are.)

I can tell you that I'm more impressed with Hillary than I am with Bernie, and I'll be proud to cast my vote/s for her, in good conscience. (Does that make me a bad person, or does it make me someone who happens to think differently than you do?)

[Martin Eden]

103. Well ...

... you could try to explain why you think Hillary's actual record somehow indicates she will reverse the trend of disastrous military interventions.

The fact that you're bothering to post at all in this thread reveals that "wasting your time" is not a concern, and the fact that you haven't attempted to defend Hillary's record indicates that you really can't make the case why she should be trusted in the critically important matters of war and peace.

Hillary Clinton is indeed a very "impressive" politician, but she's tragically wrong in this matter.

We can't afford more of the same.

[NurseJackie]

104. You misunderstood.

Or you seek to find alternate meaning in my words. Or maybe I'm just not a very good writer, and you're trying to find ways to to use conversational ambiguity to your advantage.

Let me see if I can clarify. It would be "wasting my time" to try and convince anyone who already supports Bernie to support someone other than Bernie.

I hardly think that its accurate for anyone to characterize my posts as any sort of attempt to "defend Hillary's record". (Have you confused me with some other poster that you like sparring with?) What I did was to point out that the repeated efforts to rehash the IWR topic, and attempts to "shame" Hillary supporters aren't working.

In any case, I can see this is a blood sport for you. I surrender. Can we just go ahead and declare you the "winner" of whatever debate you think we're having, or that you're trying to goad me into having?

Congratulations! You win. (I'm still voting for Hillary, so does that mean that you lose?)

Wait wait, don't tell me, your next line is "no, it means we all lose".

[Martin Eden]

105. I do agree ...

... with your last line.

The rest, notsomuch.

This isn't a sport, but the bloody consequences are real if we don't reverse the rampant militarism.

I've been a witness to this insanity since the 1960's, and it needs to stop. If I thought Hillary was The One who would at least make an effort to stop it, she'd have my vote.

But she's not, and she doesn't.

[NurseJackie]

106. Thank you for the conversation. I enjoyed chatting with you.

[Martin Eden]

107. Thanks, at least it was fairly civil (even if nothing was accomplished). n/t

[Motown_Johnny]

96. or opening them either

Sad, isn't it?

[HassleCat]

102. And they knew it

Members of Congress who voted to give Bush a blank check were absolutely aware of what they were doing, and they knew he would take action against some small, defenseless nation.

[Dem2]

109. So what.

A lot of Democrats voted for the IWR. It was wrong and most have admitted it was. Move on.