Reply #77: The feeling is mutual, I suppose. [View All]

[calmblueocean]

Read that resolution sometime. The very first sentence is:

"Joint Resolution: To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq."

How much authority did the resolution grant him?

EC. 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.

This was a blank check for the president to use the military however he wanted, and that alone made it completely inexcusable.

But Hillary was afraid of being portrayed as "soft on terror", and she knew that the way the resolution was drafted would give her political cover, should Bush do something egregious. This was a calculated decision on her part, weighing her political future against the destruction of countless human lives, and she chose to protect her political candidacy rather than refuse to vote for this inexcusable bill.

This was a war of choice, a war of our choosing. She could've continued to negotiate until she got a bill that only provided the president with the limited authority needed to compel compliance with the UN (a preposterous cover for war by a Republican, btw). She showed moral cowardice by abrogating her most important Consitutional duty as a Senator by voting for this bill, and thousands upon thousands of people are dead because of it.

So, yeah, I don't get your point of view, either.