Andrea Mitchell asked Hillary Clinton the following yesterday

[underpants]

From Lexis Nexis transcript sof NBC Nightly News
MITCHELL: How hard is it to explain what happened in 2002? The war vote that keeps coming up?

Sen. CLINTON: You know, I think it's absolutely fair for people who see what's going on in Iraq, understand how deeply it has damaged America's standing in leadership in the world, to have strong feelings and want to talk about that with elected officials and particularly someone running for president. But I think it has to be put into the context of who is best equipped to face the realities, the dangers that we confront globally and restore America's leadership.

MITCHELL: Is it a legitimate question that you have this experience in 2002 but didn't vote against it, didn't see the dangers ahead?

Sen. CLINTON: Well, I think that the issue here is that this president asked for authority which he misused.

The first thing that everyone will notice is the reply. Sen. Clinton has some very well paid and supposedly highly experienced politicos working for her but I don't think this answer is going to do. Not just in the primaries but in a general election people, independents especially, are going to want to know how she could have cast this vote. Making excuses and deflecting to how horribly the war has been run is not an answer-it is very definitely not an answer to the question asked.

Now about the question asked. It is very strange for NBC's chief foreign affairs correspondent to suddenly jump onto the daily grind of the campaign trail-perhaps Andrea Mitchell aims to either aid Sen. Clinton or she has her sights set on her I doubt the reason is somewhere in the middle.

Sorry for getting off subject but I think we are going to see a lot of this from the press on this campaign "How could you have made that vote?" implicit in that is something we have often read, that everyone in DC knew they were going to do this war so everyone needed to position themselves accordingly. Directly the question gives cover and distance to the very person asking the question, in this case especially.

Last week saw in living detail the role that the press played in not asking the questions it should have at the time. Collectively they suppressed all the information that was readily available and all of the experienced professionals willing to risk all to get the word out. Instead of the mainstream routes many were forced to the previously hinterlands of internet journalism. We knew about all of this we knew none of it made since and the politic figures who were willing to say so (Dean, Kucinich, Obama, etc.) who dare speak it in public were ignored, disregarded, or (in several instances) outright attacked. At least 40% of the people in this country were aware of how bad of idea this was, the likely outcome, and the low level of dependability that the sources of this information were. The strangest part was probably the UN inspectors actually being inside Iraq and still not able to find anything and the press simply echoed the Bush administration talking points of mock and frustration that these UN types laugably couldn't find what they knew so surely was there.

The problem here is that this is like trying to sue a lawyer. No one else will be willing to hold the press accountable for this. In fact the press is really just parroting the RNC's talking points that is to blame this on the Democrats and make them to blame for Bush's war.

[blm]

1. I think the vote is one thing, but did she support Bush's DECISION to go to war

once he made it?

ANY president SHOULD have the authority to wage war when it is NECESSARY, but a president should NOT be supported once he makes a decision CONTRARY to the current evidence that was being gathered by the weapon inspectors that pointed AWAY from the NEED for war.

[Felinity]

2. The reason they keep asking Hillary this

is that it is her Achilles heel. So let's all keep drumming on it here, too; so in case she does get the nomination, she can offer her congratulations to President Giuliani.

If she changes/refines her response, then they (and lots of folks here) will pile on for changing.

[enough already]

3. In other words, her potential nomination is a lose-lose proposition

Which I think is the reason so many here are adamantly opposed to her nomination, myself included.

[Felinity]

5. Not even close to a paraphrase

Hillary may not be my favorite candidate, but I'm not about to play into the MSM strategy of

1) focusing prematurely on the 2008 presidential election because "everybody likes a good horse race;" thereby distracting the national interest away from the fact that two more years of * will mean 2 more years of decay in integrity, infrastructure, balance of trade, unnecessary troop casualties, and maybe a nuclear war.

and

2) trying to get the Dems to eat their own young, so to speak. Divide and Conquer: gin up the political infighting among Dems so that the public will be sick and tired of them by the Conventions. Not to mention doing the Repugs own dirty work.

So if you think Hillary and Rudy G are equally bad choices(or would you prefer that duplicitous freak Huckabee?), beat up on Hillary.

BTW-you can accuse Hillary and others who went along on the IWR of not admitting to a "mistake" but what she said is true: they were lied to, we were lied to. Bush did not fulfill the obligations of that resolution prior to taking military action. Should she have known better? Maybe. Did others make better calls? Yes. Hind site is 20/20. Again, maybe not my favorite, but a very far cry from the incompetent poser in the oval office now.

[Captain Hilts]

8. Folks are suckers for this 'divide and conquer' strategy, aren't they?

She's not among my top three choices , but I don't fall for a lot of the crap people are saying about her.

[Captain Hilts]

7. Giuliani can't beat her. Especially on this issue.

He's been gung ho for this war from the get-go.

[SemperEadem]

32. Giuliani isn't going to get it

he can't pass the 'did you have an affair while mayor' test... his police state policies (Abadou Mouima) and his brazen callousness over that death and the other myriad of things which tainted his term in office after 911. He didn't go out in a blaze of glory. He has too much negativity to answer for--and riding on being "America's Mayor" ain't going to fly now. He doesn't take to having to answer for himself very well and his hubris is what is going to sink him faster than anything else.

from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1817966.stm

During his eight-year tenure, Mr Giuliani disproved a popular notion that New York was ungovernable. The dangers of the city's streets were once notorious, but crime was cut by half and the murder rate by 70%. But at a cost. The zero tolerance stance on crime which he peddled was controversial - at one point nearly 70,000 people were suing the police over being strip-searched for minor offences like fare-dodging. Others grew tired of the extent to which he claimed personal credit for reducing crime.

Shoddy public schools and a lack of public housing were also features of his tenure, while it was held that both he and his office were ruthless in nullifying opponents and sidelining anyone who did not share their enthusiasm for policies.

snip

Problems in Mr Giuliani's personal life were well publicised after an adulterous affair with a nurse, whom he would later marry. He became the only mayor in the city's history to move out of the mayoral mansion after his second marriage broke down. At the time he was also running for the US Senate and speculation was rife that the affair could have an impact upon his chances. He pulled out of the race, saying he wanted to focus his efforts on fighting his recently diagnosed prostate cancer. While his approach to his illness won him both sympathy and admiration, by 2001 many New Yorkers were looking forward to a change.

snip

Rudolph Giuliani is known for relatively moderate views which, correspondents say, may make it difficult for him to persuade mainstream Republicans that he should be their presidential candidate.
Certainly his support for gun control, same-sex civil unions, embryonic stem cell research and abortion rights would all put him to the left of most of his party membership. However some suggest these very elements could attract voters put off by the more illiberal elements of modern Republicanism.

[Tellurian]

4. On msn Sen Clinton's Vote question just came up again...

and it's starting to click with people understanding exactly what Sen. Clinton is saying. I believe she can go a step further now that mainstream is identifying with her thoughts and words. The media is starting to get the connection she has been stating all along. The Senate vote wasn't a mistake, they didn't get what they voted for- "Bush Lied" is the key piece of additional information needed to complete the thought and state it as fact. Especially now, in light of the climaxing of the Libby Trial where the reason for the retaliation against Ambassador Wilson was because he "called out" president Bush on the 16 words used in the State of the Union address saying Iraq has WMD...when in fact, Bush knew it was a lie and did it deliberately for a preemptive strike on Iraq.

I think the time is right or coming full circle for Senator Clinton to tie the two thoughts together and bluntly tell the media what has transpired since the Senate vote giving the president authority to go to War-- only as a last resort measure. Bush LIED
not only to the Senate and to the Congress. Bush LIED to the People and the World.

[leftofthedial]

6. it's not an RNC talking point.

Anyone who voted for IWR and now claims they didn't know king george would invade Iraq is a liar.

[oasis]

9. "...bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely,

and therefore, war less likely".

I take most Democrat leaders at their word. But then, I'm a Democrat.:dem:

[leftofthedial]

10. So, they were just ignorant, gullible and incompetent

if that's what you prefer.

[oasis]

11. And sorely lacking clairvoyant ability. (n/t)

[patrice]

13. 26 very capable Democrats didn't need clairvoyance to know what was going on. n/t

[oasis]

18. "know what was going on"? Actually 21 senate Democrats voted against IWR. 29 For.

Total vote in the senate: 77 for and 23 against.

[patrice]

20. Mea culpa. I knew I should have looked that up again.

:blush:

[leftofthedial]

14. who could have known?

that a bush would lie?

that "terrorists" would use planes to crash into buildings?

who could have known?

:shrug:

[Dr Fate]

29. Exactly. I'd like to know exactly on what "yes" voters based their trust of Bush.

Bush was a documented, well known liar at the time, and it was documented and known that he was lying about Iraq well before the invasion- they had time to demand a new debate but did not.

The "We didnt know Bush was a liar-our computers & google searches were broken" excuse is quite laugable at this point.

[enough already]

17. If not a liar....

....too stupid and/or gullible to be President.

And I don't for a second believe Hillary is stupid.

[patrice]

12. To whom much is given, much is expected.

Saying this is driven by a desire to divide shows a lack of respect for those who are not, and historically have not been, listened to. We have sincere TRUST issues, because of the IWR Yeas.

Mrs. Clinton (and all of the others) were either too stupid to have seen through what millions of people saw through as it was all going down in 2002. Or they're not that stupid and voted to risk the lives of thousands of Americans and kill tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis for _____________?

I want to support and work for her, but she's got to talk to me about that _______________ AND I would particularly like to know what the real answer has to do with Israel and Palestinian apartheid.

[longship]

15. This is somewhat better than her previous equivocations.

Two weeks ago I was watching CNN and heard Hillary respond with the most hideous equivocations to the same questioning. Maybe she's still learning how to be a better candidate. However, I cannot say that I am very comfortable with her previous handling of these matters. I am most uncomfortable with the undeniable fact that she seems to be playing rhetorical games here.

Why doesn't she just give a straight answer to this very important question? Edwards has done that. So did Kerry (eventually).

Why doesn't Hillary learn from previous mistakes made by other candidates?

Who's running her campaign that she's getting such poor advice?

[Tellurian]

16. Sen Clinton is a lawyer.. words are always key to meaning and intent..

It's a no-brainer after reading her floor statement, she never gave carte blanc to Bush to go to war. Those who keep repeating the LIE are no better than Bush and are aiding and abetting the Republican Party.

Bush has not only ignored the senate's agreement on Iraq but he continues to add signings to resolutions made by Congress. Bush does this in lieu of using his Veto power. His signings, as claiming a Unitary Executive status, not only water down the meaning and intent of Congress by adding executive language to the Resolutions. He is altering the meaning and intent of the original Congressional resolutions to mean what he wants them to mean in support of his agenda.

[longship]

19. Well, you may be right, but that does not address the primary issue

Hillary is equivocating on a very important question, one that keeps coming up over and over again. With her somewhat bellicose stance on Iraq since the IWR vote, she really is in a pickle until she responds directly to these queries. Hell, I just now heard yet another equivocation from her on MS/NBC.

People want the question answered.
This issue is not going to go away.

[Tellurian]

23. What you've said, has crossed my mind as well..

Here is what I think she is doing... she's bringing the pot to a boil.

Where she is gathering the Media's and the People's undivided attention. I'm sure the Repos are jumping up and down with glee thinking just that, she's backed herself into a corner and NOW she's stuck!.. BUT, She's too smart for that.

My own thoughts on this...I think she is waiting this out. As more damning information, damning Bush & Cheney, comes forth as the Libby trial gathers a full head of steam exposing the culpability of Bush and Cheney's planned conspiracy of LYING to everyone to get us into the War with Iraq.

Ultimately, as this Trial begins to wind itself down.. when the connection is 'made as fact' Bush and Cheney LIED to get us into an illegal war in Iraq..She will not only prevail in defense of her decision concerning her Vote on the Iraq War Resolution that it was NOT A MISTAKE AT ALL. She will vindicate her Senatorial peers, who caved in early on, due to the pressure of public opinion demanding an apology to ADMIT A MISTAKE OUR DEMOCRATS NEVER REALLY MADE.

Truthfully, I like her plan and admire her for standing her ground and holding fast to her principles, through all the bashing going on at DU.

[longship]

34. I do not think that's gonna work.

If what you say is true, it is gonna backfire. It doesn't matter what the Repuke candidates are saying, or will say about this. What matters is what Hillary's Dem opponents are saying and will say. Unfortunately for her, she is standing alone on Iraq, the most important issue in the campaign. She has nothing to gain by it. As long as she continues to stonewall this issue, she'll not get the nomination. She may already be doing significant damage.

The question is whether she's doing more damage this way. I say, clearly "Yes".

This isn't rocket surgery. ;-)

[Tellurian]

46. I believe it will- whats more, it's brilliant!

The media sharpens it's focus on the "no apology" flap- OBama chimes in highlighting the "no apology".. touting his good fortune at his clean hands. Bama flings a spike in the air about Hillary's 09' date for bringing the troops home, wondering, she hasn't outlined a plan?

And to your observation regarding the media's incessant echoing of "no apology".. Hillary wishes that meme spinning loud and clear in the air waiting like an arrow searching for the bullseye, the Libby Trial.

query:

rocket surgery? ;)

[Jack Rabbit]

21. Hillary has mastered the art of saying nothing in 25 words or more

You know, I think it's absolutely fair for people who see what's going on in Iraq, understand how deeply it has damaged America's standing in leadership in the world, to have strong feelings and want to talk about that with elected officials and particularly someone running for president.

OK, she says the question is a good one.

But I think it has to be put into the context of who is best equipped to face the realities, the dangers that we confront globally and restore America's leadership.

What does that mean?

She didn't answer the question.

I think that the issue here is that this president asked for authority which he misused.

No, the issue in Ms. Mitchell's question is why Senator Clinton voted to give the Frat Boy the authority he misused. It's not as it there was no evidence out there that the case he presented first to Congress and then to the United Nations was bogus. Many of us who went beyond CNN and Judy Miller's fiction on the front page of The New York Times knew that intelligence was being cooked in the Pentagon, knew that the junta was repeating refuted stories like the one about Mohammad Atta and an Iraqi intelligence meeting in Prague and knew of Scott Ritter's assessment of Iraq's nuclear capabilities.

The questions are why did no one challenge the junta on its facts? and why did these people, including Senator Clinton, who should have known better vote to give these disreputable liars the authority to go to war?

[underpants]

24. face realities ....globally...restore America's leadership

that is what that means.

the tried and true every nth word trick. You hear what you want to hear, actually what you are meant to hear but with an out for the speaker should it turn around to bite the master.

Mission accomplished.

[SemperEadem]

33. and if Mitchell was really a good journalist

she would have made her question direct and to the point as to not give Clinton any wiggle room out of it. She didn't. She softballed the questions just like she's learned to do with the thugs.

Of course, had she used her heat-seekers, she'd have gotten her answers. She either chose not to or decided using them would make her (Mitchell) look bad; in either case the result is the same: the questions didn't get answered.

That is 'conversation with Hillary'.

[Blue_In_AK]

22. What I keep interpreting from Hillary's remarks

(and maybe I'm not hearing her correctly) is that her problem is with the way the war has been conducted, not necessarily with the war itself. Has she ever come out and actually said that going to war with Iraq was WRONG?

[underpants]

25. No of course not

First off she and DLC have fully supported it from the getgo

Second she seems to think she can keep giving this answer and getting away with it....we'll see. The problem is that it might not come back on her until it is too late to respond.

[Dr Fate]

26. I dont trust people who trusted Bush after his U.N. lies came to light.

She had plenty of chances to retract her position or demand a new vote or debate once it came to light that Powell lied tot he UN- yet she sat back and let the invasion happen anyway.

This is why I dont buy the "She was trusting Bush" argument- there is no way any thinking person could have trusted him after the Powell lies tot he UN- and this was many weeks before the invasion, so she had time to make it an issue.

[underpants]

27. It doesn't swim with me either

Edwards apology is a nice step and all but there was no reason to vote for this no reason whatsoever.

[Dr Fate]

28. There was a reason: "Better to be strong & wrong than weak & right."

Google that term and see what you get.

[blm]

35. There were some IWR voters who opposed the DECISION to go to war - Hillary was not

one of them. In fact, she stayed closer to Bush on war throughout 2003 and 2004.

[Dr Fate]

36. I wont split those hairs for anyone's benefit. "Yes" means "yes" to most people.

The average Joe, be they rightwing, moderate or anti-war, knew that a "yes" vote meant we were going to war. Even idiotic media people seemed to know it.

Everyone seemed to know this except certain DEMS, after the fact.

I forgive the ones who is now on my side and at least admits it was a mistake (like Edwards or Kerry), but I'm not going to split those hairs- at the time, myself and most DEMS who were paying attention wanted DEMS to vote "no"- becuase we knew it was a vote against an invasion.

[blm]

37. Not me. I can see why those very familiar with Bush1 administration would believe that

Bush2 would be more influenced by Scowcroft, Baker, Powell and Bush1 who were all AGAINST invasion. I know I believed Bush2 would be a continuation of Bush1 - but it seems the only thing they are continuing is the coverups.

[Dr Fate]

38. I wont argue with you. Go ahead and try to convince folks that "yes" really meant "no."

Refer to history all you want- the meaning of "yes" and "no" stay the same.

We usually agree- but I think your efforts to convince folks that "yes" did not mean "yes" is just not going to work. That is why I never went down that road as a Kerry supporter- the argument just does not work- better to just say it was amistake and move on.

"yes" meant "Yes- let's go to war"

"no" meant- "Not so fast- something is not quite right"

EVERYONE,including Republicans, the media and anti-war folks knew and still knows what was going down with that vote.

[blm]

40. i understand what most people think. And I understand the political reality of it.

But not everyone thinks of things in political ways when they are weighing whether a vote is right or not - some people ARE looking through historical lenses.

Trust me, Doc...you don't have to tell me about the reality of politics. That part is clear as a bell to me. I just don't agree with the black/white aspect of it.

[Dr Fate]

42. Well, they should have focused their lenses a little better.

Because anyone paying attention should have known that Bush II was hot to trot on Iraq, and a liar to boot.

They knew that voting "yes" was saying "yes" to an invasion- the carefully worded speeches were political back up in case things went wrong- and the back up plan did not even work.

[zulchzulu]

30. HRC did say she was against pre-emption in her speech

To be fair, Mrs. Clinton did specifically say she was against a pre-emptive strike against Iraq:

" Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option. "

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

[Dr Fate]

43. So her non-binding speech said "no", but her eyes & vote said "yes."

n/t

[EndElectoral]

31. She abrogated her responsibility...GW mismanaged the whole damn war.

[BenDavid]

39. Listen, HRC has a plan

that will entrap other candidates dems and repubs alike. So just hold on to your critical statements and it will all come forth in due time. Still 10 plus months in 07 before the first vote is ever cast. Have you ever noticed how HRC says something and within a day it is lost because the media turns to what some other candidates says, I E all the reports on Obama saying he will end the war...uh huh but remember that HRC said this on Feb.2, 2007, "If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will.".
Need more evidence then go and read her Senate floor speech from 2002. Find in that speech where she gives bushit the right to attack...

[Dr Fate]

41. Sure- that was her plan when she voted for the war too, right?

She KNEW it would blow up in her face and give her the opportunity to unfurl the brilliant 2008 endgame you have presented. :)

But seriously-You want me to dig through the semantics of her speech and show where she gave Bush the right to attack?

Let's skip the useless, non-binding speech and go straight to the part where she cast a binding "yes" vote.

Everyone watching knew that "yes" meant "yes" and "no" meant "no." None of this hair splitting would be a necessary had she voted "no."

[Disturbed]

44. She screwed up but like Busholini, she won't admit it.

We cannot say that she is stupid. She knew that Busholini was going to invade Iraq. She went along with that no matter what she stated before she signed on. Now she wants to ingore her mistake. It is her major flaw.

[The Count]

45. The press is also guilty. But so are those who voted for IWR. Craven or idiots

Not up to the job.