Senator Clinton's supporters for the Presidency just don't get it. It's not about what she said

[Clarkie1]

before and after her vote for the IWR.

It's about what she DID. No amount of words and tap dancing around what that vote was before or after can change the fact that Senator Clinton failed in her responsibilities as a U.S. Senator by giving the President inappropriate authority to launch a preemptive war. There was not even a requirement, as there should have been in the least, to return to Congress should some kind of imminent threat have developed.

It is very clear that the senators who voted Nay knew exactly what they were voting against and unlike Senator Clinton, Senator Edwards, and others, they did not tapdance around it.

Yes, it's important to oppose the policy now, and it doesn't mean that the Senators who voted Yes are all bad....they can still be good Democrats on other fronts. But it is a black mark on their resume that I believe must exclude them from being the nominee of a party that believes in war as a last resort, Congress upholding it's constitutional role as a co-equal branch of government, and most of all accountability.

We must hold them accountable and demand a higher standard of leadership. They were weak when they needed to be strong; they were foolish when they needed to be wise; and they were self-serving when they needed to put America's best interests first.

In short, they failed in the most important political test of their lives.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Clarkie1]

3. I shall refer to her as Senator Clinton.

I do not hate her, I simply do not believe she has the kind of fortitude we need in a President.

You have your opinion, I have mine.

[k_jerome]

8. meanwhile, you seem to support someone without the testicular fortitude to even run. irony. lol. nt

[FrenchieCat]

10. At least Clark's not tap dancing to your clapping......

and rushing in just cause you say so! :eyes:

[k_jerome]

15. 'cause he's smart enough to know he has no chance or too scared to take one. nt.

[Clarkie1]

16. He concerned with more than himself. nt

[xkenx]

4. As they say, "The truth shall set you free."

[IndianaGreen]

5. We don't have a nominee yet!

And it is the primary season!

[Monkeyman]

21. All I will say is let it play out who wins wins

[Dr Fate]

33. Suuure- and everyone who disagreed with Bush was a "Bush hater."

I've heard that one before- please-there is no irrational hatred at play here- some people just dont trust her and dont want her to be the nominee.

[mrgorth]

37. "Democrat nominees"?

Hmmm.

[bvar22]

43. Echo THAT. Hmmmm

"Democrat nominees...."

People using terminology usually have pedigrees from places other than the Democratic Party.

[CTD]

39. What?! It's the Hillary SUPPORTERS who are GOP enablers.

It doesn't matter if any one of us like or dislikes Hillary. It's all about electability.

Hillary getting the nomination GUARANTEES another Republican president.

GUARANTEED

She is unelectable. Her camp's "tiff" with the Obama camp over Hollywood fundraisers is, at it's core, about Hillary's electability. And even they see that she is unelectable.

If we nominate her, we will lose in the general election. By a landslide. Regardless of who the GOP nominee is. Period.

I do not understand why the Hillary supporters cannot see this.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

71. One of the dumbest statements on here, Erika

Hillary is the best friend the Republicans have right now-- supporting the Iraq War for many years and pushing for a hit against Iran and Syria, also boosting a flag-burning amendment, and even backstabbing her own fellow Democrats. Hillary is the best GOP enabler that the Republicans could ask for.

[IndianaGreen]

81. "democrat nominees"

Wasn't there a plea earlier today to stop this nonsense against democrat nominees?

:eyes:

[MadHound]

84. Wait, I thought that third party voters were the only GOP enablers.

Now you're saying that those who dare to criticize Hillary on her actions are also GOP enablers? Wow, what's next, those who say nothing, and don't praise the Almighty Clinton are GOP enablers? Hmmm, so much for that whole First Amendment thingy:eyes:

It is this sort of sentiment that you spew that really reinforces the point that Hillary is the hand-picked, DLC/DNC/corporate candidate, and that all we are now waiting for is the coranation. Sorry, but this is the primary season friend, and as you should know, it is a full contact sport. We are all free to criticize any or all candidates up for the nomination. It is called democracy in action, get used to it and stop trying to stifle free speech. After all, isn't that what the GOP likes to do:think:

[rodeodance]

90. the boat had already sailed. But I agree--lets cool it.

.........Wasn't there a plea earlier today to stop this nonsense against democrat nominees?

[IndianaGreen]

2. It was a lapse in judgment to trust Bush about anything

The problem is that until this year, Hillary was as belligerent about Iran as Bush was (read her speech to AIPAC). A day late, and a dollar short, are not leadership traits.

[Erika]

6. And the hate Hillary beat goes on

You would rather spend your time berating Hillary than the GOP nominees? Says a lot.

[IndianaGreen]

7. Grow up! This is a discussion board, not a Team Hillary website!

And there are no nominees from either party as yet.

Bush is the one that accuses his critics of being pro-terrorists. Now we hear a self-proclaimed Hillary supporter (we can assume you are) saying that to criticize Hillary is the Bush equivalent of being pro-terrorist.

Perhaps you expected a coronation, if so, move to England!

[Erika]

18. I refused to give a cent to Hillary because of her pro-war vote

But I won't sit quietly and watch her be maligned. That's a GOP thing. If you want to do that, go there.

[Clarkie1]

19. I'm must say I'm puzzled.

Has your opinon of the importance of Senator Clinton's vote changed between then and now? Senator Kennedy called it the most important vote of his life. Looking forward to your reply....

[Erika]

23. I won't malign a DEM candidate

Those who do so are Bush enablers, in my opinion. I also thing a Hillary-Obama will result in a landslide victory. It's not the same old tired conservative white males who hasn't had a new idea in 50 years.

[Clarkie1]

24. I'm still puzzled.

I am making the points I am making for what I assume are the same reasons you refused to "give a cent" to now Senator Clinton because of her war vote. I wish to encourage Democrats not to give another cent to her as well for the same reason.

So how are we different in that regard?

[Erika]

25. Because we are now talking about the presidency.

I'm a Bradly democrat. Both the Clintons are too conservative for me but they beat any GOP candidate by 1000%.

[Clarkie1]

26. Ah...you see that is where we differ!

"Because now we are talking about the presidency"

Yes, it's because we are talking about the presidency...but we differ. We differ in the standards we believe we should demand of those who would seek that office.

We differ profoundly.

[Kare]

40. so if some one has a D after their name..

they are then immune to anyone saying anything bad about their position on issues?

What kind of talk is that? "I won't malign a DEM candidate" ?

So no matter what they did we have to talk nice about them? Or get accused of being haters?

[Morgana LaFey]

41. And you're an enabler too

you're enabling in the opposite direction -- insted of enabling Bush, you're enabling insufficient, derelict, non-existent leadership on the part of our elected Dems along with the betrayal of ALL our values. You're enabling their lies and dissembling. You're enabling them their NOT representing us and getting away with it.

Which is worse?

Well, you could say both are equally bad. But I think the truth is that enabling Dems is far worse because it helps them continue to be such spineless cowards AND prevents us from having not just true representation in Washington, but a bulwark against fascism and the dictatorship we've already got.

You see, it's not enough to be able to vote them out of office every 2 or 6 years, they've GOT to be responsive and accountable to us NOW. If we don't criticize them and work individually and collecively to make them HEAR our unhappiness with their positions and actions and our demands for better behavior on their part, there's no way they CAN be held accountable NOW. No way in the world.

SOOOOOO, it becomes obvious that in enabling the NON-PERFORMANCE of our Dems in Washington you are, in effect, enabling Bush yourself.

The people I respect most in the world are those who can (a) SEE the truth, whatever it is and (b) speak it. This world needs that so badly that anything less, anything that supports the status quo, is IMO every bit as bad a sin as the original lies are. SILENCE CONDONES.

[Forkboy]

44. Cheers!!!! Great post!

:thumbsup:

[Kahuna]

35. Maligned? Looks like you're the one doing the maligning of fellow

DUers who are expression their opinions on an OPINION board.

[Nimrod2005]

36. BINGO!!! Well said..........nt

[David Zephyr]

73. Amen.

The deal with Geffen this week is a huge blow to Bill and Hillary. Obama right now is so damned popular in California that I am concerned about my own candidate, Wes, but the big news is that Hillary is in big trouble and her snide comments about "others" who are soft on terror are just adding to her problems.

Hillary's campaign is in big trouble.

[beachmom]

9. You know, if folks put as much effort into activism in ENDING

this war as they do in attacks on Democrats for one freaking vote, this war might be over by now. You're right -- the nay vote was the right answer, the yea vote was the wrong answer. But quite frankly, I am sick and tired of this line of attack. It gets us NOWHERE!! Meanwhile, our troops are there right now and we're no closer to getting them home as we were when Dems won the election in Nov. Now I like Clark, and I have no dog in this '08 fight, but I just want to scream ENOUGH to this hanging everything on Dems for one vote that Bush didn't need anyway (see the U.N. vote he did NOT receive and invaded the country anyway). We get it -- so NOW what are we going to do?

[Clarkie1]

11. www.stopiranwar.com

www.securingamerica.com

www.stopiranwar.com

[beachmom]

17. That's good. Also, look at this diary, which is a little more organic

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/21/72315/3502

Read the story in the diary, and then there's this call to action:

TINA AND LORI'S CALL TO ACTION: Congress needs to palpably FEEL the presence of we the people; to hear us, and know that we mean it. There cannot be too many voices!

The first week that Tina walked around Congress, she had doors slammed in her face because she was not from the district. The second week she walked in with letters from constituents and it was a different story.

So write letters to Congress--Tina will deliver them and she AND you can be heard. Send them to:

[e-mail]

Or mail them to her at
Tina Richards
c/o
Institute for Policy Studies
1112 16th St.NW, Ste 600
Washington DC, 20039
573.247.8059

It's past time to walk the walk. Everyone who cares about this war and these soldiers, most of whom have been defunded after returning, must stand up and look these Members of Congress in the eye and make them look at you back. Go to their offices locally and demand an end, NOW. If you can get 100 people to join you, it will make a difference. If you can come to Washington and walk the halls, that will make a difference too.


Most telling, was this comment from Sen. Kerry when these activists met with him:

Garrett met with Sen. John Kerry, who told him "Look, I've had 500 people here in my office this week. The other 499 were here for other reasons than the war." Why is this? Why are there not 500 people in each office, demanding an end to this nightmare?



There needs to be more of us involved to stop this damned war!

[Clarkie1]

22. Good work. nt

[FrenchieCat]

12. Clarkie1....I think you are wearing this theme out.....

really...just give it a bit of a rest.

I'm even getting tired of it.

Sorry, but that's the truth!

[Clarkie1]

14. This will be the last one....there are some final things on the subject I wanted to say.

And I've said them now.

[ElizabethDC]

13. It's not that simple

it's easy to assert that she failed in her responsibilities, but that doesn't mean that she did. It's entirely open to interpretation I, for one, do not believe that she or any of the other senators who voted for the IWR failed us, because that's such a broad generalization and requires so many assumptions. Do I wish they hadn't voted for it? Absolutely. But hindsight is 20/20, and I won't be basing my primary vote solely on the IWR. I want to look ahead.

[Erika]

20. Welcome n/t

[DURHAM D]

27. Blah, blah, blah.

Back at ya - they (you) needed (need) to (to) put (put) America's (the party's) best (best) interests (interests) first (first).

Oh the hyperbole - you have decided that the IWR vote was "the most important political test of their lives". My God - are they all going to die tomorrow or leave public office the next or do you honestly think that no one currently in elective office will ever be presented with a more difficult matter to consider?

How selfish you seem - everyone serves you? Politics plays out over generations, not years. If you can do better run for office and/or get some balance to your ideas.

[Clarkie1]

29. Kennedy said it was the most important vote of his life.

So I'm in good company.

[oasis]

28. It's Bush's war. B-U-S-H betrayed congress. There's nothing more to "get". (eom)

[Dr Fate]

34. Yes- Bush, the "slick" car-salesman "tricked" poor, unaware Hillary.

Hell- he must have still been "tricking" her for weeks after everyone knew Powell lied to the UN-becuase she still supported Bush even after that.

And as a reward for this astounding vision, leadership & "experience", we should nominate her as the leader of the free world.

No, there is much more to "get"- Bush had folks who agreed with him and supported him.

[EndElectoral]

30. She is a lawyer. She knows the language of the IWR. She should apologize.

Ask her what wording was used to define an end to the IWR. Why is al queda included in an Iraq War Resolution. Why did she not wait until the UN had voted again? Why the rush when Hans Blix said the inspections were making progress? Why did she trust Bush despite what people like Clarke were saying?

If one looks at the language of that bill, and you are an attorney, and you cannot apolgize, then you are in fgact just plain stubborn. We don't need anymore of that.

It's not about liking Mrs. Clinton or preferring another candidate, it is the most pressing issue on people's mind currently. Her stand is one of beleiving she did not make a mistake. To me that's a deal breaker. This has been descrbied as one of the worst foreign policy blunders of all time, and she was a party to it. I can accept she was duped. I cannot accept the language in the IWR. We are now in a situation where the language in the that bill was not precise enough so that it now permits Bush to use the precept of a war on terror to fight anywhere and can argue it is contained within the IWR.

She needs to apologize for the language of the bill. She needs to apogize for abrogating her responsiblity and letting the President decide when and if to go to war. She needs to apologize for getting on board with the American people so late.

I like a lot of Mrs. Clinton's policies, but on this she is dead wrong, and this is the most important one.

[Tellurian]

31. No she doesn't. So don't hold your breath!

find a new dog to beat and report back here asap.

[EndElectoral]

42. I'm reporting back.

Here's excerpts from the IWR that she should apologize for and why:

"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; "

No proof. Feingold and Boxer knew on their vote.

"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; "

Why is 911 and al Queda's attack linked with a hypothetical WMD stockpile program in Iraq?

"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; "

This is completely contradictory to what the UN inspector team led by Hans Blix was reporting. Scott Ritter confirmed as well.

"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"

How did Iraq pose a continuing threat to the national security threat to the US? WMD's? Why not say HOW in this segment?

"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; "

This is the biggie becasue it links 911 to an Iraq War resolution which had nothing to do with 911. And they offered NO PROOF it had anything to do with 911, yet put it in the bill.

"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; "

All appropriate actions? Again mixing 911 with Iraq, and as a result allowing Bush the pretext for a perpetual war on terrorism rather than a specific action against al queda which should have been put in a separate bill. In other words giving Bush carte blanch to attack anyone he deems a terrorist.

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

As he determines to be necessary and appropriate - It is Congress's reponsibility to determine WHO is necessary and appropriate.

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

There was no national security threat and therewas no proof the threat ws continuing.
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

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.

Mixing this 911 with Iraq is WHAT she needs to apologize for. There NEVER was any link. Can't you get this?

Feingold and Boxer knew this was a bad bill. Edwards realizes he made a mistake and apolgized. The least HRC could do is realize she made a mistake and apologize.

[man4allcats]

32. "They were weak when they needed to be strong"

There are few if any among them that are not assholes when you get right down to it, and this certainly includes Hillary. Nevertheless, if she gets the nomination I will vote for her. Dennis Kucinich would be my ideal candidate for our "next president" nominee, but again Hillary will get my vote if she gets the nomination. Even a DLC'er is better than a RePUKE (though regrettably, these days one almost has to wonder: Which, of all of them, can't be bought for the right price?).

[SaveElmer]

38. And Clarkie1's daily attempt to peddle his disinformation...

I'm beginning to think its just a shameless attempt at getting threads on the "Greatest Hits" Page...


Nothing like a good juicy anti-Clinton thread to get the hallelujah chorus all riled up....

[Dr Fate]

45. What "disinformation?" Hillary did indeed vote for the war and supported it.

Exactly what part of the OP would you describe as disinformation? Please use quotes.

[SaveElmer]

46. By saying it does not "matter what they said"

He is charging that all of the "Yes" votes were lying about their reason for voting that way...which was clearly to provide leverage to reinsert inspectors...

A charge without evidence, and refuted by the statements of every one of the Democrats that voted that way...

He peddles this shit on a daily basis...

[Dr Fate]

47. So her mouth said "no" but her vote said "yes." Let's break this down into something simple:

Was she for the war or was she against it?

That is what many swing-voters & apolitical voters are going to ask-contrary to popular myth, it is not just the "far left activists" who are against the war and who thinks it matters how our leadership got there.

Can she answer it? Can you?

I dont think it is disinformation at all to suggest that Hillary knew that "yes" meant "yes"-or that she was for the war. Even the average Joe watching TV knew that the vote meant we were going to war.

[SaveElmer]

48. She meant exactly what she said...

She was against invasion, against preemptive war...and her vote was designed, as was Harkin's, Cleland's, Kerry's, Edwards etc to provide leverage to reinsert inspectors....


There is no evidence otherwise, and to say so is wrong

[Dr Fate]

49. Confused swingvoter: "So was she for the war, or was she against it?"

"She did vote "yes" - right?"

If she was against the war in the days leading up to the invasion and in the months after we went in, then by all means, show us where she acted on that belief.

Also, it's not just about her vote- it's about her continued support for Bush & his war long after it was known that Bush lied to Congress & Powell lied to the UN multiple times.

[SaveElmer]

52. Feel free to do a search on my previous...

Dozens of posts on this topic...

You might start by reading her actual floor statement, along with those of the other 27 Senators that voted similarly...

Media Matters has an excellent article debunking common myths about her including that which says she has been an ardent supporter of the war...

All of this has been hashed over before with the OP...he has decided it is all a lie and posts a thread similar to this one virtually every day...

[Dr Fate]

53. What average voter is going to do all that research? Just answer the simple question:

"Was she for the war, or was she against it?"

If she was against it, then please, show us and the swing-voters the action(s) she took in the days leading up to the invasion, or in the months afterwards where she acted on that belief and tried to stop it.

Please- you should be more than happy to shut me down with some solid examples, if they exist.

Reading her floor speech does nothing- she still voted "yes". Her speech said "no", but her vote said "yes"- that clarifies nothing to anyone with half a brain who knew damn well what that the vote to got to war-not the speech- was what that day was about.

I didnt ask you to provide me with things that fell out of her mouth- I asked for examples where she ACTED on the belief that she was against the war- if that is true.

I'm not convinced that the OP is lying- I'm convinced he is on to something.

[SaveElmer]

54. Are you an average Joe?

If you have a desire to find out consult the sources I have listed.

[Dr Fate]

55. Was Hillary for the war, or was she against it? A one word answer should suffice.

Because one word, easy-to-understand answers are what voters like.

If the answer is "against"- then please answer the follow up I've posted twice.

Average folks dont have a desire to find out what-ever it is you want them to find-and they certainly dont come to DU.

Most folks already correctly believe that the vote that day meant we were going to war- average folks dont have time to think in your revisionist terms.

Again:

Was she for the war, or was she against it?

[SaveElmer]

57. And again...

Feel free to consult the sources I have listed...I do not live in the absolutist, black and white world most on the left do. If you truly want to find out where she stood on the war before and since I suggest you start with her Senate website, her floor statement is there where she warns that military action prior to the completion of inspections would be a very bad idea, along with a complete section on statements she has made on the Iraq war, the actions she has taken to hold Bush accountable including fraud in contracting, intelligence failures, benefits for soldiers etc. It is all there. I suggest looking at Media Matters for a good debunking of some of the common beliefs regarding her positions...

If you truly want to know, then the research should not be a burden, should it?

[Dr Fate]

58. So are you saying she was "for" or are you saying she is it "against" it?

I'm sorry- I was watching Desperate Houswives & American Idol while you were giving that long speech about blacks & whites doing research or something-

Did you say she was "for" the war or did you say she was "against" it? Break it down for me- I'm busy.

But seriously- why should I do the research- I already know she supported Bush & the war-my memory of the days before & after the invasion is just fine. I'm just allowing you to somehow prove she wasnt behind it for the majority of the time.

[SaveElmer]

59. I am saying...

Take a little initiative...get your head out of the clouds and do a little research...

You are a smart person, you can do it...and once you have...c'mon back and I will be glad to discuss it with you!

[Dr Fate]

60. But was she for the war, or against it? Just a one word answer will do.

fair enough-But I already know she was "for" it.

I've already done my research- she was for it. She even voted "yes" the day congress authorized the war in reality and in the eyes of the public. Apparently everyone in the entire world knew what that vote was about except her. She must have thought the speech was more binding or something.

I also know that she continued to support the war long after it was known that Bush lied to Congress and Powell lied to the UN- so it is not just about the vote or what she does now, after the polls turned sour.

So, unless you can site some "I'm against it" actions she took BEFORE the polls said the war was unpopular, then thinking people come to the conclusion that she was "for" it.


Was she for the war, or was she against it?

[SaveElmer]

61. Send me links...

And we can hash them over...and again...there is no evidence you can point to that shows she wasn't voting for the IWR for the exact reason she said she was...if you have some statement which contradicts this...please forward it on!!!

[Dr Fate]

62. You need a link that explains the meaing of "yes" vs. "no?" "For" vs. "against?"

You need a link that proves that every single person with half a brain knew what the vote meant that day?

Besides, I'm still waiting for you to answer the simple question- then we will deal with links.

Hillary is your candidate, not mine- if you have links where she acted upon her opposition to the war after she found out Bush & Powell lied to her-but BEFORE the invasion, feel free to post them for all to see- it could only benefit you.

[SaveElmer]

63. As I have explained...

In my view, for the 28 Democrats, an aye vote was NOT a vote for war...as every one of them said...if you choose not to believe them...that is your prerogative...

So, you are asking me if there are any statements from Hillary between February 24th when Colin Powell gave his U.N. speech, and March 18th when the invasions began...no you got me there...during that 3 week period I can find no statement that Hillary expressed any dismay at intelligence failures...

Now if you have some links showing me where other Democrats...during that time period, were raising the roof on intelligence failures...feel free to send those along!!!

[Dr Fate]

64. You have explained nothing. Was she FOR the war before the invasion, or AGAINST it?

A one word answer will suffice.

And sorry, but links confirming or dispelling the sins and inaction of other DEMS dont resuce Hillary here- she is the one preening for the nod. The point of bringing up Powell's known lies is to put to rest the myth that Hill & others were "fooled."

[SaveElmer]

65. Yeah...

Answer the question...which Democrats between Feb 24, 2002 and Mar 18, 2002 were speaking out on the intelligence failures of Bush and Powell....several of the other candidates were in the Congress at the time...

You set the parameters...why hold Hillary to a standard you don't hold anyone else too...

As to here actions following the invasion, I have pointed you to many resources...all you have to do is take advantage...

[Dr Fate]

66. Was she FOR the war before the invasion, or against it? Why cant you answer?

Answer that first- I've only asked you a million times- then we can discuss the several Democrats who did NOT trust Bush, voted "no" and also acted on their concerns that Bush was not leveling with us.

Who said I'm not holding other "yes" voters to the same standard I hold Hillary? I certainly am.

[SaveElmer]

83. Ok so you have changed the paramters again...

Senator Clinton's floor speech October 2002 - 5 months before invasion

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.


...

Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.

...

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

[Clarkie1]

78. delete. wrong thread. nt

[Clarkie1]

79. delete. nt

[k_jerome]

82. you will get absolutely brow beat by this one...

with attempts to control the discourse. you're doing a great job.

[Clarkie1]

80. Do you believe that the Congress shares some responsibility

for getting us into war with Iraq?

[SaveElmer]

85. Getting us in?

No...George Bush was going to attack Iraq no matter the outcome of the IWR, as we now know. Democrats had a 1 seat majority at the time including Joe Lieberman, so I think there was no chance it wouldn't pass...but if it hadn't, Republicans simply would have passed it when they took the majority 4 months later...and in any case Bush was going to invade...

The really sad and frustrating thing is, the IWR was working as many of those voting Yes had intended. Inspections had restarted...a good survey of their WMD capability was being made which would have eventually revealed that Bush had lied about them...which is probably why he cut short the inspections and went to war. A full inspection would have completely undercut the WMD rationale...

So in short no, I don't think the Congress is ultimately responsible for the war

I do think however, Republicans who voted for the IWR hoping for that outcome have some explaining to do...

[Clarkie1]

87. Alright then. You disagree with Kerry....and we will never agree on this.

No need for further reply.

[SaveElmer]

88. And for the third time...he picks up his ball...

And goes home!!!

:cry:

[paulk]

50. If Democratic primary voters didn't care about the IWR

in 2004, what makes you think they'll care in 2008?

"We must hold them accountable and demand a higher standard of leadership. They were weak when they needed to be strong; they were foolish when they needed to be wise; and they were self-serving when they needed to put America's best interests first."

[Dr Fate]

51. We cared then and we learned plenty of lessons since. Anti-war sentiment was not at it's peak in '04

Apples in Oranges, in my opinion.

[paulk]

69. I think anti-war sentiment

and this constant naggling over the IWR are apples and oranges.

[Dr Fate]

76. So does Hillary. No wonder no one trusts her- she cant even make that simple connection. n/t

n/t

[paulk]

93. no one trusts her?

Is that why she's leading in all the polls?

Post something worth reading, Dr. Fate -

Your one line knee jerk responses are getting old....

[ShortnFiery]

67. Precisely because it has BLEW UP in our face over the past two years. n/t

[paulk]

68. yeah, that's why we took back the Congress...

could you at least try and make some sense with your hit and run posts?

[ShortnFiery]

74. OK, here goes!

Since the 2004 Elections, Iraq has slid steadily into civil war.

Simple, "It blew up in our faces" is an accurate description of the increasing death and destruction that is occurring in the country WE CHOOSE to occupy.

It should not be surprising that those of us who have been against the Iraqi invasion and occupation since the beginning of the propaganda blitz by the media, NOW FEEL stronger than ever that any Senator that voted for the IWR is NOT worthy of our highest office in the land.

FWIW I did a great deal of soul searching to forgive Kerry. In fact, Kerry's past brave stance in helping to bring an end to the Vietnam War afforded me the personal justification to cast my vote for him in the end. I knew that he had seen Combat and would not want to keep our troops in Iraq.

I will NOT choose Party over Country like most republicans can rationalize into absurdity. Now that the Iraqi occupation is just one big bloodbath, I don't feel at all like a hypocrite when I claim that I will not vote for ANY Senator who voted for the IWR.

BTW it's not "hit and run" posting when the concise comment is self explanatory. ;)

[paulk]

94. speak for yourself

I was against the Iraq invasion and occupation from the beginning also -

and I think this endless nattering over the IWR is counterproductive....

to the goal of taking back the executive branch from the Republicans.
--------------------


I sincerely hope that if a democrat who voted for the IWR is our candidate in 2008 you can find your way to voting for him or her. If not - I hope you broadcast that sentiment far and wide on this board - so that the admin. kicks you off for breaking the rules.

The vote for President is going to be about a lot more than the IWR.

[Dr Fate]

77. We did win finally- once we were against the war. When we were for it or hedged-we lost.

Thank God all those Democrats who used to be for the war came to their senses and realized the anti-war camp had been right about this war all along.

Once it was percieved that they wanted to end the war- they finally won in 2006. It's just too bad that more Democrats were not right all along like the anti-war movement was-or we would not even be having these arguments-we would have already won the WH & congress in '04.

[AtomicKitten]

56. I share your repugnance over the IWR.

The difference is I don't qualify the excuses/explanations the way you seem to do, assigning blame to some more than others. Understanding the fine points of the resolution, the overall effect was putting a Democratic seal of approval vis a vis Democratic complicity on this awful mess.

But it is what it is and I have pretty much stopped my harangue on the IWR and on the candidates that voted 'yes.' At some point, you may be better served to set this aside and approach the election with your views on this vote expressed in your primary election choice. In a perfect world, Gore, Obama or Clark will be our nominee and we can truly put this Democratic complicity behind us. That is my hope.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

70. Hear Hear

and what she's continued to say and do in the years since the IWR in 2002, supporting the Iraq War and it's getting bigger and worse than it already is, hawkish stances toward Iran and especially her backstabbing of other Democrats. "Democrats are soft on terrorism?" This coming from a professed Democrat? Hillary's basically on the neocons' payroll.

[MODemocrat]

72. Edwards waited ever so long before "apologizing" about his vote

which was after the war became so unpopular, he figured he'd better change his tune. This is Bush and Cheney's war, not Senator Clinton's. The people who won't vote her for not saying she's sorry, were
never going to vote for her anyway. I suppose a poor excuse is better than none.
:eyes: :boring: :shrug:

[ShortnFiery]

75. It's a valid stance. But you have a point.

I would NOT have voted for HRC for President anyway. However, now I hope that IF some other Democratic challenger is voted in for the Nomination, that they do NOT select HRC as their running mate. After what I've recently seen, she is not of good enough character to rate the VP slot. :thumbsdown:

No worries, she's so nasty in her "attack strategy" she won't have a friend left if she and her sycophants don't buy or bully HRC to be the next Democratic Nominee.

[MODemocrat]

95. I don't have an argument with you about Hillary

Vote for whomever you choose; it's a semi-free country yet. That's a pretty derogatory statement to say
she is not of good enough character to rate the VP slot. You're giving Dick Cheney a free pass, aren't you? I will not be supporting her opponents, not because they're not good enough; They're just not my choice. But as poor choice as I have, I'd rather have one of them than ANY REPUBLICAN.

:dem:

[Evergreen Emerald]

86. Are you getting paid to post these daily diatribes?

You don't have an exclusive on "getting it." You won't look at what she said in the past and what she says today. You won't look at her record and what she does as a senator. That one vote is IT for you. And that is fine. I understand your position. (I "get" your opinion).

Here is mine: no matter how many times you post the same argument, no matter how many days in a row you say that people who disagree with you don't "get it," you will not change my opinion.

[AtomicKitten]

89. It's okay, really.

Posting on these discussion boards can be cathartic. I agree with the general sentiment expressed regarding the IWR; I just hold them all equally accountable and am not impressed by nor feel their varied explanations/apologies mitigate their complicity.

We have to move beyond these emotional issues and I fully understand the process Clarkie1 is going through. At some point, I believe he will make peace with his gut-felt and quite understandable concerns and be able to compartmentalize it neatly.

I think people should be able to do that without negativity here, but I realize that sentiment is probably unrealistic. Perhaps hiding the threads in the meantime would work for you. Peace.

[Evergreen Emerald]

96. same to you AtomicKitten

[rodeodance]

91. Good summary of their postions here: (Substance)

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/us/politics/IRAQPOSITIONS.html?hp

[windbreeze]

92. The real message

we need to be concerned with, is....the one we get, when an elected official, who's wages WE PAY...and who wants to hold the highest office in this nation....tells us, that IF we don't like the way she voted...tough...there are other candidates out there for you to support...Doesn't that bother anyone?? should any candidate for prez...be telling us, that they don't care what we think or how we feel about actions they took, while holding elected office, especially considering we made it very plain that we DID NOT support or want a war???? Shouldn't there be some outrage about that kind of attitude from an elected official???

Isn't one of our biggest bitches about the guy in the WH right now about how HE has been doing all along, exactly what HE pleases, in spite of us...So we want to replace him with someone who leads me to believe, intends to do our nation's business the exact same way???? I can't help but question...why would we do that???

All Senator Clinton had to say was, that she wasn't going to apologize for her vote....she did NOT have to say that if we don't like how she voted...to support another candidate...because the message she sent me was...I don't care about or need, you or your vote......and her having that attitude, makes me wonder if she's confident that she has this all sewn up already and that's why what we think, doesn't matter to her...personally, I think that type of attitude should worry all of us more than just a little...she's supposedly a polished politician, and it strikes me pretty strange that she made such an ill considered statement....It also makes me wonder if someone guaranteed her the presidency already, and from here on out, whatever happens is just for show???....this is mo only...not trying to cause hate and discontent...just trying to bring a point up...about really listening to what is being said.....

I know I sure don't want more of what we've had the last 7 years, no matter who's name or party, the presidency bears....
wb