Today is the 5th anniversary of Hillary's ill-fated vote to authorize the war.

[Carrieyazel]

I wanted to get your thoughts, sentiments and/or complaints about Sen. Clinton's awful vote to authorize this detestable and catastrophic war. If you recall, Hillary said that the invasion of Iraq would be "in the best interests of the United States". She also cast her vote "with conviction". But did she? Or did she cast the vote with "calculation"? Who advised her to do it, or did she make this deplorable decision on her own? Your responses are much appreciated.

[Skip Intro]

1. I believe members of Cogress were lied to and manipulated by the bush regime

Hillary has said as much. The Democratic representative, can't remember his name, recently charged that he was shown pictures of what was presented to be UAV's supposedly on their way on tankers heading for the US, and were capable of dousing our cities with biological and chemical weapons. Of course, it was a lie, as he recently said. I can't imagine the lies weren't directed at the Senate as well.

[Dawgs]

24. How would she know? She didn't read the intelligence report before she voted.

:shrug:

[mike_c]

29. so why did a sizable minority vote against the IWR?

If the lies were so compelling, were they then closet Saddam supporters? They didn't swallow the lies uncritically, they didn't triangulate and parse the meaning of "authorization to use military force."

[Dr Fate]

34. In other words, some DEMS were stupid enough to be "fooled" by Bush.

Not this one though.

[Cha]

79. Not Senator Paul Wellstone,

either.

[BootinUp]

39. I believe you are absolutely correct.

And it pisses me off when so-called Democrats deflect the blame from Bush and Cheney and Co.

[Dr Fate]

60. Exactly. Those congressmen had nothing to do with what went on in congress.

Even in hindsight it is clear that they had no choice but to be fooled or pretend to be fooled.

"Don't look at me- I was fooled!! Trust the party that gets fooled, not the party that does the fooling!!" Something like that.

Turned out to be a really shitty strategy.

[BootinUp]

63. Its got nothing to do with being fooled

There was a strong call from the citizens of the US to force Iraq to yield to UN inspections. The choice was to believe Bush was not as stupid as we now know, or to filibuster and bring the wrath of the country on the party.

The left claims to "know" that Bush was going to invade, just like they "know" the Kyle Lieberman final vote was to justify war. The left and I mean the far left (you are possibly included) will claim exactly that, anytime there is a foreign country we are having a confrontation with. The fact is, no one knew except for people inside the Administration and some folks with connections to the military.

The vote was for UN inspections and war only if Iraq fought them. What Bush did with it is on him.

When will you so-called Democrats hold him accountable instead of your own party? You only help the repukes by diverting the blame in this way.

edited for grammar and sp.

[BeyondGeography]

78. How about editing for revisionist nonsense as well?

This bullshit about only the left believing IWR was a vote for war is just that; bullshit. It's the same pile of crap that Howard Wolfson tried to sell a few months ago on Hardball:

==Matthews: How would you describe position in voting to authorize the war in Iraq believing we weren't going to war, that Bush really didn't intend to go to war. Was that naive?

Wolfson: Look, she's taken responsibility for the vote. She's been asked about this...

Mathews: Wouldn't you call that naive to believe...

Wolfson: No...

Matthews: ...that we're not going to war when everybody thought we were going to war? I thought we were going to war.

Wolfson: I guess 80 percent of the country was naive then.

Matthews: They didn't think Bush would take us to war?

Wolfson: I think people were, believed George Bush was going to do what he said he was going to do, which was to try diplomacy. And he didn't.==

Except the average American was smarter than either you or Wolfson think:

==Most of the questions asked in late 2002 focused on whether and under what conditions Americans would support going to war. However, a CNN/USA Today/Gallup survey of 1,017 adults conducted November 22-24, 2002 (a month after the vote to authorize the use of military force in Iraq), showed that a majority of Americans believed President Bush had "already decided" to invade Iraq:

Which comes closer to your view about President Bush? Bush has already decided to invade Iraq and has agreed to UN inspections mainly to gain international support for that action. OR, Bush has not yet decided whether to invade Iraq and has agreed to UN inspections mainly to determine if an invasion of Iraq were necessary.

58% - Bush has already decided to invade
38% - Bush has not yet decided whether to invade
4% - No opinion

A bit of context on the timing: The U.S. Senate passed the resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq on October 11, 2002 (with Senator Clinton voting in favor). President Bush signed it into law on October 16. Three weeks later, on November 8, the United Nations Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441 urging Iraq to "comply with its disarmament obligations" or face "serious consequences." Iraq agreed to the resolution on November 13, and under its terms, U.N. weapons inspectors were set to return to Iraq on November 27 after a four year absence to conduct onsite inspections in search of weapons of mass destruction.

Gallup fielded its survey on November 22-24, just days before the return of the U.N. inspectors, a time when one might expect optimism regarding the use of diplomacy to resolve the conflict. Yet even then, 58% of Americans believed the President had "already decided to invade Iraq."==

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/unspinning_howard_wolfson.php

[BootinUp]

93. A poll of Americans means they all "knew"

You seem to miss the distinction between knowledge and a belief or suspicion. Besides I lived through that time as did you and I don't need one poll you cherry picked to tell me what the mood in the country was. The country was non-supportive of war unless the UN sanctioned it. Bush made promises to us and the Congress to get his fucking resolution.

Like I said, the only people that "knew" where the people inside the actual planning.

A shitload of Americans know that 911 was and inside job, and that Kennedy was not killed by a loan assassin. Neither of these little nuggets of knowledge are based on any facts but whats that matter.

I think my point has been made, and once again I call on all the Democrats that weaken our party by placing blame for the war on the people who did not order the invasion, did not declare war, and agreed with the American people that the UN should sanction any military action to stop.

[Dr Fate]

86. The fake facts turned out to be wrong. No WMDs, no 9/11 connex.

Fact is, the folks who opposed the war were 100% right about the WMDs, right about the quagmire.

FOX news, Bush and the "centrists" and the public they dragged with them were wrong.

I dont want to hold Bush accountable??? I want to IMPEACH him!! What in the world are you talking about???

[bvar22]

77. Are ALL these Democrats smarter than Hillary?

Can Hillary be easily manipulated by a FUCKING IDIOT?

Not good credentials for a Presidential Candidate.
Those rationalizations (Lied to, Manipulated) really don't work for Hillary when MOST Democrats were too smart to be duped.

Here is a list of the Dems who weren't fooled or manipulated by Bush*:

The Democratic Party Honor Roll
These Democrats should be remembered for their principled stand against the WAR Machine.

IWR

United States Senate

In the Senate, the 21 Democrats, one Republican and one Independent courageously voted their consciences in 2002 against the War in Iraq :

Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii)
Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico)
Barbara Boxer (D-California)
Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia)
Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota)
Jon Corzine (D-New Jersey)
Mark Dayton (D-Minnesota)
Dick Durbin (D-Illinois)
Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin)
Bob Graham (D-Florida)
Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
Jim Jeffords (I-Vermont)
Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)
Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
Carl Levin (D-Michigan)
Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland)
Patty Murray (D-Washington)
Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island)
Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland)
Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan)
The late Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota)
Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)

Lincoln Chaffee (R-Rhode Island)


United States House of Representatives

Six House Republicans and one independent joined 126 Democratic members of the House of Represenatives:

Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii)
Tom Allen (D-Maine)
Joe Baca (D-California)
Brian Baird (D-Washington DC)
John Baldacci (D-Maine, now governor of Maine)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin)
Xavier Becerra (D-California)
Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon)
David Bonior (D-Michigan, retired from office)
Robert Brady (D-Pennsylvania)
Corinne Brown (D-Florida)
Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)
Lois Capps (D-California)
Michael Capuano (D-Massachusetts)
Benjamin Cardin (D-Maryland)
Julia Carson (D-Indiana)
William Clay, Jr. (D-Missouri)
Eva Clayton (D-North Carolina, retired from office)
James Clyburn (D-South Carolina)
Gary Condit (D-California, retired from office)
John Conyers, Jr. (D-Michigan)
Jerry Costello (D-Illinois)
William Coyne (D-Pennsylvania, retired from office)
Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland)
Susan Davis (D-California)
Danny Davis (D-Illinois)
Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon)
Diana DeGette (D-Colorado)
Bill Delahunt (D-Massachusetts)
Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut)
John Dingell (D-Michigan)
Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas)
Mike Doyle (D-Pennsylvania)
Anna Eshoo (D-California)
Lane Evans (D-Illinois)
Sam Farr (D-California)
Chaka Fattah (D-Pennsylvania)
Bob Filner (D-California)
Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts)
Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas)
Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois)
Alice Hastings (D-Florida)
Earl Hilliard (D-Alabama, retired from office)
Maurice Hinchey (D-New York)
Ruben Hinojosa (D-Texas)
Rush Holt (D-New Jersey)
Mike Honda (D-California)
Darlene Hooley (D-Oregon)
Inslee
Jackson (Il.)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E.B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Maloney (CT)
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller
Mollohan
Moran (Va)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Udall (CO)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Woolsey
Wu

[maxsolomon]

2. she wasn't alone

john kerry & hordes of other senators & congressmen did, too.

politicians are craven, calculating cowards. not being so means you don't stay in office or win the presidency. if you can't accept this & work within these limits, you need another planet.

it was NOT a declaration of war. bush & the GOP started this illegal, undeclared war. not hillary clinton.

[wyldwolf]

3. Today is the 5th anniversary of Biden's/Edwards's/Kerry's, etc. ill-fated vote to authorize the war.

And ya know what? Bill Richardson said he WOULD HAVE VOTED FOR IT had he been in Congress.

[redqueen]

5. Yup...

weird how they got left out of the OP, innit? :eyes:

[Carrieyazel]

13. Yes, Biden/Edwards/Kerry made the same awful decision just like Hillary,

but they have come out since then and admitted their vote was a mistake, or essentially saying that they blew it. Hillary refuses to do so.

[wyldwolf]

16. umm...

but they have come out since then and admitted their vote was a mistake, or essentially saying that they blew it. Hillary refuses to do so.

She has said as much a number of times.

She just hasn't kissed the netroot's ass and begged your forgiveness.

[bpeale]

27. would they have voted for Kyl-Lieberman too?

did they? would they? i think not

[cali]

4. LOL.

I hate that vote and I'll never forget those who voted for it. And I do think they had enough info to know better- that's what one of my Senators said in his speech before the vote, but why the fuck are you dredging this up as an OP? Everyone here knows how she voted, and your motives are clear when you don't include others in the race who also voted for it.

[rodeodance]

6. She was a Senator from New YORK-!.

[derby378]

7. She's gonna be on Keith Olbermann tonight...

Don't know how much he'll quiz Hillary on her vote in 2002, but it'll be interesting and educational nonetheless.

[pnwmom]

8. Today is the 5th anniversary of a vote that didn't make any real difference.

If every single Democrat had voted AGAINST the IWR, would that have denied Bush anything? No.

By October 2002, Bush was riding high on his post 9/11 popularity (hard as that may be to recall now) and he was poised to sweep new Republican majorities into Congress.

When the Dems worked with the Rethugs to approve a compromise IWR that restricted Bush to Iraq, they knew the only real choice was to pass that IWR -- or to take a moral, high-minded stand against the war and then sit back and watch the Rethugs give Bush a blank-check IWR in January 2003 (one that would have allowed him to attack Syria, Iran, virtually anywhere.) One way or another, Bush would have had his war resolution in plenty of time for his spring offensive, and the Dems' united opposition would have just been a mini-bump on the road.

[zulchzulu]

Great logic...so vote FOR it! Just like the vote to attack Iran...

It doesn't make any real difference... yeah...right...

[pnwmom]

26. Or OPPOSE IT! Then watch the Rethugs pass a worse bill in January.

Some choice.

[Dr Fate]

35. I see- the "strategy" was to be for it, then be branded a "flip-flopper" once the truth comes out.

Brilliant.

Sure- doing the right thing and sticking to your guns would have been a disaster.

[pnwmom]

80. Giving Bush a blank check to go into Iran, Syria, and anywhere else

would have led to an even bigger disaster than the one we're in now.

And, if the Dems hadn't worked with them on the compromise IWR that limited him to Iraq, that's what the Rethugs were prepared to give him, as soon as they took office in January.

[CTLawGuy]

73. the republicans took power in Januay

why didn't they supersede this bill with a "worse bill?"

Because this was pretty much the worst possible bill!

[pnwmom]

83. Because that would have meant reneging on the pledges they made

to the Dems in order to get some Democratic support for the compromise version.

This wasn't the worst bill. Chuck Hagel, who opposed the war all along, and others have described the blank check that the Rethugs were prepared to hand Bush, and it was much broader than the bill that was passed with the assistance of some of the Dems.

[CTLawGuy]

91. And republicans would never

screw anyone over to gain political advantage, cuz they have honor and integrity. :eyes:

Bush wanted the authority to invade Iraq, and he got it. He didn't want anything more.

[bvar22]

85. If every single Democrat had voted AGAINST the IWR

it would have denied Bush* the cover of saying "The Democrats voted for it too".
That is HUGE in my book.

[frazzled]

9. And Edwards, Dodd, Biden as well

Lest you forget that all four of those voted for it, not just Clinton. Indeed, Edwards was so gung ho he actually was the only one to cosponsor the resolution.

It's the Fifth Anniversary for all of them.

Kucinich voted no. Obama spoke out publicly against the resolution before it passed. Richardson ... well, not so much, but we'll let him off the hook.

[Cameron27]

10. Yep

:thumbsup:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. Why Let Richardson Off The Hook

He was a public official...It was men and women from his state's Guard, Reserves, and regular army that was being killed...

Did he speak out against it?

[Carrieyazel]

12. You mean did he wait until long after the American people turned against the war?

Like Hillary did? I'll have to look it up.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. No

Richardson waited for the primaries to start...


The article goes on to quote Richardson on a couple of interesting topics:

...since he has gone from his initial support of the Iraq war to being an outspoken anti-warrior....

http://news.aol.com/elections-blog/tag/BillRichardson/

[frazzled]

14. I personally don't ... but since it's not entirely clear where he stood

I'm not grouping him in with those who took a very saber-rattling, gung-ho approach to the run-up to the war for purposes of this discussion.

My recollection was that I saw Richardson on Charlie Rose or something like that during the time, and wasns't pleased with his position (he wasn't warmongering, but he wasn't criticizing either). Since then, I've seen some things that were a bit more nuanced that he said at the time. So I'm just not really qualified to judge.

[maximusveritas]

15. He definitely supported the war; He now says it was a mistake

but hasn't apologized as far as I know

MR. RUSSERT: So you regret supporting the war initially?

GOV. RICHARDSON: Yes, I do. It was a mistake. But I was pushing intensively, at the time, for more diplomatic engagement, to go to the United Nations, to bring international support for our goals, to go to NATO, to, to get strong Security Council resolutions. I didn’t push hard enough. I didn’t push hard enough. But, you know, I, I didn’t have the intelligence everybody else had. Incompetence, deceitfulness...

MR. RUSSERT: But you said you knew more about the region than anybody else.

GOV. RICHARDSON: Well, yeah.

MR. RUSSERT: So it was a mistake?

GOV. RICHARDSON: Yes, it was a mistake. It was a mistake. I, I openly state that.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18818527/page/2/

[wyldwolf]

17. It is 100% clear where Richardson stood

In a CNN interview, Richardson expressed reservation about a military venture without Russia and France being onboard.

He expressed his belief Iraq had WMDs and were harboring terrorists.

Most importantly, he said: "My view is that it is critically important that the United States not let Saddam Hussein get away with this. Had I have been in the Congress I would have voted for the military resolution authorizing war. The question is, how do you do it, the question is when do you do it and with whom?"

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0302/14/lkl.00.html

[incapsulated]

19. Short answer

He would have voted for it, like so many others.

Try again, Carrie. Fail.

Edit to add, I rather like Richardson, shame he doesn't really have a chance.

[frazzled]

20. Well, thanks ... now I am clear

Rather than amending my original post, it can stand here.

So that leaves two candidates who did not support the war: Obama and Kucinich (sorry, I don't count gravel in the game). It is why I've been leaning toward one of these two candidates from the beginning. I could say it's the one who doesn't have the big ears, but they both have big ears.

It's not that I don't like the other candidates in other respects, but this is a kind of base-line thing with me: it suggests how they play(ed) the game of politics, and I don't see that being helpful in the future.

[Carrieyazel]

22. It's also clear that Richardson never voted for the war.

Of course, he wasn't in the Congress at the time, and it was a vote he didn't have to take.
But saying that you "would have" done something, isn't the same as actually doing it.

[incapsulated]

23. lol, what difference does it make?

You can't claim the high ground and smack Clinton when your guy would have done the same exact thing.

[Dr Fate]

38. Exactly- chalk up another "centrist" DLC type who was "fooled" by Bush.

Then again, can we find a single DLCer or centrist who has NOT been "fooled" into supporting or agreeing with Bush a time or two?

I remember when all you DLCers were "fooled" into supporting Joe Lieberman too.

Always being "fooled"-arent they?

[zulchzulu]

18. Just how bad could one lousy vote be?

Cost of Iraq Occupation:
(running total):
$457,566,210,570

American Deaths:
3,812

American Wounded:
28,009

Iraqi Body Count:
74,694 (Min) 81,399 (Max)

As of October 6, 2007 at 12:00AM

Sources:
www.iraqbodycount.net
www.defenselink.mil
www.antiwar.com/casualties
www.costofwar.com

[Bitwit1234]

25. FLASH FLASH HILLARY CLINTON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE IRAQ WAR

Obama supporters yell and spew and bash and slam...

This woman is single handed responsible FOR IRAQ WAR...

St. Obama's supporters spew and yell and bash.

Good God Almighty give it a rest. Your candidate is fading fast Edwards and Richardson are catching him and you start on Hillary again.

[Colobo]

28. Happy B-Day!

[calteacherguy]

30. It's Bush's war. The vote made no difference in that. nt

[Colobo]

37. Are you serious?

[calteacherguy]

67. Yes. Even Obama has said he doesn't know how he would have voted. nt

[HughMoran]

31. If it wasn't for Hillary, it never would have passed - she's evil!

Evil I tell you! Spawn of Satan! The AntiChrist (actually saw this on a bumper sticker).

Why did she do it! Why? We're all gonna die! AAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!11!!!11

[Dr Fate]

36. Who knows what would have happened had she vocally opposed it.

Maybe other top named DEMS would have follwed suit.

As it is, all we have for a real explanation is sarcasm and the excuse that she was stupid enough to be "fooled" by a proven liar.

[HughMoran]

40. Easy for us armchair politicians to play Monday night quarterback

4 years later. A lot of things are obvious after the fact. Bringing it up now as a cheap ploy to bash her over the head with while ignoring the other candidates who also voted for it is pathetic AT BEST.

[Dr Fate]

42. The anti war crowd has been right all along. The "yes" voting DEMS were 100% wrong.

We were not "fooled" by Bush. And trust me, it wasnt easy at all to be known for opposing the war- but we did.

We actually read the factual reports that proved Bush's accusations were lies. We actually knew that if Bush, Rush Limbaugh and FOX news are lying for it, then something isnt right.

The base BEGGED Democrats to opppose this invasion, but they were too busy being "fooled" to objectivley view or even discuss the facts. Not the fake facts- but the actual facts that proved the anti-war crowd 100% correct.

We were right, the "fooled" Democrats were 100% wrong.

No Monday morning quarterbacking or afterthoughts needed in our case-we are saying the same things now that we were saying then.

[HughMoran]

46. I didn't say they weren't wrong

OK, so they were wrong. Can we move on now?

[Dr Fate]

48. I am thinking forward. What if a given candidate can be "fooled" again?

If you can be "fooled" once, you can be "fooled" again in the future.

Something to think about when considering how a candidate might handle future decisions...will they be "fooled" or will they stick to what is right-even if it means saying something different to the public than FOX & CNN?

[HughMoran]

50. I tend to think more highly of people - I think they learn from their mistakes

Even the news networks were fooled & cowed after 9/11. This was an AMERICAN phenomenon and even though I could see right through it, many were in a position where they felt a lot of pressure to go along with the President in such a trying time. Yes, I was livid - but I am also capable of forgiving.

[Dr Fate]

53. Yes- 2008 will be the magic year when the "centrists" can no longer be "fooled"-gotcha.

Forgiveness is one thing, concern over whether they will be "fooled" again is another thing.

There was nothing "AMERICAN" about it- it was the most low-down conservative/media driven propaganda anyone has ever witnessed- it was anything but American.
"AMERICAN" would have been to stand up against it. Let's not wrap this in the flag yet again.

I've seen little to nothing to show me that certain "centrists" have learned a damn thing from their *accidental* "mistakes"- they still wont end the war or confront Bush/media in a meaningful way.

I know- I know- 2008 will be different. Heard it before the other times.

[HughMoran]

55. Well, I guess there's nothing to talk about any more.

I am somewhat excited about the possibility of Al Gore getting in as he has been very consistent through all of this.

[Dr Fate]

57. Glad we can now come to an agreement on something. n/t

n/t

[Solon]

54. Newsflash, the M$M was not "fooled" they failed at their job...

and it was on purpose. There is a distinct conflict of interest between Media OWNERS and the public good. All the major networks were cheerleaders for this war, mostly because it meant they would get a LOT more money, mostly from advertisers that are also military contractors, and, in the case of at least NBC, directly, considering GE is a military contractor themselves. What those networks did was simply unforgivable, they threw Bush a softball, on purpose, and sold his damned war for him.

[Dr Fate]

56. And let's face it-the "centrists" were not fooled either-many still do not feel it was a mistake.

Some of the folks defending centrists will still try to tell you that it was not a mistake in the context of the times and media climate.

In other words, no one was "fooled" or feels they really did the wrong thing.

Yet that is how it was.

[HughMoran]

59. I am not sure you can prove they did it with malice aforethought

I think many succumbed to the pressure at the time. Olbermann is on NBC for your information.

[Solon]

61. Don't confuse a few reporters or pundits for the media OWNERS and editors...

Who actually control the message. People such as Rupert Murdoch, or the former Jack Welch, tried to and succeed in many cases, in controlling the message. Olbermann works at the sufferance of these people, they keep him on as the "contrarian" to the Bush administration, it doesn't change the overall conservative, pro-Bush, pro-War message of the NBC networks, look at what happened to Donahue. It is also ridiculous to say that they succumbed to pressure, when they are the ones who levy that pressure to begin with. This is the MEDIA we are talking about, they, above any other industry or the government, determine what is "popular" and what isn't.

[Dr Fate]

62. But I can prove that they had access to info that proved Powell & Bush were lying.

Months before the invasion, in fact. In fact, anyone with google had access to it. It was even on the BBC & CNN's website-but no one on U.S. TV said much of a peep.

Same goes for the "yes" voting DEMS- instead of demanding a new investigation or even a new vote in light of this, they still played like they were being "fooled."

I'm sorry, but "succumbing to the pressure" isnt exactly a leadership quality or a comforting excuse.

[HughMoran]

64. Piling on

is not one of your most desirable qualities.

[Dr Fate]

65. Failing to adress my factual points...

...is not one of your most desirable qualities.

No "piling on"- just adressing and disagreeing with your points on a public discussion board.

[bvar22]

89. You may be an armchair politician,

but I was in the streets BEFORE the IWR.
I wasn't fooled by Bush*, and I seriously doubt that Hillary and the rest of the DLC Dems were fooled either.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. It's Very Disturbing The Original Poster's Candidate Supported The War Too!

Very disturbing...


MR. RUSSERT: So you regret supporting the war initially?

GOV. RICHARDSON: Yes, I do. It was a mistake. But I was pushing intensively, at the time, for more diplomatic engagement, to go to the United Nations, to bring international support for our goals, to go to NATO, to, to get strong Security Council resolutions. I didn’t push hard enough. I didn’t push hard enough. But, you know, I, I didn’t have the intelligence everybody else had. Incompetence, deceitfulness...

MR. RUSSERT: But you said you knew more about the region than anybody else.

GOV. RICHARDSON: Well, yeah.

MR. RUSSERT: So it was a mistake?

GOV. RICHARDSON: Yes, it was a mistake. It was a mistake. I, I openly state that.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18818527/page/2/

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. "Who advised her to do it, or did she make this deplorable decision on her own? "

Maybe she consulted Bill Richardson...

I think that's what we call being "hoisted on one's own petard"...

:rofl:

[Cameron27]

41. Ouch

:spray:

[BootinUp]

84. Will the Dem party

ever get over this vote? Will they/we ever realize that none of them save Lieberman would have ordered the invasion. It makes no sense at all to blame Democrats for this war when they did not order it, declare it, and in fact opposed it because the conditions in the IWR were not met and because they were lied to.

Do Americans blame the Democrats or the Republicans? Check the polls folks.

[ozone_man]

43. It was a political calculation.

Just like Kerry's vote for the IWR. they were doing the politically savvy thing at the time. If most of DU and 23 senators (almost half of the Democrats) were able to deduce that there were no WMDs, then why not Clinton or Kerry? I don't think either was mislead, but they each had plausible deniability. It was the sexed up intelligence, Powell's misinformation that mislead them. But I don't believe that for a second. Both of my senators from Vermont voted against the IWR and one of them was a Republican, or at least used to be (Jeffords).

Anyway, it was a shameful vote that we are all paying for now, that probably a million Iraquis have given their lives for. And she has no remorse or that vote.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. Edwards, Dodd, and Biden Voted For It Too

eom

[Dr Fate]

45. Yup. They were "fooled" by Bush, the slick, brilliant con-man. n/t

n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

47. No

It was the willing suspension of disbelief...

The war was very "popular" at the time...In fact, they and the country would still be supporting the war if we were "winning"...

[Dr Fate]

51. The war might not have gained as much popularity if the "centrist" DEMS had discussed the facts.

Not the fake facts, but what the anti-war crowd knew to be the facts then, and what everyone knows to be the facts now. (No WMDS, no Saddam/911 connex,etc)

As it is, they were "fooled" into discussing and agreeing with the lies Bush & the media were pushing.

[ozone_man]

52. That's no excuse.

I think we learn as kids that just because a friend does something doesn't make it OK. And as parents we have to teach that rule to our kids. ;)

I don't excuse Edwards either, but I see that Edwards acknowledges that it was a mistake. And that is significantly different than Hillary Clinton's position. She still feels that it was the right decision. And now she goes ahead with another resolution toward Iran. It seems to be a pattern with her, that she is a war hawk or at least that she wants to convey that image.

[AX10]

49. She was NOT the only one to vote for it!

:eyes:

[Dr Fate]

58. Nope. Others were "fooled" as well. n/t

n/t

[...of J.Temperance]

66. Yeah, it's ALL Hillary's fault

I mean how many other Senators voted for the darn thing? Yet for some odd reason, you choose to slap Hillary specifically.

Let's face it, they were presented with cherry-picked intelligence, they were lied to, plain and simple.

The fact is, if Hillary gets the Democratic Presidential nomination, I hope that people aren't going to hold the woman to ONE vote that she cast on the IWR, and instead I hope that people look at ALL of Hillary's other extremely good and positive votes, instead of polarizing on the IWR vote.

[Dr Fate]

75. And the DLCers just keep on getting "fooled" dont they?

"Fooled" into supporting a multi-billion dollar war based on lies-with no end in sight and no wherewithal to put a stop to it...

"Fooled" into supporting Joe Lieberman (I-3rd Party). Just ask Harold Ford, the leader of the DLC.

"Fooled" into taking impeachment off the table, etc, etc.

The DLC guys get "fooled" a lot- it's the only explanation. I knew the intelligence was cherry picked before the invasion-reports about the forgeries were even on mainstream sites like the BBC & CNN. That's when I knew DEMS shouldnt be supporting this-and we begged them not to.

But then again, Bush never fooled me and the anti-war folks. He fooled the DLCers & the "centrists."

I'd love to hear Hillary go on TV and say she was "lied to, plain and simple" -that would give her some credibility-but that's not really what she ever said- and that is never what DLCers were or are saying on TV either.

[...of J.Temperance]

82. What another excuse to bash the DLC and have an anti-DLC rant?

It's getting rather tiresome actually.

For the record I've been against the Iraq War from day one.

[Dr Fate]

87. Good to know you oppose your own organization so much.

Must be rather tiresome, because it seems like the rest of them supported it.

For the record, I've never seen a DLCer outside the anomymous DUer who opposed the war. All the elected ones supported it, and certainly their blogs & position papers on their web-site were in support of it.

Good to know that a few "lone wolf" DLCers pop into DU.

Anyway, sorry if bringing the DLC into the mix is tiresome- when they cease to have power then maybe they wont warrant discussion...

[...of J.Temperance]

88. I oppose the DLC on Iraq

I oppose them on a few other things as well, I support them on 90% of the issues though.

I'm not a Rubberstamp for nobody, I don't have to agree on 100% of the issues with anyone, I don't think anyone should agree with anyone on 100% of the issues, what's the point in that, it'd make for incredibly boring discussion.

There's rather a few of us DLCer's at DU, only I seem to have chosen the DLC avatar, but I see the other DLCer's in rather a lot of threads here, so I'm not a "lone wolf"

I also don't see the DLC "ceasing to have power" any time soon, the Democratic Party NEEDS us, because we are a PART of the Democratic Party, a very important part of the party.

[Dr Fate]

90. You oppose your own organization on the defining issue of this generation.

And it's true- you are part of the party- a part that was 100% wrong on Iraq and still is. That's not small stuff.

And all you DLC Duers certainly are lone wolfs- outside of you 8 or so folks every other DLCer supported the war and even Joe Lieberman.

You guys are indeed the "lone wolfs" when it comes to DLCers who claim not to tow the line...

[wuushew]

68. Last May Clinton and Byrd said they would introduce a bill to repeal the IWR by 10/11/07

since that never happened I can only take that as unspoken support for the ongoing mistake which was the IWR.

[BenDavid]

69. DAMN! It seems to me that many

in here wanna blame the whole damn Iraq conflict on HER and place it all on HER shoulders more so then bush. DAMN! I believe most of HER haters in here believe that Hillary overruled the Joint Chiefs and ordered those troops to Iraq. This has nothing to do with proportion of blame - most folks just hate Hillary's guts and anybody with a hardon to hate Hillary gets the front page in today's climate and finds some outlandish article to post that is anti Clinton.....Why do democrats kick victory in the teeth and embrace losing?.

Question: Of all the people screaming at Her today, how many gave Kerry a pass for his vote in 2004? Gee, suddenly the room got reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeal quiet.Let's have a show of hands - who forgave Kerry in 2004 for his Iraq vote, but now hates Hillary's f-ing guts for voting exactly the same way he did?

Explain why Kerry got a pass on the Iraq war vote - but she doesn't.And when asked the question: If you knew then what you know now would you still send troops? Hillary answer NO! What did Kerry answered? As clear as day standing at the grand canyon and Kerry answered. YES!

Damn folks most of you are not even consistant with your hatred for HER...

I thank you
Ben David

[BootinUp]

74. good rant.

You've been away from GDP awhile perhaps. Its been going downhill the last week big time. Here's to a little more party unity.

[Dr Fate]

76. Actually, most of us oppose Bush to where we want to impeach him.

So I dont think people opposed to her nom are lacking in opposing Bush at all.

It would be great if Hillary & the others agreed. So you are wrong, people here do blame Bush more-no one wants Hillary to be punished or impeached, we just dont want her nominated.

Not wanting her nominated and not acceptingher talking points on why she supported the war is not comparable to blaming her for everything Bush did.

Kerry? Maybe it occured to some DUers that running someone who voted for the war AGAIN isnt such a great idea? Maybe others think that he is sincere about his regret for the vote.

Either way, Kerry is not running-and his failures dont make Hillary's failures right either.

Hatred? The anti-war folks have been accused of "hating Bush" once before- by the pro Iraq war bunch. People say crap like that even if it is really just an honest disagreement.

[BootinUp]

94. You throw out so many non-sequitors its hard to keep up

"It would be great if Hillary & the others agreed." - on impeachment

Don't you think you should ask the American people first?

"Not wanting her nominated and not accepting her talking points on why she supported the war is not comparable to blaming her for everything Bush did."

No its not, it just makes Bushes case that the Dems were for the war too, which they clearly were not. You are aiding the RW talking points. Hello?

"Kerry? Maybe it occured to some DUers that running someone who voted for the war AGAIN isnt such a great idea? Maybe others think that he is sincere about his regret for the vote."

Are you seriously suggesting Kerry lost because he voted for the war, but Bush won because he ordered it I guess?

[Yukari Yakumo]

70. But do you remember who co-sponsored it? {nt}

uguu

[DemocratSinceBirth]

71. I think it was the Senior Senator From North Carolina

DSB

[illinoisprogressive]

72. Pure calculation as she followed it up with Iran

[AtomicKitten]

81. matching bookend votes!

:(

[watercolors]

92. so many imature people here lately!

nt