A shameful vote

[Barack_America]

Melvin B. Miller
Editor & Publisher

A shameful vote

Polls indicate that most Democrats believe that the war in Iraq is a mistake. This creates a problem for Hillary Clinton. She enthusiastically endorsed the “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.” Barack Obama opposed the resolution.

Clinton made her position clear in the Senate debate before the vote. She said, “So it is with conviction that I support the resolution as being in the best interest of our nation … And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein, this is your last chance. Disarm or be disarmed.”

The resolution passed in the Senate 77-23, with 21 Democrats voting nay.

In a speech before the vote, while he was still a member of the Illinois Senate and a candidate for the U.S. Senate, Obama said: “I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East and encourage the worst, rather than the best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.”

Respected Democratic members of the Senate were concerned about the jingoism in the administration. Dick Durbin of Illinois proposed an amendment to restrict the use of force to an immediate threat. That was defeated 70-30. Carl Levin of Michigan proposed an amendment to authorize the use of force only if Iraq refused to admit weapons inspectors after a demand from the U.N. That lost 75-24.

The resolution was approved on Oct. 16, 2002. The attack on Iraq began only five months later on March 20, 2003.

Democratic Sens. Joseph Biden, Christopher Dodd and John Edwards all voted for the resolution. After seeing that they had helped to facilitate a preemptive strike against Iraq, they readily acknowledged that their vote was a mistake. Clinton is the only Democratic presidential candidate refusing to concede that she made a mistake. Her explanation is essentially that she was conned by the White House.

If that is so, she should have been more skeptical about future deception from the hawks of Capitol Hill. Clinton was the only Democratic senator in the presidential race to vote on Sept. 26 for a Senate amendment instructing the president to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps a foreign terrorist organization.

Under Executive Order 13224, the president has the authority to take punitive action against terrorist organizations. However, these are customarily stateless militants. The Revolutionary Guard Corps is part of the Iranian military, similar to the U.S. Marines. Consequently, the amendment provided the president with constitutional cover to pursue elements of the Iranian government.

The amendment passed. Fortunately, other circumstances made it unfeasible for the president to take hostile action against the Iranian government at the time. But the question remains: was Clinton once again tricked into giving the president a quasi-declaration of war, this time against Iran?

After such involvement in saber-rattling, how can Clinton or her surrogates assert that Obama’s stance on the war is the same as hers? Obama merely voted for funding bills so that our troops would not be abandoned on the battlefield.

So much for the value of experience touted by Clinton.

It appears that Clinton was conned by the White House once again. As the old saying goes, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”

http://www.baystatebanner.com/issues/2008/01/24/editorial01240801.htm">Link

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. A new obama theme: attack the IWR vote.

Along with "Obama = Courage"

[Occam Bandage]

3. This is clearly a brand-new theme that Obama has not ever mentioned before ever.

[DemDogs]

14. He sure doesn't talk about votes to FUND the war

Until May he never saw one he didn't like.

[LordJFT]

18. And those votes would really be relevant if we'd listened to people like him and not invaded in the

first place

[ShortnFiery]

2. It''s not a trick but "slight of hand" TRIANGULATION - HRC will follow Ste. Reagan's Legacy ...

just like "her husband" before her. The American People (non-investor classes) loses when the right wing DLC has a strangle-hold of OUR Party and/or The Executive Branch. :thumbsdown:

[Occam Bandage]

4. Actually, we all did quite well under the Clinton years. The economy boomed for everyone.

The middle class expanded. Good times.

[Barack_America]

6. Eh. It was really just smoke and mirrors, considering what NAFTA ended up doing...

...to states like Michigan.

And really, it had much more to do with the internet boom than anything Clinton did. :shrug:

[Ravy]

5. It should be clear that most Democrats did not forsee

the "Disarm and be Invaded" option that eventually happened.

I still put the blame for the Iraq war strongly at Bush's feet.

I don't think there is any denying that the IWR was having a good effect *until* Bush invaded and occupied.

The IWR put weapons inspectors back in, and led to the destruction of some weapons that were out-of-spec per the agreement. It could of, and should of, lead to the end of the sanctions that were having such a horrific effect on the Iraqi people.

The IWR ended up giving Bush some legal cover, but it did not put him in charge of the military. The American people (and Diebold) did that.

[Barack_America]

7. But some pretty well respected Democrats DID have concerns and drafted...

...amendments that would INSURE Bush would not be able to rush into war.

Why didn't these get more support?

Because most Democrats didn't want to be perceived as "weak on terror", so they voted for war to save their own asses, politically speaking.

[UALRBSofL]

9. I believe most of america was deceived

When all this came about after 9/11 I too believed Iraq had WMD's per what the Bush administration pushed upon us. Even Colon Powell whom I have great respect for convinced people of this. Of course, he left after Bush's first term in office because he realized he had been duked, in my opinion. Hillary did say she was fooled by the Bush administration much like most americans. That said, John did say he made a mistake, but, I can't in good faith hold it against Hillary for her vote, and, I wont condem her for her statements on how and why she voted.

[Barack_America]

10. Obama wasn't.

And he possibly jeopardized his political career by coming out and saying so.

I'm just saying...

[jasmine621]

8. Not one Dem Sen running for office voted "nay"

But HC's statement at the time (and it in the record) clearly states that the intent was not go to war.

[suston96]

11. Oh, gee, selective quoting again..

Here is what the writer quoted Hillary Clinton saying in that speech:

She said, “So it is with conviction that I support the resolution as being in the best interest of our nation … And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein, this is your last chance. Disarm or be disarmed.”

See those three dots ... in the passage? That means something was skipped by the person selecting the quote to suit himself. Here is what those three dots skipped:

"So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed."

Get the picture? And just before these passages Hillary Clinton said:

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.

Yeah, selective quoting works sometimes.......but not this time.

[Barack_America]

12. Oh I get it. But if she really wanted war as a last resort, she would have voted...

...for the Levin Amendment, which guaranteed war as a last resort.

So she "hoped" war would be a last resort, but didn't take the necessary steps to make sure that would be the case.

Bottom line: she was more concerned about being perceived as "weak on terrorism"

[suston96]

13. Sorry, cannot figure out what you are saying or trying to say....

We have a system of government where the President comes to congress and makes a case for going to war against a perceived and proven plot against the American people. The President and his lying coven of war-mongers present false information to Congress to get a war resolution. Congress - with big majorities agrees to what turned out to be a criminal deception by the President of the United States.

And you want to lay that congressional resolution on one person who happens to be running for president and whom you happen to dislike?

Sorry. Your argument has no merit.

[Barack_America]

19. No offense, but I think you need to do some reading...

...about the Levin Amendment.

I think that if you knew more about it, my argument would become pretty clear.

[Orsino]

15. And, of course, when * inevitably ignored her "hopes" and started the invasion anyway...

...where was Clinton's call for impeachment? Where was her principled stance against funding an illegal war? Where was her leverage against all the other bills * wanted passed?

She may honestly not have wanted war at the time, but you'd never know it from her subsequent record. I think she likes the war just fine, or is too weak/compromised to muster anything more than toothless criticism.

[pat_k]

16. . . .it's the definition of insanity: Refusal to impeach,; AUMF. . .

. . .refusal to object to the unlawfully appointed Florida electors; refusal to support Boxer et. al. in the objection to the Ohio electors. . .

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
-Unknown (variously attributed to Twain, Franklin, Freud)

We have met the enemy and he is us.
- Pogo (1971)

We've got to do more than complain and point out their failures. As long as we tolerate so-called "leaders" who refuse to fight for principles -- principles that at least 75% of the American people treasure -- the Democratic Party will continue to commit slow suicide. They have been unable to save themselves. Intervention is in order;¹ "tough love." Perhaps we can shame some into acting. We'll have to confront those that prove to be too far gone with primary challlengers.

It is NEVER good politics to be complicit in crime

Their failures are to obvious, I have no doubt that many will come to bitterly regret them. Let's try to wake them up in time.

"We will have to repent in this generation not merely for
the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for
the appalling silence of the good people. . ."
--Martin Luther King

When Congress surrendered their power to declare war, they abdicated their duty to serve as the voice of the people in the most grave decision a nation can make: whether or not to go to war. ("It is a fearful thing to lead this great peaceful people into war," Woodrow Wilson)

When Bush used the power Congress had surrendered to him to wage his war of aggression in Iraq, those who voted for the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) became accomplices in a war crime.

Perhaps Bush, Cheney, et al., would have successfully terrorized our representatives into declaring war, or perhaps, had the burden of committing the nation to that "fearful thing" been theirs, more of them would have heeded the warnings of manufactured "evidence." Perhaps they would have realized that the threat of "mushroom clouds over our cities in 45 minutes" was the most colossal bomb threat in our history.

We will never know how events would have unfolded. But we do know that the moral burden of complicity has stained and dragged down the entire Democratic Party.

The Members who voted for the AUMF in particular have paid, and are continuing to pay a high political price. We cannot know how their failure affected the 2004 elections. Maybe Bush would still have managed to steal another term, but it is not a stretch to believe the Democrats would have been in a stronger position, both morally and politically.

The "losers" -- the 133 Representatives and 23 Senators who opposed the AUMF -- have reaped, and continue to reap, political benefits. (They undoubtedly cite that vote daily, as Obey did in his "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAlkfYczY4c">caught on tape" "dust up" with Tina Richards).

"It's like Deja vu all over again"

The destructive consequences of impeachophobia should be clear to any Democrat who was a Member of the 100th Congress or who recalls the events of 1987.

Then, as now, the Democratic majority were immobilized by their fears of "overreacting" and "seeming too prosecutorial, too much like the notorious leader of the Spanish Inquisition,"² They refused to impeach Reagan and Poppy Bush for Iran-Contra. They believed the White House would be theirs if they were "positive and assertive without being absolutely confrontational" and began "laying out, calmly and methodically, their programs." ² Democrats believed the Republican minority and "lame-duck" Reagan would be too "damaged" to be a formidable force. They were mystified when their efforts were blocked at every turn.³ Then they watched as Poppy, unharmed by the slap on the wrist they had dealt him, took the presidency out of their waiting hands, an outcome that made "43" possible.

_________________________________

1. More on Conquering Impeachophobia http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/23">here. . .



2. http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F40717F8355E0C7A8CDDA10894DF484D81">Limits of Power: How the Democrats are kept on the defensive, NY Times, August 9, 1987
   
   
   . . .
   The joint committees investigating the Iran-contra affair shone a harsh spotlight on the use and abuse of executive power. How to assure respect for the limits of power will be a central theme of the committees' final report. That much was expected. But outside the committee room, somewhere along the way from the ebullient opening of Congress in January to its ragged departure this weekend for the August recess, a lesson was being learned about the limits on another source of power, the power of Congress itself.
   
   The Democrats who now control both Houses of Congress for the first time in the Reagan era learned that winning the majority was not the same as winning the power to control events, or even to shape them. Time after time, the Republican minority has demonstrated that being out of power need not mean being out of political instincts. President Reagan, weakened by foreign policy scandal and his lame-duck status, has nonetheless refused to slide into the irrelevancy that Democratic leaders keep predicting for him.. . .
   
   Filibusters, as well as vetoes, have left Senator Byrd seething with frustration. . .
   
   On foreign policy, opinion polls showing that the public has more confidence in Congress than in President Reagan. . .
   
   Yet Congress remains all but paralyzed in foreign affairs. . . The sustained Congressional uproar over the Administration's actions in the Persian Gulf ultimately produced nothing more than a few nonbinding resolutions. . . . .
   
   It is as if Congress, while rejecting the messengers, has internalized the message that a stream of witnesses delivered to the Iran-contra committees: the inevitable primacy of the Presidency in a ''dangerous world.''
   

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. The "Duh, I wuz fooled by Bush" makes a great campaign slogan.

[Pathwalker]

20. Why do you use the word "shame" in every post?

It is a hallmark of your posts; you tell a LOT of posters that they should be "ashamed" for who they support, or you call them "shameless". I've yet to see you post a single reference to Hillary Clinton where you do not make "liberal" use of the word "shame", "shameful" or "shameless."

As a dyed in the wool Liberal who has spent her entire lifetime despising the Fundamentalist Right for their constant attempts to "shame" all things liberal, including women's rights and gay rights, I find it peculiar that anyone on this progressive website should work so hard at using such an offensive right-wing tactic against other liberals and progressives.

This "shame" tactic is an absolute hallmark of the Fundamentalist Religious Conservatives, and I would like to know why you are using this known tactic of theirs against Liberals and Progressives here.

[Barack_America]

21. That was the title of the article. I didn't feel at liberty to change it.

You can check the link if you don't believe me.

Perhaps your accusations of being a fundie would be better directed at the author?

[Pathwalker]

22. No, I was speaking about YOU and your posts - it's

your favorite word. I am sincerely asking why YOU use it so much, and wasn't referring to just this thread. I would like to know - is it just to piss people off, or do you sincerely think it will work?
Hey, I asked Cali why she uses pastry terms, and she answered, would you please answer?