|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) |
Occam Bandage (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-27-08 12:50 PM Original message |
Hillary Clinton did not vote for the IWR in hopes war might be averted by UN inspections. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
JVS (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-27-08 12:51 PM Response to Original message |
1. She voted for it in hopes that it would work to her political advantage. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SoFlaJet (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-27-08 12:53 PM Response to Reply #1 |
2. she thought it would be over in two weeks |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Cha (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-27-08 03:13 PM Response to Reply #2 |
37. Right... easy as pie. vote with bush look |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Windy (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-27-08 01:16 PM Response to Reply #1 |
9. and the hell with the troops.. as long as she looked "strong" to the repubs!!! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Cha (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-27-08 03:12 PM Response to Reply #1 |
36. That's why she voted for it without even |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Avalux (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-27-08 12:54 PM Response to Original message |
3. Agree. Her language after the vote supported Bush's assertions about Saddam. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
tabasco (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-27-08 12:54 PM Response to Original message |
4. Everybody with an IQ over three knew it was a vote for war. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Occam Bandage (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-27-08 01:04 PM Response to Reply #4 |
6. But yet a quarter of DU seems to have bought the line that it was a vote for diplomacy. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
HiFructosePronSyrup (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-27-08 01:06 PM Response to Reply #6 |
8. Like he said... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bigtree (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-27-08 02:25 PM Response to Reply #4 |
21. admitting that 'everyone knew' actually buttresses the argument about inspectors |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Occam Bandage (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-27-08 02:29 PM Response to Reply #21 |
23. So, what would the problem have been with forcing Bush to finish the UN process before war? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bigtree (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-27-08 02:40 PM Response to Reply #23 |
25. There would be no forcing |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Occam Bandage (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-27-08 03:00 PM Response to Reply #25 |
27. So you are suggesting that Hillary voted against an amendment for diplomacy before war |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bigtree (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-27-08 03:03 PM Response to Reply #27 |
29. she voted for her own version of that diplomacy |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Occam Bandage (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-27-08 03:04 PM Response to Reply #29 |
30. Then why not vote on an amendment demanding Bush actually engage in that diplomacy? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bigtree (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-27-08 03:08 PM Response to Reply #30 |
32. that's what the language in the bill about exhausting peaceful means |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
tabasco (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-27-08 04:39 PM Response to Reply #32 |
45. Anyone who thought Bush was going to use diplomacy to save lives was a fool. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sampsonblk (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-27-08 04:50 PM Response to Reply #25 |
46. To this day, she hasn't said out of her mouth that it was wrong to invade Iraq in March of 2003. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Sensitivity (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-27-08 12:56 PM Response to Original message |
5. Please, allow Hillary her little "WHITE LIE." She needs it so badly |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
HiFructosePronSyrup (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-27-08 01:06 PM Response to Original message |
7. LOL |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
speedoo (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-27-08 01:44 PM Response to Original message |
10. K&R. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bigtree (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-27-08 01:52 PM Response to Original message |
11. It's your privilege to think what you want, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Occam Bandage (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-27-08 02:12 PM Response to Reply #11 |
13. So you propose that Bush would have ignored the explicit law and bombed Iraq despite a Congressional |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bigtree (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-27-08 02:16 PM Response to Reply #13 |
14. I don't think they would have gotten to an actual vote if it wasn't already in the bag for Bush |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Occam Bandage (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-27-08 02:19 PM Response to Reply #14 |
16. Uh, yeah. Of course the Republicans would not have proposed a war bill that would have failed. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bigtree (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-27-08 03:00 PM Response to Reply #16 |
28. You can't go back and produce enough votes, even if Kerry and Clinton voted against the bill |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Occam Bandage (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-27-08 03:05 PM Response to Reply #28 |
31. We're not talking about whether it would have passed. We're talking about Clinton's vote. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bigtree (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-27-08 03:09 PM Response to Reply #31 |
33. right. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Usrename (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-27-08 02:20 PM Response to Reply #11 |
18. You are missing the point. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bigtree (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-27-08 03:10 PM Response to Reply #18 |
34. The Levin amendment wouldn't have performed as promised. That's the point. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Usrename (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-27-08 03:31 PM Response to Reply #34 |
40. Sure it would have. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Tom Joad (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-27-08 02:08 PM Response to Original message |
12. billy clinton was already at war with iraq when bush succeeded him. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
HeraldSquare212 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-27-08 02:16 PM Response to Original message |
15. Remember what Lincoln Chaffee said - some Dem senators were afraid it would be a quick war |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Occam Bandage (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-27-08 02:20 PM Response to Reply #15 |
17. Pity they never once played "what-if" for the possibility that Bush might be wrong in his judgement. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AtomicKitten (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-27-08 02:21 PM Response to Original message |
19. You don't call a measure that has "WAR" in its title diplomacy. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Occam Bandage (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-27-08 02:23 PM Response to Reply #19 |
20. Hey now, technically it was called the Authorization for Use of Military Force |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AtomicKitten (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-27-08 02:26 PM Response to Reply #20 |
22. totally |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bigtree (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-27-08 03:22 PM Response to Reply #20 |
39. sure, why bother to read the thing? Bush obviously didn't. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Kurt_and_Hunter (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-27-08 02:30 PM Response to Original message |
24. Dude, you're losing your shit... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Occam Bandage (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-27-08 02:45 PM Response to Reply #24 |
26. I am not suggesting that this amendment was the only means possible of avoiding war. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Kurt_and_Hunter (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-27-08 03:10 PM Response to Reply #26 |
35. But her motive was stated, and is even in your OP |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BootinUp (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-27-08 03:21 PM Response to Original message |
38. So let me understand your position |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Occam Bandage (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-27-08 03:35 PM Response to Reply #38 |
41. What would have made it "unloaded?" The gun was just as loaded, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BootinUp (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-27-08 03:39 PM Response to Reply #41 |
42. lol nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
VotesForWomen (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-27-08 04:10 PM Response to Original message |
43. actually, yes, she said exactly that at the time. mind you, i think it was ass-covering, but she cla |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ravy (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-27-08 04:11 PM Response to Original message |
44. So she didn't want to UN to be able to order our troops into combat. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Occam Bandage (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-27-08 06:54 PM Response to Reply #44 |
47. UN authorization is not "the UN ordering our troops into combat." Take the Hannity tinfoil off. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Mon May 13th 2024, 02:37 AM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC