So if the argument is that

[Brundle_Fly]

Hillary ( while not ever reading the Intelligence report ) was told by "leading officials" to make her vote for the Iraq war.... was mislead into her vote by listening to the Bush people... ( this is the defense I get of her vote ) Isn't it completely possible to assume that she could be lied into another war?


just wondering?

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[MonkeyFunk]

4. Kyl-Lieberman wasn't a vote for war

don't be silly.

[Andy823]

7. When Bush bombs Iran

He will use it to tell the public that some of the democrats backed him on this, and Hillary will be one of them. Any democrat that voted yes on Kyl-Lieberman will be stuck with voting to go to war, again!

[MonkeyFunk]

8. a "sense of the senate" resolution

is not an authorization for war.

[sfaprog]

9. Of course it wasn't... It was a vote for sunshine and puppies

In the middle of a mindless, undiscerning "war on terror", where a reckless, hawkish administration has already PROVED to be making up enemies as they go along, to label the "Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists" is about a clear-cut example of trying to start a war without actually starting one that I can even think of.

She was wrong once on Iraq... and chose not to learn from her mistake and be wrong again about Iran. She is a fool on national security.

[Occam Bandage]

10. It certainly wasn't a vote for war. Nor, for that matter, was it a bad vote.

It was, however, a tone-deaf one, especially given her frictions with a large portion of the Democratic base stemming from her early refusal to apologize for her Iraq vote. I'm not going to bash her for K-L--but at the same time, well, she walked right into it.

[Mooney]

2. The argument is that she was "duped" by George W. Bush.

That's supposed to be an argument in her favor!

If she had just said "I did what was politically expedient at the time" it would be refreshing.

[Raven]

3. Yup. Ignorance has a way of causing that. I don't know what these

people do in Washington but don't you think that if you didn't have time to read the Intelligence Report you'd have one of your staffers read it, summarize it and brief you on it? Then again, why the hell wouldn't you make time to read such an important document??? And then, there's the other question...why on earth would you listen to and believe anything anyone in the Bush Administration told you? Why?

[Avalux]

5. Absolutely; but I'm not so quick to go with the ignorance argument.

Hillary either truly believed the WH bullshit and trusted them when they told her they wouldn't go to war; or she knew exactly what they were going to do and voted for the IWR anyway as a political calculation.

I firmly believe the latter; the woman doesn't make decisions unless she considers how it will benefit her politically and at the time she thought saying AYE would. I do not believe she was completely misled. Her rhetoric during a meeting with Code Pink in 2003, right before the bombs fell, parroted the WH talking points on Saddam. Icky stuff.

Hillary Clinton is dishonest and puts her own self-interest above anything else. She isn't ignorant or naive.

[Brundle_Fly]

6. & at the expense of the well being of the country

thats scary.

[Occam Bandage]

11. Her excuse does not refelct well on her, no. She's saying she's a dummy. Personally, I prefer

the reality--she thought it would be politically expedient. At least with that explanation, it implies that she wouldn't go off and do something stupidly unpopular like antagonize Iran.