No Apology Needed From Hillary

[Herman Munster]

http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=b553c78e-1ff8-495f-99bf-a5102d35d10b

Far be it from me to get in the middle of a liberal purge, but would anybody mind if I pointed out that the calls for Hillary Clinton to apologize for her support of the Iraq war are almost entirely bogus? I mean, have the people calling for her apology actually read the speeches she delivered before the war? Have they read her remarks during the war resolution debate, when she specifically rejected a pre-emptive, unilateral attack on Saddam? Did they read the passages in which she called for a longer U.N. inspections regime and declared, “I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial”?

If they went back and read what Clinton was saying before the war, they'd be surprised, as I was, by her approach. And they'd learn something, as I did, about what kind of president she would make. The Iraq war debate began in earnest in September 2002. At that point, Clinton was saying in public what Colin Powell was saying in private: emphasizing the need to work through the United Nations and build a broad coalition to enforce inspections.

She delivered her Senate resolution speech on Oct. 10. It was Clintonian in character. On the one hand, she rejected the Bush policy of pre-emptive war. On the other hand, she also rejected the view that the international community “should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it.” Drawing on the lessons of Bosnia, she said sometimes the world had to act, even if the big powers couldn't agree.

She sought a third way: more U.N. resolutions, more inspections, more diplomacy, with the threat of force reserved as a last resort. She was triangulating, but the Senate resolution offered her a binary choice. She voted yes in order to give Powell bipartisan leverage at the United Nations.

[pocoloco]

1. It would take more than an apology to wash the blood from her hands

anyway.

Pleading ignorant and stupid is not much of an excuse either!!!!

[derby378]

2. She committed the ultimate goof - she put her trust in Bush

Never put your trust in some two-bit dictator.

[FiveGoodMen]

3. Congress has the power (on paper, at least) to decide if war is needed.

That's so they can stop one idiot in the White House from committing us all to an ongoing, tragic farce such as we're now suffering.

Shirking that duty because they trusted Bush is unforgivable.

She was supposed to stop this monster, not enable him and then say she didn't know any better.

[lyonn]

4. Where was Hillary when bush pulled the inspectors

from Iraq so he could start the war? She wasn't the only one to keep quiet about what the bush was doing, still. Just a thought. She has been quiet on Iraq until she announced her run for president.

[cali]

5. Time to post this- again

"This resolution, like others before it, does not declare anything. It tells the President "you decide." This resolution, when you get through the pages of whereas clauses, is nothing more than a blank check. The President can decide when to use military force, how to use it, and for how long.


We have heard a lot of bellicose rhetoric, but what are the facts? I am not asking for 100 percent proof. But the Administration is asking Congress to make a decision to go to war based on conflicting statements, angry assertions, and assumptions based on speculation

Proponents of this resolution argue that it does put diplomacy first. They point to section 3, which requires the President to determine that further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone will not adequately protect the national security, before he resorts to military force. They say that this ensures that we will act only in a deliberative way, in concert with our allies.

But they fail to point out that the resolution permits the President to use unilateral military force if he determines that reliance on diplomacy alone "is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq . . .."

And what of the critical issue of rebuilding a post-Saddam Iraq, about which the Administration has said virtually nothing? As I have said over and over again, it is one thing to topple a regime, but it is equally important, and sometimes far more difficult, to rebuild a country to prevent it from becoming engulfed by factional fighting
Unfortunately, we have learned that the phrase "not likely" can be used to justify just about anything. So let us not pretend we are doing something we are not. This resolution permits the President to take whatever military action he wants, whenever he wants, for as long as he wants. It is a blank check."


Patrick Leahy.

October, 2002

I mean what part of blank check = very, very bad idea, is so difficult to grasp.

[hfojvt]

14. that's a great speech, so prophetic in many ways

Made me look up some of my quotes:

"In a major victory for the president, weeks of back-and-forth between Congress and the White House produced little significant change in Bush’s initial draft of the resolution. "

"This war isn't just a monumental blunder. It's also an ongoing act of betrayal by a bunch of second-rate thinkers who never in their lives have displayed an ounce of the courage that some anonymous woman in Baghdad will evince today." Charles Pierce


"On the day the resolution was passed, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Negroponte said to the Security Council: "There is not ‘automaticity,' and this is a two-stage process, and in that regard we met the principal concerns that have been expressed for the resolution. Whatever violation there is, or is judged to exist, will be dealt with in the council, and the council will have an opportunity to consider the matter before any other action is taken.""

[MadHound]

6. Yes, I've read and heard her speeches, and still find her ACTIONS despicable

And as we all know, ACTIONS speak louder than words. Sure, she can talk a good game, out of both sides of her mouth even. But when push came to shove, she decided to let loose the dogs of war. And worse, she continued to be in favor of funding this illegal, immoral war long after it had become crystal clear what a FUBAR fuck-up it was.

And while there has been the lame attempt to portray her actions as her being fooled by Bushco, that excuse doesn't fly either. How is it that millions upon millions of ordinary people, who don't have the access or contacts that she has, were not fooled, and yet she was? And frankly, if she was genuinely fooled by Bushco, well then that should automatically disqualify her for higher office, for she is too stupid and gullible for the White House.

Sure, she said some fine words, any parrot can. But when it comes down to Actions, well that's where we truly see where her bloody heart lies.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. 655,000 dead Iraqis. Whoops..oh, I'm sorry. Tsk. Tsk.

I don't care if she suddenly finds it politically advantageous to "apologize" just as she found it advantageous to vote for the war.

It wasn't a "mistake" or faulty intelligence or because she's stupid. It was cold blooded calculation on how best to advance her political ambitions. Just as her current weaseling rationalizations for her vote are.

[TahitiNut]

8. "Never separate the votes you cast from the words you speak."

(Apologies to Paul Wellstone.)

[patrice]

9. She doesn't need to apologize. She needs to explain, so ALL of us

have half a chance to avoid the same or similar things from happening again.

Lumping everyone who has a problem with her together shows the very disrespect that some suspect of her and others. Some who push the issue are candidate partisans seeking advantage for their candidates. Some are Hillary haters and want nothing more than just hurt her. Others want to know what happened, because it IS important.

Please talk to us about this Hillary.

One of the following sets of conditions describes any given individual making the decision about how to vote on the IWR:

They believed the lies.

They did not believe the lies, thought the UN gambit was legit, thought the UN gambit would work, and there would be no war.

They did not believe the lies, thought the UN gambit was legit, thought the UN gambit would not work, and there would be a war that would succeed in __________.

They did not believe the lies, thought the UN gambit was legit, thought the UN gambit would not work, there would be a war that would not succeed in __________, and that was okay because __________.

They did not believe the lies, thought the UN gambit was phony, thought the UN gambit might work anyway, and there would be no war.

They did not believe the lies, thought the UN gambit was phony, thought the UN gambit would not work, but there would be no war.

They did not believe the lies, thought the UN gambit was phony, thought the UN gambit would not work, and there would be a war that would succeed in _________________.

They did not believe the lies, thought the UN Gambit was phony, thought the UN gambit would not work, there would be a war that would not succeed in __________, and that was okay because ___________.

[left is right]

10. It's not just HRC we want an "apology' from

we want it from every Dem who voted for the resolution. But apology is such a lame word. Yes, admit being wrong, stupid and incredibly politically calculating. That is just the beginning. From that vote stems Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, suspension of Habeas Corpus, redention of an unknown number of detainees, cutting of VA benefits, not supplying soldiers with life-saving equipment.
HRC, as well as all of the others, have mostly been on the wrong side in all of these areas--if not directly then by default of that one vote.

[goforit]

11. Talk is nothing but talk. She signed it. And she can't have her cake & eat it too.

[Guaranteed]

12. Because, you see, it's alright to do something idiotic as long as

the rest of the world supports it.

[nosmokes]

13. politicians unwilling to admit a mistake: GW Bush, HR Clinton,...

not a pretty list