I'm puzzled at defense of Hill's AUMF Iraq vote saying she was representing NY.

[Bonobo]

I am from NY and I sure as fuck did not appreciate 9/11 being used to justify a war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

WTF are Hillary supporters thinking when they defend her vote on that basis?

It honestly puzzles me.

[jeff47]

1. They're thinking that they know how NY felt.

They're ignoring that NY announced to the world how they felt, and that NY was not interested in invading Iraq. Heck, the NYC city council bothered to hold a vote on it, and it went down badly.

But reality wouldn't make it an effective excuse.

[Sheepshank]

2. Gawd I wish she would just admit the vote was wrong....oh wait. Nt

[Bonobo]

3. Yeah, it's not like it was a big deal or anything.

"I made a mistake" is what I say when I forget to take the trash out or I call a wrong number.

Not when I make a massive failure of judgment that essentially makes me untrustworthy to be the the leader of the most powerful armed force in the world.

[Fawke Em]

5. ...and kills thousands.

[JTFrog]

31. You didn't think it was a big deal or anything when you supported Kerry.

Or Edwards.

Just sayin...

Now for some reason or another, you're like a dog with a bone over Hillary's vote. Well, actually I do have a pretty good idea why, but... yeah.

[Jim Lane]

44. I voted against Kerry in the primary, and the Iraq War vote was one reason.

And I will similarly vote against Clinton in the primary.

So, yes, it is a big deal or anything.

[KingCharlemagne]

33. She's just sorry she got caught. She doesn't give a flying fuck about

the one million innocent Iraqis whose blood continues to drip from her hands.

[politicaljunkie41910]

42. How is it that "she's just sorry she got caught"? Congressional votes are a matter of public record

unless the House or Senate Leadership decide in advance that the vote count won't be recorded. What are you talking about? Hillary, as a Senator, would have known that her vote was being recorded.

I know it's popular among many groups to hate Hillary because you either don't like her or don't agree with her, or both, but just making things up to hear yourself talk is getting ridiculous.

[KingCharlemagne]

43. She thought Bushie Boy and his Junta would find WMDs in Iraq or ties to al

Quaeda. She envisioned a MacArthur-type heading up the Occupation, rather than Ricardo 'Abu Ghraib' Sanchez and L. Paul "I am the Empire's Viceroy" Bremer.

She got 'caught' when those calculations died on the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates and in the sands outside Fallujah. Not like she wasn't warned BY MJILLIONS OF US OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

Had her conniving calculations proved correct, we would no doubt have seen a President Hillary in 2008

[John Poet]

45. Hillary is a NEOCONSERVATIVE who supported their "regime change" goals

right from the beginning, and she continued to support those aims against other countries in the Middle East as Obama's Secretary of State.

There was no "mistake" here. Whether there were WMDs or not was irrelevant,
like with Bush, just a convenient excuse to do what they wanted to do all along.

[HassleCat]

4. Probably true

Many New Yorkers, perhaps the majority, wanted to kill Iraqis as revenge for 9/11. She was voting to give them the revenge they wanted.

[Fawke Em]

6. That's hogwash.

The majority of New Yorkers were against the war and their city council even passed a resolution not supporting it.

With a 31-17 vote, the New York City Council joined nearly 150 other cities and counties that have passed measures opposing war.

The vote in New York, however, was particularly significant given the deaths of nearly 3,000 people at the World Trade Center 19 months ago. The Bush administration has repeatedly invoked this atrocity as the principal argument for going to war, despite the absence of any evidence linking the regime in Baghdad to the terrorist attacks. In passing the measure, the council rejected this argument as well as explicit appeals to support the war in the name of the September 11 victims

Opposition to the looming war appears greater in New York City than in the country as a whole. Recent polls have shown less than 20 percent of New Yorkers supporting a unilateral US attack against Iraq and nearly half opposing war under any circumstances.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2003/03/nycc-m14.html

[HassleCat]

7. I was thinking of the state, not just the city. (eom)

[cali]

10. Why would the state outside of NYC support it more

those in the city, where it happened?

[HassleCat]

11. Because the small towns and rural areas are more conservative. (eom)

[cali]

13. I suspected that would be your erroneous response

There is a myth that outside NYC the state is largely conservative. It isn't. More like split, including some very rural counties like Clinton way up north.

http://www.politico.com/2012-election/results/president/new-york/

[HassleCat]

22. More conservative, not majority conservative

I lived in Saratoga Springs, which is right on the line where "upstate" is generally considered to begin, and the NYC influence diminishes.

[Fawke Em]

30. The majority of the state wasn't for the war, either.

I can't find that information, now, but I clearly remember it from the time. I always thought it was odd that she voted for the war when the state and the city where most of the death and destruction occurred was not in favor of it.

I remember posting that in several places.

Hard to find now because the boolean in Google has so much about New York and polling.

On edit: It seems MOST of the country wasn't for it until Powell lied to the UN: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_opinion_in_the_United_States_on_the_invasion_of_Iraq

[dragonlady]

8. Good leaders take a longer view

They should explain the situation to their constituents: that the outcome is going to be much worse than the momentary satisfaction of taking revenge against people who mostly had no power over the original attack.

[cali]

9. How do you know that? Links?

[HassleCat]

14. How do I know what?

That some people in New York wanted revenge?

[kristopher]

35. If revenge was the motive then why invade Iraq?

Or did you forget that the terrorists were Saudi Arabian?

[HassleCat]

46. Not that complicated

People were in the mood for revenge, and they didn't much care who was the focus, as long as we killed some of "them." This allowed Bush to identify Saddam Hussein as the "them" of the moment. Toss in bloodthirsty Republicans, gutless Democrats, and the picture is complete.

[Vincardog]

12. Hillary supporters "thinking" is not what they do, they knee jerk react, swarm and attack. Hill supp

Supported the AUMF because the moneyed elite wanted it.
The Plan for the New American Century and was clear and she was willing to follow it.

[uponit7771]

15. I'm even more puzzled at Sanders votes for funding it, he can't have it both ways

[morningfog]

16. I don't believe that actually puzzles you.

[uponit7771]

18. ... and now these people can read minds

[morningfog]

20. "These people?" I simply think you are playing dumb.

Who are "these people" you are referring to?

[kristopher]

36. It doesn't - the claim is a sham.

[beam me up scottie]

17. That's troubling since those votes were for far more than "funding" the war.

I realize that's a popular talking point but it's rather naive and simplistic.

You've mentioned this many times, perhaps you can point out which votes have you so puzzled and explain why he should have voted against them?

[madokie]

23. Good luck with getting an answer to that

Bernie has explained the why's a half dozen times but answers is not what the person who keeps asking that question wants. Its all about the talking point and nothing more. Some how must believe that they are casting doubt in Bernie's leadership when in reality they're just showing the partisan hacks they themselves are.

I just laugh when I read that kind of shit.

[beam me up scottie]

25. Seems like it would be easy to answer if it bothers them so much.

Surely they must have studied the bills and decided that the cons outweighed the pros and could specifically address where Bernie went wrong.

I know Senator Sanders doesn't vote for any legislation without giving it due consideration, people who are critical of those votes should at least be able to explain their reasoning.

But I won't hold my breath.

[madokie]

29. You'd think so

but thats not what they're interested in. Getting a jab in is all they're interested in. As if those of us who pay attention won't catch it.

If Hillary was all she cooked up to be they'd need not tear anyone down to build her up but since she's pretty much an empty pantsuit tearing the opposition down is all they have. I seen this same shit 8 years ago. My hope is after this election she will retire to where the fuck ever she and bill can take their money and get the hell out of our life, out of our way. So we can continue working to make things better for 99% of us. Fact of the matter is Bill Clinton was not a good President by any stretch of anyones imagination.

Hillary needs to get it through her head that she is never going to be President of these United States of America. Its never going to happen. For every one that I've talked to or read about who actually support her there is hundreds that wouldn't vote for her on a bet. I keep reading all these polls that have her up by gazillions and out here in the real world none of those people can be found. Well one here and there maybe but nothing like they'd like us to believe.

[beam me up scottie]

38. I think they're just spouting talking points too.

Given every opportunity to explain their reasoing they refuse. So I doubt they've given it any thought at all.

It's just a convenient go-to quip whenever her support of the Iraq war is brought up.

[polly7]

19. Yes, much better to leave troops in a hostile/deadly environment without proper equipment,

food, necessities for life.

Sanders votes helped ensure those who were there because of votes by Clinton, who chose to speak for and push it, and the rest who voted for war at least had a better chance of staying alive. Is that a terrible thing? Anyone with functioning gray matter knew that stopping funding would not bring one single troop home. Rumsfeld's "you go to war with the army you have" when asked about insufficient protection said it all. Iraq was long planned for ... you know that - nothing was going to stop its completion.

[Uncle Joe]

21. Precisely, polly.

I don't know why that's so difficult for some people to understand?

[polly7]

24. Thank you, Uncle Joe. I don't know why it is either.

I absolutely hate war and even I'd have of course voted to fund them ... to do otherwise, knowing the agenda, would be unforgivable.

[KingCharlemagne]

34. More Jesuitical equivocation. Once troops are deployed in theater, it's a whole

new set of questions to be asked and answered.

Voting to provide material for deployed troops is not "have it both ways," your casuistry notwithstanding.

[Maedhros]

26. It's a rationalization.

I've seen essentially the same argument vis-a-vis her acceptance of Wall Street money: it's OK, because she was representing NY.

By that logic, we can't criticize Rand Paul because he represents KY.

[arcane1]

27. I'll clear it up: it's a desperate, bullshit excuse n/t

[JackRiddler]

28. Bullshit shouldn't puzzle you.

It's bullshit and shameful, from a bullshit artist. No need to be puzzled.

[KingCharlemagne]

32. Iraq totally and utterly disqualifies her from holding any higher office, Obama's

nod to her as SoS notwithstanding.

The worst foreign policy mistake of the past 100 years or perhaps even of the entire history of the Republic.

She voted for it; Bernie voted against it.

[Maedhros]

37. True - for you and I and other Progressives.

However, inside the Beltway, demonstrating a real thirst for war and bloodshed wins you support. In that sense, it's a de facto qualification for the office of President for a certain sector of interests, so it's not surprising that Hillary voted for the AUMF/IWR. She wants that support from that sector more than she wants support from Progressives.

[KingCharlemagne]

39. When all is said and done, I honestly believe we will discover that she voted for the

Iraq AUMF to burnish her national security credentials ahead of a planned 2008 run. She needed to inoculate herself from charges that Dems are 'weak on terrorism' and what better way to do it than to throw the people of Iraq under the bus. Or, more accurately, to run the bus backwards and forwards over them several more times, her husband's bombing campaigns and sanctions during the 90s having already accomplished the 'under-the-bus' bit.

[Maedhros]

40. I believe our society is mirrorring the last days of the Roman Republic.

Back then, Roman consuls would seek out wars with lesser kingdoms to the East in order to boost their popularity with the masses, gain the loyalty of their legions and steal wealth to help pay for the bread and circuses at home.

Our Presidents do pretty much the same thing.

[KingCharlemagne]

41. Hmm, interesting. I'm not enough of an expert in classical antiquity to be able

to say 'yea' or 'nay' to your observation. I think our society is mirroring in some very troubling ways the final days of the Weimar Republic (an era in which I do have a small measure of expertise).

All leftists should hope for the best, but plan for the worst. I know I am.