Harper's: "Hillary - Vote For Me, I Was Duped"

[Hissyspit]

http://harpers.org/archive/2007/05/hbi-90000033

Hillary: Vote for Me, I was Duped

DEPARTMENT Washington Babylon
BY Ken Silverstein
PUBLISHED May 6, 2007
Late last week, Senator Hillary Clinton offered a bill that would effectively revoke the 2002 congressional authorization that allowed the Bush Administration to wage war in Iraq, and require the president to convince Congress to re-approve the war this October. It’s the latest step taken by Clinton to establish herself as the Democratic Party’s anti-war candidate. If she’d only known in 2002 what she knows now, she has repeatedly said, she would never have supported the earlier resolution.

At its essence, Clinton is saying that the Bush Administration tricked her into voting for the war resolution. “I Was Duped” is hardly an inspiring slogan, and in Hillary’s case it’s a thoroughly disingenuous one as well. She wasn’t duped. She was playing the polls, and at the time she concluded that a vote for war was the smart bet.

Take a look at Clinton’s October 10, 2002, floor speech in which she authorized the use of force against Iraq. She didn’t just side with the Bush Administration, she more or less endorsed its entire case for war:

Intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program . . .
If left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security. . . . This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make – any vote that may lead to war should be hard–but I cast it with conviction. Over eleven years have passed since the U.N. called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret . . . 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.

Dick Cheney could hardly have put it better. Now compare Clinton’s remarks with those made by other prominent Democrats during the runup to war. Even if they believed that Saddam had WMDs, many of Clinton’s Democratic colleagues opposed the war and challenged the administration’s case for an invasion...

MORE

[aquart]

1. They voted for the war out of fear of media ridicule....

and the media ridicules them anyway.

In Hillary's case, she both tends conservative and didn't want to be seen as a powder puff. Much good it did her.

This is why candidates should always vote their conscience. A hard, painful lesson. The question is, have they learned?

[Forkboy]

5. Not being seen as a "powder puff" is part of my problem with this.

I truly believe she made a calculated gamble and thought this war would be over by now,that things would have gone far easier than they have,and that she'd be able to have her cake and eat it too.It fits perfect with her love of triangulation.Had this gone right the only people who would have been pissed off would have been the far left and the far right.Everyone else would have been happy.She gets to attract moderate Repubs and moderate Dems in her run for President.A reverse Reagan in a way,and most likely just as successful.

But it didn't go that way,and now it's not just the extremes that have a problem with her.

[Tellurian]

7. Hillary would have been criticized no matter how she voted-

If she voted "no" to the War- The Republicans would now be screaming, "She's soft on terror".
She voted "yes" with many restrictions, one of them being inspectors must be allowed to complete their work looking for WMD before going to war. Bush disregarded all caveats included in the senate democrats vote. So it wasn't only Hillary that was duped. We all were. It's easy now for everyone to say, well, 'we knew it' why didn't they. If Hillary had incontrovertible proof Bush was lying at the time, she wouldn't be in this paradox right now- but she didn't. If the vote would have been close and she was the deciding vote,

She would have voted NO.

[karynnj]

11. This would be believable if she spoke out in Jan - March 2003

At that point it became increasingly clear that Bush was going to war in spite of the inspectors NOT finding anything and the diplomacy NOT being exhausted. Even before it was known that Bush had manipulated the intelligence on WMD, it was known that he lied on all these other things and was pushing for a war that would not be as a last resort.

Hillary and Bill Clinton had the biggest megaphones on the Democratic side stayed silent. Had she really voted to get the inspectors in on the hopes of avoiding was, she would have spoken out. Kerry, in the midst of tests, treatment, and surgery for cancer, spoke out demanding that Bush not rush to war. That and his regime change here comment when the war was at 70 percent popularity would have labeled Kerry anti-war had the war gone well.

Had the war gone well, Hillary could have claimed that she had done what was necessay.

The other obvious problem with Hillary now being the antiwar candidate is that for the last 3 years, she positioned herself as one of the people against Democrats who wanted to change the policy. Her reaction at last year's Take Back America was because she spoke against the antiwar factions.

Remember how the entire leadership of the party treated Senator Kerry when he and Feingold insisted on their Kerry/Feingold bill. Even in late summer 2006, Bil Clinton said it was a mistake for Democrats to take any position on Iraq - other than to say Bush was doing a poor job.

Now, she wants to be the leader of the anti-war part of the party? I guess she realized that Leiberman wing was too small to win with.

[Tellurian]

18. Not True..Hussein hadn't even been captured yet!

Hussein wasn't captured until December of 03'..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3317881.stm

After his capture, Hillary went to Astan and Iraq and began alluding to a coalition strategy in 03'.

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=233760&&

Hillary has never been silent on the War. She supported the Troops not Bush:

http://www.clinton.senate.gov/issues/nationalsecurity/iraq/

Where do you get this stuff Karynnj?

Kerry, in the midst of tests, treatment, and surgery for cancer, spoke out demanding that Bush not rush to war.

By the time the next election cycle had come around Kerry had Flip-Flopped 3 times on the Iraq War.

If I Knew Then What I Know Now

Flip Flop #1

“We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today," Kerry said Wednesday on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” "Knowing there was no imminent threat to America, knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction, knowing there was no connection of Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda, I would not have gone to war. That's plain and simple."

Flip Flop #2

But on Aug. 9, 2004, when asked if he would still have gone to war knowing Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction, Kerry said: “Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have.” Speaking to reporters at the edge of the Grand Canyon, he added: “ I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has."

Flip Flop #3

The Kerry campaign says voting to authorize the war in Iraq is different from deciding diplomacy has failed and waging war. But Kerry’s nuanced position has contradicted itself on whether it was right or wrong to wage the war.

In May 2003, at the first Democratic primary debate, John Kerry said his vote authorizing the president to use force was the “right decision” though he would have “preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity.”

But then in January 2004, Kerry began to run as anti-war candidate, saying, "I don't believe the president took us to war as he should have."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/29/politics/main646435.shtml

"It was Edwards that reafirmed his support of Bush for the War in Feb/03'"

February 8, 2003

“Retroactive support for the Bush administration”


"Not content with expressing support for Powell’s speech, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina indicated his retroactive support for the Bush administration, saying that he has “long argued that Saddam Hussein is a grave threat and that he must be disarmed. Iraq’s behavior during the past few months has done nothing to change my mind.” Edwards commented, “Secretary of State Powell made a powerful case. This is a real challenge for the Security Council to act.”"

http://jre-whatsnottolike.com/2003/02/08/retroactive-support-for-the-bush-administration/

[karynnj]

19. All true

1)I said that Hillary did not speak out before the war started.

You said:
Hussein wasn't captured until December of 03'..

Where do you get this stuff Karynnj?
Kerry, in the midst of tests, treatment, and surgery for cancer, spoke out demanding that Bush not rush to war.

I spoke of speaking out BEFORE the war started. Of course, Saddam had not been captured. Kerry spoke at Georgetown University on January 23, 2003. The last words of that speech were, "Mr President, do not rush to war."
As to my statement on when Kerry spoke out, Kerry was diagnosed with cancer on Dec 24, 2002 and had surgery Feb 13, 2003.

Do you have a link to Hillary speaking out before the war?

2) Kerry's "flip flops"
The actual Kerry quotes are not flip flops.

THE WAR
He always said that Bush should not have gone to war. Even when pushed in September as to whether that would mean Saddam would still be in power, he conceded that might be the case. He said this in speeches - "wrong war", "misled us into war", "not a war of last resort". He said this in debates. He said this on Letterman and the Daily Show.

THE VOTE
In 2002-2004, he always defended his vote as having been reasonable, saying Bush abused the authority and used it differently than he had promised.

In 2005, he accepted that he was wrong to have trusted Bush - Georgetown, Oct 2005. The dificulty in reaching this was personal and profound. At the 2006 Take Back America , he also said the war was immoral. This was not "new". Having grown up Catholic, the phrase "not a war of last resort" meant to me that it did not meet the criteria of a just war. In 2004, running for President, Kerry was saying that a war we fighting was immoral.

THEY WERE NOT THE SAME
As the CBS quote tried to explain, Kerry differentiated the vote and the war. This is exactly what you accept for Hillary - even though she did not speak out against going to war when Kerry did.

The two statements that CBS says are contradictory, aren't - both agree with what he said in January 2003, that you only go to war as a last resort after exhausting the diplomacy. Incidently in May 2003, the media was already referring to Kerry as antiwar.

As to the Grand Canyon response, Kerry obviously missed the first part of the sentence dealing with WMD and he gave the same identical answer he gave a million times.

Incidently, Hillary last week said that her resolution with Byrd would get all the troops out by October - a statement her office corrected later in the day. Clearly there was some confusion there as Hillary's answer was different than her position in teh NYT interview.

[Tellurian]

22. mmmm...NO!

[Forkboy]

20. We weren't all duped.

The Republicans would now be screaming, "She's soft on terror".

And that was exactly why she made the calculated move she did,imo.I don't believe she was duped at all.I think she knew exactly what she doing.

[Carolina]

29. So true ... WE WEREN'T

duped yet how is it such Democratic presidential hopefuls (past & present) as Kerry, Edwards, HRC, Biden, Dodd were?

fact is they weren't; they were hedging the odds and as a result, WE ALL LOST.

This is why I have such a problem with all of them. They didn't even listen to their fellow Democrats. Do they think we're stupid or amnestic? Ticks me off :grr:

[Forkboy]

31. They don't just think we're stupid,they're banking on it.

[OwnedByFerrets]

23. WE ALL WERE?????? I think not!

I wasnt and so were NOT millions of others. How is it that I was smarter than the person who wants to be president of the US. We got stupid with *ush, I dont want stupid again.

[Alexander]

35. Many of us DID know at the time, and protested AGAINST the war.

Moreover, Congress has the power to declare war, and as Senator Byrd pointed out, you don't give that power away.

The IWR was not only wrong, it was unconstitutional as well.

[dansolo]

36. Who cares what the Republicans would be screaming?

It is this thinking that pisses off a lot of Democrats about Hillary. She should not be voting in order to avoid being criticized by the Republicans.

[aquart]

37. I need to point out that she voted the same way as Schumer.

Both my senators did me in that day. I can't help but think that she talked long and hard with him about it and the New Yorkers decided that New York would demand it. I think that was a huge error. But the DLC leadership was running horribly scarred. Officially, I have no idea about privately, they bought the idea of Republican omnipotence. They worried about running with a no-war vote on their records.

[illinoisprogressive]

40. does it make it right? I think not. Both were wrong!

[Skittles]

43. correct

they voted their careers over their consciences and the best interests of America - THEY BOTH SUCK

[Forkboy]

41. I could not agree more with that.

[Breeze54]

2. "the hardest decision I have ever had to make – but I cast it with conviction"

"This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make – any vote
that may lead to war should be hard – but I cast it with conviction"

Pretty damning words, they are! :grr:

She was 'duped'!! All of them that voted YEA were 'duped'??


NOT!!!!!!!!!!

[Skittles]

3. we were never duped but Hillary was

doesn't bode well for her, for sure

[Donna Zen]

17. A gentle reminder:

Sen. Clinton's husband, Bill, received a detailed PNAC letter. She knew that this war was being called for long before 911. Furthermore, her go-to foreign policy advisors were in favor of the theory being put forth by the neocons, "Clean the Swamp." They believed that it was smart to get rid of Saddam and everything would be peachy-keeno.

The entire theory was flawed! And Sen. Clinton was also given this advice.

I'm sure someone will soon be sent to call me a basher. Go for it!

But lying about her motivation is disgraceful.

[CRH]

34. You are no basher,...

you have just very articulately said what I can not believe her supporters have forgotten.

The Clintons were very well aware of the PNAC and that the PNAC had written Bill in 98 asking for an invasion of Iraq.

The Clintons were aware of other PNAC documents singling out Iraq and the Hussein regime

The Clintons were aware of The Bush Doctrine, crossing the boundaries of heritage, with the stated intention of using preemptive war.

The Clintons were aware of the PNAC documents stating the irrelevance of the United Nations and that the US should be prepared to unilaterally pursue engagement when global coalitions could not be formed.

The Clintons are the DLC, and the DLC was firmly behind this war.

Hillary supporters who cannot admit her soiled position of claiming, 'gee I didn't know Bush would attack', are not credible. If Hillary Clinton was surprised by Bush's action, why no comment when Bush ordered the removal of inspection teams so the attack could proceed? This did not happen over night. Not a peep, nada.

If Hillary Clinton was surprised by the neocon Bush administration's actions, then do we want her making foreign policy decisions as a commander in chief? Her refusal to give an accurate accounting of the motivations behind her vote, leaves her with the same credibility as her supporters on this issue.

None.

[Donna Zen]

38. Campaign advocacy

Campaign advocates have the right and responsibility to present their chosen candidate in the best light. And I fully accept the practice of debunking half truths and whole lies. However, we should not confuse campaign advocacy with intellectual dishonesty, and the all to common act of calling people names--and worse---for pointing out those issues that degrade a candidates credentials and ability to tell the truth. For in the end, we will be left with a candidate that is not worthy of support.

The judgment of any candidate is an huge issue because bad judgment will surely find a way to surface again, and again. We don't know what the next crisis facing our country will be; we just know there will be another crisis.

The original votes for bush's blank check left me disappointed and sad. These lame excuses make me angry.

Besides, Sen. Clinton is running as a hawk, she will govern as a hawk, and consults with Democratic hawks. You know the school of thinking, "the problem with the war is that it was fought wrong." No! The problem with the war was the entire flawed concept. I don't think the country can take more of this.

[Skittles]

42. I agree with you

I cannot forgive Hillary's entire stance on that war, from voting to it to defending her vote to claiming she was misled; it is a DISGRACE.

[Lord Helmet]

4. they were all dumb

I don't get why some people think one yes vote is worse than another.

[Forkboy]

6. All the YES votes sucked equally.

However,the NO votes sure as hell turned out to be the right ones.

[Tellurian]

8. What I'd like to know is how did Edwards get to be the co author of the IWR?

I've never heard an explanation from anyone, as to how he got handed the job as co-writer.

[karynnj]

12. He was a co-sponsor

which does not necessarily make him a co-author. Edwards was 100% behind the war even at the end of 2003.

[Adelante]

21. Longer than that, too

I distinctly remember a debate, and it was after Clark and Dean had already dropped out in 2004, where Edwards was still saying his vote was correct and he was still saying knowing what he knew now he would make the same vote, through late 2004, at least. I'm not sure where he was on it in 2005 before the apology in November.

About co-sponsor and co-author, I agree. But co-sponsoring does set him squarely behind the IWR in a way other Yes voters, Kerry for one example, were not.

[avrdream]

9. Out of context, I believe.

In another thread, this same quote was used within the full text of her speech and it definitely comes across much differently than what you are trying to say. For the most part, when one reads the full speeches of candidates just before they voted, one can see that they (the Democrats, at least,) were actually trying to avoid war.

Could we please have more legitimate discussions about policy? This subject just keeps getting brought up over and over again. It's like beating a dead horse. If we are to elect a decent Democratic candidate, we need to figure out what is RIGHT about each one and it is tough to do that when I read so much negativity about each one. I know Skinner told us that this would happen and I will probably have to do my own research to figure it out but I wish we could do better than this.

Away I go.....slam away.

[karynnj]

13. True

Most of the speeches - for or against had about the same outline:

- Why Saddam was bad and could be a threat

- Outlining what they thought needed to be done. Re-iterating Bush's and Powell's promises to the Senators.

- That they intended to vote yes or no

Remember that the vast majority of Senators voting against the IWR, which was the bill people knew would pass, voted for the Levin amendment. Bush had a signing statement on the IWR (after the vote) that declared he wasn't bound by its provisions - he would have done the same had the Levin one passed.

Even Feingold, who voted against both, followed this pattern. That is why even for him, the Republicans could take the first several paragraphs to say that Saddam was a threat and couldn't be ignored.

Those who gave Bush their trust to do as he promised, were obligated to do the hard job of speaking out against going to war when the country was on the virge of war. I think only Kerry and Harkin did.

[Breeze54]

26. I lost my lunch when Kerry voted FOR the IWR!!

"Those who gave Bush their trust to do as he promised, were obligated
to do the hard job of speaking out against going to war when the country
was on the virge of war. I think only Kerry and Harkin did." (verge)

I knew that vote was WRONG and I don't have the credentials that Kerry or Clinton do!

I call it GUT INSTINCT and they lacked it and proved THAT lack by voting FOR the IWR! :grr:

[MaineProgressive]

10. IWR

There is no question that Hillary's support of the IWR is going to be an issue for her. I think that she's just going to have to deal with it head-on. It was a mistake. Call it that, and move on. Failure to do so will just keep the issue alive.

[William769]

14. In essence you take what anybody says and make it sound what you want.

Gat a fucking life! :eyes:

[wyldwolf]

15. This Could have been titled in various ways

John Edwards - Please vote for me.. I was duped... but I'm REALLY REALLY sorry!

John Kerry - Please vote for me... I was duped... I voted for it before I voted against it!

Barrack Obama - Please vote for me... I wasn't duped... of course, I didn't have the intelligence the others had... but I still voted for every Iraq war measure in the Senate...

[Forkboy]

24. Dennis Kucinich - Please vote for me.I never baught into the shit in the first place.

[wyldwolf]

25. ...but did want a constitutional amendment against flagburning

[Forkboy]

27. Yup...so did another candidate that comes to mind.

No one is perfect...but some are a lot less perfect than others.

Every candidate has faults.I don't demand purity,no matter how much some people would like to make that hamfisted strawman argument.

[wyldwolf]

28. oh yeah? Who?

[Forkboy]

30. My apologies..Hillary DIDN'T vote for an amendment.

She did co-sponsor a bill though.

Clinton's move to co-sponsor the bill is seen by many observers as an apparent attempt to win over conservative voters as she preps for a possible run for the White House in 2008.

http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=3&aid=55396

So,my apologies for implying she did vote for it.However,she was still trying to throw a bone to the Conservatives in one those celebrated attempts at triangulation,and that's bullshit.Iraq has provided them enough bones to chew on.She should try as hard to triangulate with some of the anti-war people as she does with the pro-war ones.

on edit - Of course the real topic of this thread is the IWR,which Kucinich WAS right on and Hillary WAS wrong on (along with other yobbos).So,this talk of flag burning is interesting,but just another attempt to shift the conversation away from Hillary.And while it's been fun,as always,talking to you,I don't see any point in going further down this road for today,unless you'd like to start a seperate thread about it.You and I have a habit of sidetracking threads,I'll try to refrain from it this time.

[wyldwolf]

32. Correct, and according to the bill, your right to burn a flag does not trump my right to property

[Forkboy]

33. Correct...I was wrong.

See my edit in my last post please.

[snappyturtle]

16. Come on Hillary!

There is no excuse for voting based on politcal calculations. You KNOW she had more info than the average bear. If she HAD to vote for the was resolution she didn't need to set it in cement like she did above. WE wouldn't have voted for it. I won't give her any slack on this. More inspections and some honest dialogue first would have put her in better stead. Saddam couldn't prove the negative, that he didn't have the huge caches of WMD we were told he had....without the inspections. The whole thing is just a lie.....the "facts" leading up to the war and the reasons our people in D.C. voted for it.

[illinoisprogressive]

39. Hillary doesn't want to say sorry. She just wants a do over. Loser.

when are the mainstream dems going to see she panders, she tries to pull the wool and lies. She is not the person to lead this country in it's time of intense need. She is not a leader. she failed the ultimate test, to be ambition aside for the good of the country.

[calteacherguy]

44. All Democrats who voted for the IWR showed at best a lack of good judgment

and that is something we all have a duty to consider when we cast our votes for the leader of our Party. Whether or not that will be the deciding factor is each individual's duty to judge, but we have a duty to consider judgments made on an issue of this magnitude. After all, we are nominating a future President who likely will have to make such difficult decisions or even more difficult ones.