Clinton lied in the debate last night

[welshTerrier2]

Voters overwhelmingly demanded an end to the Iraq occupation by giving Democrats control of the Congress last November. Clinton, in response to a question by a woman whose son is in Iraq, exploited the position of pro-timeline Democrats in her response. Clinton said:

And since the election of 2006, the Democrats have tried repeatedly to win Republican support with a simple proposition that we need to set a timeline to begin bringing our troops home now.

What she didn't tell you is that she's been dragged kicking and screaming to go along with that position. She's been triangulating away. She has shown ZERO leadership on this issue. Of course, she chose not to acknowledge that in her deceitful response. What she didn't tell you, i.e. she lied by omission, is that she opposed timelines after the election of 2006.

Here's what she said January 17, 2007 after her return from Iraq:

"I am not for imposing a date — certain withdrawal date,” she said."

When Clinton fails to do the right thing, she hides behind the party. Most Democrats, even most moderate Democrats, were supporting some flavor of a timeline. But not the great equivocator. Clinton is not qualified to lead anyone or anything. We don't need a finger-in-the-wind follower; we need a leader. Chickenshit candidates who are more worried about where the votes are than what's best for the country will only make things worse for the US.

[MLFerrell]

1. Amen.

K&R.

[onehandle]

2. So don't vote for her in the primaries. nt

[movonne]

3. I was not planning too..

[William769]

7. Good.

[MrMickeysMom]

4. For this reason, I think the man who should be President is Kuchinich

... and I wished it WERE Hillary Clinton, really I do.

But, she is not leading. Therefore, she should get out of the way and quick jacking us off. I'd say the same thing to anyone who is doing the same thing. For example, I'd say to:

Chris Dodd, Joseph Biden, and maybe if he had more history of being caught up in the lies, Barock Obama-

"Quit jacking off! Lead, or get the fuck out of the way!"

[zanne]

53. I loved Kuchinich's response to the nut with his "baby"...

The assault weapon (or whatever it was). Dennis said that if that was his "baby", he needed help. Beautiful.

[LWolf]

54. That was Biden. n/t

[zanne]

55. Are you sure LWolf?

It was a good answer, no matter who said it, but I thought it was Dennis.

[zanne]

57. LWolf--You were right, I was wrong.

It was Biden who said "He needs help". Doesn't if feel good to be vindicated?

[LWolf]

65. Yes.

<snip>

QUESTION: Good evening, America. My name is Jered Townsend from Clio, Michigan.

To all the candidates, tell me your position on gun control, as myself and other Americans really want to know if our babies are safe.

This is my baby, purchased under the 1994 gun ban. Please tell me your views.

Thank you.

COOPER: Governor Richardson, you have one of the highest NRA ratings.

RICHARDSON: The issue here, I believe, is instant background checks.

RICHARDSON: Nobody who has a criminal background or is mentally ill should be able to get a weapon. That is the key, and that includes gun sales. That includes gun sales at gun shows.

The key is going to be also attacking poverty, bringing people together, dealing with those kids in the ghettos that are heavy users of gun violence and they are victims of gun violence, to make sure that this country attacks the core problems of poverty, having child care, bringing parents together.

COOPER: Senator Biden, are you going to be able to keep his baby safe?

BIDEN: I'll tell you what, if that is his baby, he needs help.

I agree that it was a good response.

Oops! Edited to add link:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/23/debate.transcript.part2/index.html

[William769]

5. And a link to what she said on January 17, 2007?

I don't like to see just a snip-it.

[welshTerrier2]

6. here you go ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/18/world/middleeast/18clinton.html?ex=1326776400

[William769]

8. Thank you.

[William769]

11. self delete, posted wrong place.

[welshTerrier2]

16. i originally had the second part and chose to remove it

the main point is that Clinton lied last night. even saying she's for ending the war as soon as possible doesn't change that. she exploited the widely held position of the Democratic Party as of last November, i.e. a support for some kind of timeline, as if it were her position. It clearly was NOT her position.

and, btw, I chose not to include the second part of the quote because it is exactly the wiggle words bullshit that characterizes Clinton's whole campaign. feel free to use it as a separate thread. I'd love that.

bush is for "ending the war as soon as possible." so is cheney. they all say that. and it's total bullshit. what does "as soon as possible" even mean? is it clear? does it specify a policy? it's just wiggle words in search of more votes.

there are two ways the Congress could put an end to this war. one is to cutoff funding. the other is to impeach bush and remove him from office. if Clinton is really for "ending this war as soon as possible", what, exactly, is she prepared to actually do to make that happen. the answer is that she isn't prepared to do anything.

[William769]

17. I know your disdain for Hillary.

It's obvious why you left off the last part. :eyes:

[welshTerrier2]

20. please continue below

no sense having two tracks ...

oh, and try to actually respond to what I wrote instead of just attacking me.

[William769]

61. Heres a newsflash for you, people who purposely misquote

are no better than a liar. So my question is how are you any better than Hillary?

[karynnj]

42. The NYT magazine's "Hillary's War" showed it was not only not her position

she was extremely sarcastic and nasty about the fact that any Senators pushed that plan. She also spoke against the plan in the Senate and outside the Senate.

Democrats may not call us on this - because's she's a Clinton - but the Republicans will.

[Faux pas]

9. I decided when hillary announced her candidacy that she would

not get my vote in the primaries. Centrist my fat butt, she's a Con if I've ever seen/heard one. Trying to appeal to and appease the reich wing does not a Dem candidate make.

[Jackpine Radical]

10. Hillary Lieberman. (nt)

[William769]

12. Here is the full quote.

“I am not for imposing a date — certain withdrawal date,” she said. “But don’t be mistaken, I am for ending this war as soon as possible.”

[obnoxiousdrunk]

14. Now you are

spoiling the fun with all those full quotes.

[NYC Liberal]

18. Wait - you mean an anti-Hillary person selectively quoted her to try

to make her look bad? And when you see the full quote, the statement has a completely different meaning?

Shocking! :sarcasm:

[welshTerrier2]

22. she said she opposes timelines

how do you construe that to be a "completely different meaning???????"

and saying she wants to end the war as soon as possible is meaningless. she opposes timelines. she has not called for impeachment. she opposes a cutoff of funding. saying all the pretty words without being willing to implement a policy to bring about change is the classic Clinton lying strategy.

so, answer this question: what policy, exactly, does Clinton support to "end the war as soon as possible?" I argue the words mean NOTHING and therefore chose not to include them. Please answer the question.

[Maribelle]

25. She did not say she opposes timelines.

Have you every created a timeline for a significant project?

When you create a timeline for a project that does not have a mandatory completion date, you set dates and milestones based on the steps you set on the critical path. The development of the timeline is an iterative process. The critical path leads you to the end date.

[NYC Liberal]

31. Really?

What do you call signing onto legislation to de-authorize the war with Robert Byrd?

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2007/05/clinton_deauthorize_iraq_war.html

What do you call introducing the "Iraq Troop Reduction & Protection Act"

STOPPING THE PRESIDENT'S ESCALATION OF THE WAR:
This legislation would cap U.S. troop numbers in Iraq at the January 1, 2007 level - prior to the announcement of the troop escalation by President Bush. It would require Congressional authorization to exceed the cap.

The legislation would require that the Iraqi government meet a number of conditions, including:

• The security forces of the Government of Iraq are free of sectarian and militia influences;
• The security forces of the Government of Iraq are assuming greater responsibility for security in Iraq;
• The government of Iraq provides for an equitable distribution of the oil revenues of Iraq;
• There has been significant progress made in political accommodation among the ethnic and sectarian groups in Iraq.

If Congress disagrees with the President's certification, Congress would have 60 days to "disapprove" of the Presidential certification resulting in a cutoff of funds for the Iraqi government

The legislation requires the U.S. begin a phased redeployment of U.S. troops in 90 days or the authority of the use of force would cease.

http://www.senate.gov/~clinton/news/statements/record.cfm?id=269481

Oh, and she's against permanent bases, too:

I am absolutely clear: we do not plan a permanent occupation or permanent bases.

http://pol.moveon.org/townhall/iraq/transcripts_p.html#clinton

[welshTerrier2]

33. what do I think of it?

i think it's a joke. I agree with what General Odom said (paraphrasing) about it: it's nothing but a pretense with no power behind it. it will accomplish nothing. it's an empty symbolic gesture.

the Congress has to avenues available to stop the occupation. one is cutting off funding; the other is impeachment and removal from office. anything else is nothing but wiggle words.

[Supersedeas]

67. the Tucker Carlson brand of politics

[welshTerrier2]

19. the full quote changes nothing

i'll repeat this post here since you relocated your post ...

the main point is that Clinton lied last night. even saying she's for ending the war as soon as possible doesn't change that. she exploited the widely held position of the Democratic Party as of last November, i.e. a support for some kind of timeline, as if it were her position. It clearly was NOT her position.

and, btw, I chose not to include the second part of the quote because it is exactly the wiggle words bullshit that characterizes Clinton's whole campaign. feel free to use it as a separate thread. I'd love that.

bush is for "ending the war as soon as possible." so is cheney. they all say that. and it's total bullshit. what does "as soon as possible" even mean? is it clear? does it specify a policy? it's just wiggle words in search of more votes.

there are two ways the Congress could put an end to this war. one is to cutoff funding. the other is to impeach bush and remove him from office. if Clinton is really for "ending this war as soon as possible", what, exactly, is she prepared to actually do to make that happen. the answer is that she isn't prepared to do anything.

[William769]

62. It changes who the liar is.

[Stinky The Clown]

26. I'm sorry, but 'as soon as possible' is a completely meaningless term

It is 'faith based' war ending.

It is 'trust me' war ending.

It is 'just a little longer' war ending.

What it is *not* is straight ahead war ending.

By the way, I think it was she who pointed out that even ending the war tomorrow would take months and months and months just to leave the country in a safe and orderly fashion. I agree with that.

[Maribelle]

29. It has a significant meaning to a professional creating a timeline.

There are a lot of steps to the logistic plans, to which it seems you agree.

Each step will rquire resources and time to complete.

Some steps will be dependent on other steps being completed first.

[welshTerrier2]

30. project management

yes, we've all studied Intro to Project Management.

what you're talking about are benchmarks. you used the exact phrase "other steps being completed first."

The woman on youtube asked this question: "How many more soldiers must die while these political games continue in our government?"

she didn't care about benchmarks and contingencies and project dependencies; she cared about her son and all the others who will die senselessly while these little campaign games continue.

try this: what exactly is Hillary willing to do to stop the war and occupation so that no more Americans die? here's an answer for you: absolutely fucking nothing.

[Maribelle]

34. I am not talking about benchmarks.

Benchmarks are used to determine if your project is on schedule, behind schedule, or ahead of schedule as defined in the timeline.

Creating a timeline means determining how long it will take to do a certain step and what resources are needed. I am talking about people and materials, equipment and money, red tape and permits, and time.

[welshTerrier2]

37. you are implying conditionality

in your previous post, you discussed dependencies of one step on another (i.e. a sequencing). in this step, you referred to "a certain step" and committing resources. you also referred to: "people and materials, equipment and money, red tape and permits, and time."

the questioner's question has had enough of all that bullshit. she was clearly well beyond being tolerant of "people and materials, equipment and money, red tape and permits, and time." she asked how many more would have to die while Democrats busied themselves with all that garbage. all of the stuff you're talking about, unless I'm misunderstanding your point, is based on conditionality. and that conditionality is based on something other than withdrawing the troops as rapidly as their safety allows. what other conditions are you building into your project plan? what are the contingencies you support?

the timeline the woman asked about was one that started withdrawing today and finished as quickly as troop safety permits.

implicit in your post are all sorts of "reasons" why we can't just leave. in fact, Hillary has stated she would keep some number of troops in Iraq. does your project plan ever actually end? it's not clear Hillary's does. is that how you do your projects? "I can't even estimate how long it will take; we'll see how things go." nice ...

Hillary's real answer to the woman's question, had she been truthful, is that she does not support calling on the Pentagon to give the best possible estimate of how long it will take to withdraw all the troops safely and then demanding they stick to their estimate as closely as possible. instead, she uses lying, wiggle words like STARTING to withdraw SOME troops. That's no plan at all.

[Maribelle]

39. It surely would be ideal if we could airlift the troops out overnight.

And you seem to know it's not possible.

I was trying to show you that the terms Hillary used were not logically contradictory, the difference between a date certain and a timeline.

How could the Pentagon give the "best possible estimate" if they have not even begun to do the planning necessary to develop an estimate? One candidate stated this should have been done before we went in (paraphrasing). I totally agree, as do many many others. But it wasn't - - and truly is a black mark on the Pentagon.

But the quandary is that because the Pentagon failed to do this, no one in this country could possibly say we can have the troops out by, say, January 1st 2008, or December 1st 2008. No one knows what it will take - - yet. This is exactly what Hillary wants to find out. How long is it going to take? Where is the timeline?

[Stinky The Clown]

38. Not exactly true

To say the war will end on January Twenty Seventh, Two Thousand Eight is stupid and silly.

To say that the war is over, we're on defense now until we leave, and we expect that will take six to eight months is a plan's overview and date certain enough for me.

[Maribelle]

40. How would you know "we expect that will take six to eight months"

if you have not developed your logistical timeline?

Some say it will take a year. It's pure speculation until a timeline is created.

[Stinky The Clown]

46. Are you intentionally or naturally obtuse?

Both were hypothetical examples of what is and isn't acceptable as a date to leave.

[Maribelle]

48. Obtuse? Of course I knew they were hypothetical.

Perhaps I should have posted:

How would one know "we expect that will take six to eight months"
if one has not developed a logistical timeline?


Does it feel better, now?

[Stinky The Clown]

50. Apology accepted

Now, please address the real issue .... which is not how long withdrawal will take (I'll stipulate your correctness there and further, state that I agree with you) but saying, simply, the war is over and we're on defense.

[Maribelle]

52. The war is over and we're on defense.

I totally agree.

[sandnsea]

41. And health care in her second term

And talking to Cuba and Venezuela some day, and maybe changing her mind on DOMA, and whatever other finger in the wind bullshit on any given day. I do not know why anybody supports her. She's a liar.

[LWolf]

56. Great doubletalk.

End the war "as soon as possible," but won't say when. "ASAP" sounds good and can't be pinned down. Imposing a date for withdrawal would require action to meet it.

[Maribelle]

13. So, because you do not know the difference between a beginning time line and a date certain ...

you say Clinton lied?

[wyldwolf]

15. Obama lied in the debate last night

Sen. Barrack Obama, D-Illinois, took a lot of credit for campaign finance reform tonight.

“I don’t take PAC money and I don’t take lobbyist money, and the bundlers, the reason you know who is raising money for me, Mike, is because I have pushed through a law this past session to disclose that,” Obama said.

Well, that law hasn’t actually gone through. The bill that would force lobbyists to disclose more of their activities, including what’s known as “bundling,” has not become law because it has not passed Congress.

The House and the Senate are trying to hammer out differences between their bills before the August recess.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/07/23/fact-check-not-so-fast-senator-obama/

[welshTerrier2]

24. well, fine ... then there are two liars we should NOT support

I'll assume that since you didn't dispute the OP, you agree with it ...

also, please start your own thread instead of hijacking this one.

[wyldwolf]

28. your OP has already been disputed

[Dawgs]

43. Where?

I didn't see it.

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

45. in fantasy "hillary isn't a war monger" land

[wyldwolf]

47. post 23

[BeyondGeography]

59. Oooh yeah, that's a real doozie...or maybe not so much

From another source, just so you'll be fully informed:

<Gravel and the rest of the public know how many bundlers Obama has not because of a "law" that the Illinois Democrat has "pushed through" but because Obama voluntarily discloses that information.>

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/

He's a lying little Boy Scout, that Barack.

[TreasonousBastard]

21. A politician lying-- will wonders never cease? n/t

[jobycom]

23. You're not accurate.

She was for a timeline for withdrawal back in 2005, when she voted for Russ Feingold's amendment to set a timeline for withdrawal, and made several statements back then supporting a timeline. Here's a biased Newsmax article, but the facts are there. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/16/100304.shtml

What she opposed, as your quote shows, was a "certain withdrawal date." She's been consistently against setting a firm, exact date for withdrawal, but since at least the end of 05 she's been for setting a timetable on withdrawal.

I'm not saying I agree with her position. I don't. I'm just saying she didn't contradict herself in the debate.

[karynnj]

49. There was no Feingold amendment for withdrawal voted on in 2005

Feingold worked with many of the Democrats who wanted to change the policy - Levin, Biden, Reed, Dodd, Kerry, Durbin, Kennedy, Feinstein, Obama, Boxer, Harkin and Rockefeller. This was after both he and Kerry independently had introduced their own legislation - that they knew would not be supported. They worked with Levin and the others to get the Levin amendment of 2005 (not the same as 2006) that was not binding Sense of the Seante resolution. It asked Bush to create a timeline and set bench marks. It was weak, but they thought it had a chance to pass. It didn't.

Senator Warner introduced a watered down version of the Levin amendment that did pass.

This is pretty weak stuff to claim as "supporting a deadline".


Thomas Summary for Levin 2005 amendment:

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate


Vote Summary

Question: On the Amendment (Levin Amdt. No. 2519 )
Vote Number: 322 Vote Date: November 15, 2005, 11:17 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Rejected
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 2519 to S. 1042
Statement of Purpose: To clarify and recommend changes to the policy of the United States on Iraq and to require reports on certain matters relating to Iraq.
Vote Counts: YEAs 40
NAYs 58
Not Voting 2
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State


Alphabetical by Senator Name Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Alexander (R-TN), Not Voting
Allard (R-CO), Nay
Allen (R-VA), Nay
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Nay
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Bond (R-MO), Nay
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Nay
Bunning (R-KY), Nay
Burns (R-MT), Nay
Burr (R-NC), Nay
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Chafee (R-RI), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Nay
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Coburn (R-OK), Nay
Cochran (R-MS), Nay
Coleman (R-MN), Nay
Collins (R-ME), Nay
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Cornyn (R-TX), Nay
Corzine (D-NJ), Not Voting
Craig (R-ID), Nay
Crapo (R-ID), Nay
Dayton (D-MN), Yea
DeMint (R-SC), Nay
DeWine (R-OH), Nay
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dole (R-NC), Nay
Domenici (R-NM), Nay
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Nay
Feingold (D-WI), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Nay
Graham (R-SC), Nay
Grassley (R-IA), Nay
Gregg (R-NH), Nay
Hagel (R-NE), Nay
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Nay
Hutchison (R-TX), Nay
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Nay
Jeffords (I-VT), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Nay
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (D-CT), Nay
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Nay
Lugar (R-IN), Nay
Martinez (R-FL), Nay
McCain (R-AZ), Nay
McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Nay
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Nelson (D-NE), Nay
Obama (D-IL), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Nay
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Santorum (R-PA), Nay
Sarbanes (D-MD), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Smith (R-OR), Nay
Snowe (R-ME), Nay
Specter (R-PA), Nay
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Stevens (R-AK), Nay
Sununu (R-NH), Nay
Talent (R-MO), Nay
Thomas (R-WY), Nay
Thune (R-SD), Nay
Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Warner (R-VA), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Yea


Details:

S.AMDT.2519
Amends: S.1042
Sponsor: Sen Levin, Carl (submitted 11/10/2005) (proposed 11/10/2005)
AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To clarify and recommend changes to the policy of the United States on Iraq and to require reports on certain matters relating to Iraq.

TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S12701

STATUS:

11/10/2005:
Amendment SA 2519 proposed by Senator Levin. (consideration: CR S12669-12670; text: CR S12669-12670)
11/14/2005:
Considered by Senate. (consideration: CR S12727)
11/15/2005:
Considered by Senate. (consideration: CR S12777, S12796-12798)
11/15/2005:
Amendment SA 5219 not agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 40 - 58. Record Vote Number: 322.
COSPONSORS(13):

Sen Biden, Joseph R., Jr. - 11/10/2005
Sen Reid, Harry - 11/10/2005
Sen Dodd, Christopher J. - 11/10/2005
Sen Kerry, John F. - 11/10/2005
Sen Feingold, Russell D. - 11/10/2005
Sen Durbin, Richard - 11/10/2005
Sen Reed, Jack - 11/10/2005
Sen Kennedy, Edward M. - 11/10/2005
Sen Feinstein, Dianne - 11/10/2005
Sen Obama, Barack - 11/10/2005
Sen Boxer, Barbara - 11/10/2005
Sen Harkin, Tom - 11/15/2005
Sen Rockefeller, John D., IV - 11/15/2005

Summary for the Warner amendment:

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress - 1st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate


Vote Summary

Question: On the Amendment (Warner Amdt. No. 2518 )
Vote Number: 323 Vote Date: November 15, 2005, 11:47 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Agreed to
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 2518 to S. 1042
Statement of Purpose: To clarify and recommend changes to the policy of the United States on Iraq and to require reports on certain matters relating to Iraq.
Vote Counts: YEAs 79
NAYs 19
Not Voting 2
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State


Alphabetical by Senator Name Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Alexander (R-TN), Not Voting
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Nay
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Burr (R-NC), Nay
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Chafee (R-RI), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Nay
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Coburn (R-OK), Nay
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Corzine (D-NJ), Not Voting
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Yea
DeMint (R-SC), Nay
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dole (R-NC), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Nay
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Nay
Jeffords (I-VT), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Nay
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Martinez (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Nay
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Yea
Talent (R-MO), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Nay
Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Yea S.AMDT.2518
Amends: S.1042
Sponsor: Sen Warner, John (submitted 11/10/2005) (proposed 11/10/2005)
AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To clarify and recommend changes to the policy of the United States on Iraq and to require reports on certain matters relating to Iraq.

POPULAR TITLE(S):
Iraq Progress Reports amendment (identified by CRS)

TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S12700-12701

STATUS:

11/10/2005:
Amendment SA 2518 proposed by Senator Warner. (consideration: CR S12668-12669; text: CR S12669)
11/14/2005:
Considered by Senate. (consideration: CR S12727)
11/15/2005:
Considered by Senate. (consideration: CR S12777, S12796-12798)
11/15/2005:
Amendment SA 2518 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 79 - 19. Record Vote Number: 323.
COSPONSORS(2):

Sen Frist, William H. - 11/10/2005
Sen Salazar, Ken - 11/15/2005

[wyldwolf]

58. no?

Anyway, In June 2005, Feingold, who originally opposed the authorization to use force in Iraq, introduced an amendment calling on the President to create such a public timetable.

http://www.senate.gov/~feingold/listening/releases/07/sheboygan.html

Earlier in the day, a nearly identical amendment sponsored by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), which included calls for the administration to set a withdrawal timetable, failed by 54 to 40. New York Sens. Charles Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton supported the Feingold amendment.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uswar164514705nov16,0,5647734.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-headlines

[karynnj]

66. The amendments Hillary voted for in 2005 were the Levin and Warner ones

They were the only ones that came to a vote. Many bills and amendments are introduced in the Senate that never reach the Senate floor. Feingold did submit an amendment in June, 2005 as described. As I said, Feingold in the fall of 2005, worked with the other Senators to try to get an amendment that all Democrats could vote for. (It clearly took some language from Feingold's proposed amendment and those of other Senators). That is the amendment that is officially Levin.

I am not questioning Hillary's comment, which is techically true in a weak non-binding way and ignoring that she voted against the only binding bill. In fact, my post PROVES Hillary voted for amendment that did what she said. (I have no idea why the Newsday reporter said it was sponsored by Feingold, who was one of several co-sponsors - in all the accounts I read at the time it was named correctly)

[jobycom]

60. None of that's what I said.

I didn't say the "Feingold Amendment," I said "Russ Feingold's amendment," which basically used Feingold's words, from statements he had made. The point of the amendment was to begin negotiations with Bush on withdrawing the troops, and it was deliberately weak in the hopes of getting Republican support, and thus passage.

And the whole point of my post was that Hillary did NOT say during the debate that she was for a deadline, only that she was for a timetable. The OP accused her, wrongly, of lying, then found a quote where she opposed a deadline. Apples to oranges. Hillary, as she truthfully said in the debate, supported a timeline for withdrawal and had tried to compromise with the Republicans to develop a better, bipartisan plan, and the Republicans blocked even that. She was talking about, amongst other things, the amendment you describe above. The fact that it was a weak amendment was exactly her point in the debate.

Thus, I repeat, the OP is wrong, and Hillary was not lying. His quote misunderstood what she was saying.

[Mass]

71. Two years after he proposed it - She did not vote for it in 2006, when only 13 senators voted for it

And she actually did not vote for it as the amendment did not get cloture.

The previous amendment, proposed by Levin, did not offer a definite date for completing the troops withdrawal, but a goal.

[hughee99]

27. Did she lie?

She was correct when she said "And since the election of 2006, the Democrats have tried repeatedly to win Republican support with a simple proposition that we need to set a timeline to begin bringing our troops home now."...

of course, by "the Democrats" she means SOME Democrats, herself not included. Not really a lie, it was Clinton misdirection at it's best. She wanted to get the listener to infer that she has been working hard on this, but she didn't want to actually say it.

I was VERY surprised when she said in January she wasn't for imposing a date, but after thinking about it, "imposing" is probably the word you'd need to parse in this statement.

[Bitwit1234]

32. Golly the republicans don't have to bash Hillary her own party is.

Course it is probably sour grapes because their candidate isn't up front. I personally like Edwards. But I don't get on the intenet and bash the other candidates trying to make Edwards look better like a lot of one candidates group does.

[Dawgs]

44. How is this bashing?

She lied!!!! Are you okay with that?

[mistertrickster]

74. No kidding. Why do Dems get a 'free pass' just because they're NOT Republicans. nt

[AtomicKitten]

35. strategy is evolving as do events on the ground

perhaps your line of attack on the Democratic candidates should too

[realbluesky]

36. Hillary will never get my vote, no matter what.

I guess I'll just sit home on election day.
I will not vote for someone who does not support my values.
If Repubs win because I stay home, it will not be my fault.
If you choose to hold you nose and vote, be my guest.
I will stay home on election day unless the dems choose a real leader.
Hillary's out...
Obama's out...
Edwards is on the edge...
The only one I've heard speaking out for the people is Kucinich...

[William769]

63. Go ahead be one of those who takes your ball and goes home.

We had those in 2000 also. Statements like that only look bad on the poster.

[Dawgs]

68. They look pretty good to me.

[rodeodance]

51. oh for petey's sake--she did not lie!

[illinoisprogressive]

64. she has been trying to claim she has been against the war for years now.

[killbotfactory]

70. Here's her speech before she voted for the IWR

So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. 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.

Thank you, Mr. President.

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

Here are things I notice:
1. She doesn't seem at all concerned with the aftermath of an invasion.
2. She wanted Bush to go to the UN, and if Saddam hadn't "disarmed" to our satisfaction, she wanted to invade without UN support anyway. This is basically the same policy Powell promoted to Bush. The UN resolution was to be used for garnering international support for an invasion, not as a show of support for international law and order.
3. She trusts the president to not rush to war. Since she never protested Bush rushing to war, I will have to assume she believes he didn't.

[EndElectoral]

69. Accurate post....

[Imagevision]

72. I believe Oprah is a bigger threat to Hillary then Bill is to Obama...!

[mistertrickster]

73. AGREE! She should run with Joe Leiberman. It would be almost like

having Democrats to vote for . . .

[jmp]

75. Timeline does not equal Deadline

A date certain would be a deadline. A deadline and a timeline are NOT the same thing.

Maybe Hillary should stick to using small words so as not to confuse the haters.