Which Title Is Unclear to the Average Wellesley/Yale-Educated Reader?

[CorpGovActivist]

The http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107">Iraq War Resolution title? Or this one?

[Windy]

1. Poignant n/t

[CorpGovActivist]

2. We Cannot Apply a Double Standard; We CANNOT Afford to Do So...

... raking Bush and his team over the coals was right. Letting her off the hook for not even bothering to read the IWR title is not.

- Dave

[CorpGovActivist]

3. Maybe Wellesley should teach a class on reading for comprehension.

Active listening would be a good one to teach, too.

- Dave

[bigtree]

5. active listening

I've heard critics of her vote contend that "all of the info was out there for everyone to judge."

Many who voted for and against the resolution failed to read the full report. Some who railed against the resolution from the outside had no access at all to the Bush administration's NIE. Did they err in their responsibility? What 'intelligence' did they base their votes on? ('Few senators read Iraq NIE report' http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/few-senators-read-iraq-nie-report-2007-06-19.html)

Could there have been questions asked of the administration from Sen. Clinton which dealt with the 'dissent' she was supposed to have missed in the administration intelligence document? She did say she was briefed by the officials who compiled the report. (Sen. Clinton explained to Tim Russert, "I was fully briefed by the people who wrote . I was briefed by the people from, you know, the State Department, the CIA, the Department of Defense." http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=5615)

Were there other sources of 'intelligence' that Sen. Clinton was privy to? It doesn't make sense to imagine that she didn't talk to the members of the Armed Services Committee and other Senators, staffers, and contacts in making her decision. This seems like an awfully narrow focus to determine what she factored into her vote. Why not take her own words preceding the vote? (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4329338)

from CNN:

BLITZER: Senator Clinton, do you regret voting to authorize the president to use force against Saddam Hussein in Iraq without actually reading the National Intelligence Estimate, the classified document laying out the best U.S. intelligence at that time?

CLINTON: Wolf, I was thoroughly briefed. I knew all the arguments. I knew all of what the Defense Department, the CIA, the State Department were all saying, and I sought out dissenting opinions, as well as talking to people in previous administrations and outside experts.


Remember, the administration can manipulate these reports any way they please. And, it's a curious tactic for critics of Clinton's actions here to complain that she didn't read the administration intelligence that they, themselves don't believe. :shrug:

[bigtree]

4. you should know this is a baseless charge

the summary that she says she did read is extensive and not any more revealing than the full report, according to those who've seen it.

Do you personally know what the differences were in the reports which would have made a difference in how the report might have been perceived? This seems like a cheap campaign trick to keep repeating this.

[CorpGovActivist]

12. I'm sorry, but I expect a member of the United States Senate...

... to hole up in her office, say, "hold my calls," and actually READ when it comes to such things as: (1) declarations of war (formal and informal); (2) judicial nominations; and (3) treaty ratifications.

Call me old-fashioned.

- Dave

[bigtree]

21. yet, in your argument, you've chosen to ignore or disregard her own explanations

in favor of promoting this misleading, shorthand criticism suggesting that the title represents the totality of the resolution, or, further, suggesting that the resolution, itself, was what Bush relied on to deploy troops.

[CorpGovActivist]

34. When she finally lands on her final answer, Regis...

... let us all know.

[bigtree]

37. you mean

your answer, don't you?

[CorpGovActivist]

52. No, whichever one she finally decides we can all hold her accountable on.

She espoused accountability - well, she spoke the words, anyway - this week at the debate.

- Dave

[Girlieman]

42. Huh?

I don't think the original poster is ignoring her explanations. I think he's using critical thinking to come to the conclusion that the explanation does not make sense, or, if it is taken at face value, then maybe this is not the person we want running the country.

[bigtree]

46. the OP is being deliberately dodgy and evasive

the clipped answers are designed to fragment his argument and diffuse others'

[CorpGovActivist]

48. I'm all for framing this with the full video of the Senator's IWR speech.

[bigtree]

50. have at it

transcripts are more accessible for posters, videos allow too much interpretation and dodging.

[CorpGovActivist]

51. Those who listened to Kennedy/Nixon...

... had a very different impression of who won than those who watched.

Welcome to the multi-media age.

Reading along while watching is the best approach. The video links and the transcript links are available online.

- Dave

[Yossariant]

6. For the record, the title of the bill was not "Iraq War Resolution."

Not that you care about a fact.

The fact is that our country is at war. Turning the Presidency over to a guy who's had a full time job for only the past 3 years is insanity.

[CorpGovActivist]

11. The title: "Joint Resolution: To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces ...

... against Iraq."

You're absolutely right. Facts matter.

- Dave

[Yossariant]

20. Merely observing the duplicity by not using the correct title

[CorpGovActivist]

32. Um...

... the link in the OP takes you to the title.

- Dave

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. She voted to go to war with Iraq, which posed no threat to the United States.

A nation made prostrate and starving by the inhumane sanctions imposed on it.

[bigtree]

8. Bush initiated the 'war'

She voted for a return to inspections, the "exhaustion of all peaceful means" and a return to the U.N. security council before any use of force was considered. That's what the resolution says. Bush disregarded all of that and pushed forward with his preemptive, unilateral invasion.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. Did she do so knowing that Bush would go ahead with the war?

I find it hard to believe, make that impossible to believe, that someone, a senator, with Hillary's alleged acumen and intelligence, failed to see that Bush was going to go to war whatever the outcome of the IWR vote.

Perhaps it was all those troops lounging around in Kuwait that spurred my disbelief.

[bigtree]

10. I think EVERYONE knew Bush intended to invade

Many of the Democrats who voted for the resolution obviously knew Bush intended to push to deploy troops, with or without congressional 'permission'. Clinton's clearly stated rationale in voting for the resolution was to avert that inevitability by steering Bush back to the U.N.. That effort (in a republican-dominated Senate) failed. That's just not the same as authorizing what Bush ultimately did.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. So, how did that work out?

I find that argument nonsensical and naive. As you say, "everyone knew that Bush was going to invade".
Which was certainly obvious. That he was going to do so with or without the cover of the IWR was also obvious.

One has to be extremely generous to believe that Hillary actually thought that voting for the IWR was going to prevent it.

Not to mention the fact that there was no reason for those troops to be in Kuwait, or for the military build-up in the area, or the threats.

Everyone also "knew" that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

You're ignoring the public support for Bush and the war. Do you really think that Hillary and her colleagues who voted for the amendment were ignoring the "patriotic" clamor for vengeance? And, that that had no influence on their votes?

Her rationales are full of holes.

Her comments after the invasion of Iraq only fortify this.

"I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote." Speech to CFR 2003

"We don't want to send a signal to the insurgents, to the terrorists that we are going to be out of here at some, you know, date certain." Interview on CNN 2/20/05

[bigtree]

17. what do you really think our Democratic minority was going to be able to do to stop Bush

. . . when the republican majority was determined to support ANYTHING he did? If Bush had acted outside the Congress, they would have just ratified his action or looked the other way as Democrats did when Bill Clinton took troops to Haiti without their prior approval. All of this weight on the head of one insignificant Senator in the minority is absurd.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. It was a facile political act of cowardice. For which she is now paying the price.

Of course, she wasn't going to stop the war. Given the bloodthirsty mood of the country it was "smart" politics to take advantage of the cover offered by the resolution. She, like the others, who voted for the war, hoped for a not-to-easily won victory so the could be a part of the victory against the bogeyman Hussein and against the mishandling at the same time.

She, like the rest, played politics with people's lives. They still do when they continue to fund the wars and then talk about "peace".

I don't even particularly "blame" them. It's part of being a politician to throw people under the bus for political gain.

I just find it disgusting and horrifying.

And, voting for such people is beyond my abilities to rationalize.

[bigtree]

23. the 'politics' of twisting her intent is no less outrageous

. . . and the politics of taking the responsibility off of Bush and placing it on a junior senator who had absolutely no way of stopping Bush is also 'outrageous.'

The politics of representing the resolution as 'authorization' for Bush to do what he ultimately did in invading and occupying is 'outrageous.'

And, the politics of disregarding her own rationale for the vote, in favor of critics' own biased interpretations is 'outrageous' as well.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. Her words.

How is it "taking the responsibility off Bush"? I'm saying she was complicit with Bush in the war. She had her chance to oppose it, as 23 other senators did, and failed to do so.

"I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote." Speech to CFR 2003

As far "disregarding her own rationale". Do you think she doesn't have her own biases and reasons to make such a rationale?

Or, how about Bush? Did/does he have a "rationale" for what he did that we should give credence to because critics have "biased interpretations"?

[bigtree]

27. There is an obvious difference between her vote and what Bush did

the most important is in the actual 'authority' Bush used to deploy the troops (It's not inherent in the resolution, although it references the WPA as the authority)

It's also misleading to clip quotes out of context. It's part of this shorthand attack, leaving out the rest of the senator's words.

Again, no matter how you choose to interpret her motives, you can't supplant her own rationale for the vote with your own biased words; nor *credibly equate the passage of that resolution with what Bush had already planned and was prepared to do, no matter what Congress decided. He told them so before the vote.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. Nonsense. I "clipped" the quote because the rest was redundant.

Of course, I'm "biased". So are you. So is everybody. Including Hillary.

I'm not "blaming" her for the war. Of course, Bush was going to war and she and the congress couldn't stop it.

What I'm blaming her for is her political vote that gave him cover.

You may believe her rationale, I don't.

[bigtree]

31. redundant

to your own argument, I suppose.

I don't sell the notion that the IWR gave/gives him cover. To each their own.

[CorpGovActivist]

39. What notion do you cleave to with respect to Senator Clinton's vote...

... and subsequent, shifting sands explanations?

- Dave

[bigtree]

45. Her answer(s) reflect every aspect of her vote and her rationale at the time

the 'shifting' hasn't been so far from the totality of her statements (from the beginning) and the events which have passed since which have required more folks than just Clinton to reevaluate the effect and wisdom of their vote. It's in this partisan political gotcha atmosphere that we ridiculously expect her to own up to our own rationales and spin. Maybe she tried to bend to those views. It's not an unnatural thing for a politician to bend to the views of their constant critics. But, I would note, that on this vote, Clinton has not gone as far as some of the others in completely disavowing the action she took. She has a very clear explanation which critics don't accept. You know the parameters of that argument. You stick to your interpretation and insist that she's either wrong or lying. But, at some point there should be some acknowledgment that there is only so much this one senator could do to affect Bush's push to invade, and, that she did speak out against the action he took; that you can disagree with the concept of 'coercive diplomacy, but it's quite another thing to insist that the concept is either new or foreign to our approach with nations who are determined to threaten our nation's interests; or that legislators often vote for bills with complex motivations, often having no relationship with the underlying language in the bill. But, I have a feeling I'm explaining politics to someone who should know better, but is content playing political ping-pong.

[CorpGovActivist]

55. As long as she's self-aware enough to give us the play-by-play post-mortem...

... on her poor judgment, we should all suck it up and vote for her, right?

:eyes:

- Dave

[bigtree]

58. did you not make up your own mind?

at some point you will have to accept that she isn't going to say anything about that vote which will satisfy you. But, don't assume that means there isn't an argument to be made which is contrary to your own.

kind of a frustrated reply there. tiring of the debate?

[CorpGovActivist]

60. How is it that Senator Byrd gave a speech...

... in February 03, calling this so accurately, and someone as sharp as her couldn't figure it out?

She knew.

- Dave

[bigtree]

63. . . . as if two senators have never had a difference of opinion or motivation

toward a bill.

Everyone knew. But, her (stated) motivation was to forestall or avert the inevitable by steering Bush back to the U.N. process of inspections. All other attempts by the Democratic minority to directly confront Bush and legislate a halt to his mobilization did eventually fail, you know.

[CorpGovActivist]

67. Judgment counts.

Hers was off.

How many days did she spend in the Senate until she was ready?

So much for the Day 1 in the White House crap.

- Dave

[bigtree]

69. 'junior senator' refers to her seniority status

in the minority, her influence was squat. On many issues her participation was seen as polarizing because she was a lightning rod for criticism from the right.

[CorpGovActivist]

71. I am somewhat familiar with the lingo of the United States Senate.

:eyes:

- Dave

[bigtree]

72. then whatever were you referring to?

I've never suggested anything resembling your reference to 'Day 1 in the White House crap', except 'Junior.

You're dissembling.

edit: I see now. you mean her claim to be ready on day one. None of the candidates running will be ready on day one.

nite, Dave.

[CorpGovActivist]

73. Nite, enjoyed your lengthy apologia for the untenable.

:toast:

[Girlieman]

44. I find your apologies for Clinton really disgusting

We are a nation of checks and balances. Checks as in checking the usurpation and abuse of power.

Congress is supposed to act as a check to the power of the presidency. That's not a vague suggestion in the constitution. It's a duty. A rather sacred duty if you ask me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Senators took an oath and swore to protect the constitution.

Hillary and a whole bunch of other people did not measure up to the task. In my book, you don't get credit for making easy decisions, but making the right decisions when it's not easy to do so.

[bigtree]

49. only in this place are explanations apologies. I find your disgust phony.

These legislators take an oath to exercise their duties as they see fit. You may not accept her explanations for her actions, but that's not so earth shattering in politics or on this board.

It's just not credible to suggest that she had a chance in hell of moving that Senate to oppose the resolution. Several Democrats tried to use the bill to influence Bush back to the U.N., including Clinton. You may not like that, but her action (nor the bill itself) was not the trigger which caused Bush to invade. That's the implication from her critics who charge her with the deaths Bush, himself, is responsible for. The 'authority' he used is referenced in the resolution in a weak attempt to make it look like the bill is the trigger. But, in fact, the bill states that nothing is to preclude the authority (loophole) in the War Powers Act which allows Bush to commit troops without prior congressional approval. Come back to us in 48 hrs., the bill states, and prove that all peaceful means have been exhausted. But, that provision is part and parcel of the War Powers Act. The resolution was just a congressional shell constructed by the majority to make it appear they were authorizing what Bush already intended to do, with or without them. Those Senators who sought to mandate a return to inspections actually succeeded, through the passage of the resolution, in getting inspectors like Hans Blix back to determining that the weapons had been destroyed. It was Bush who jumped PAST the IWR, jumped PAST the provisions in the bill, and exercised the power he had all along (outside of the IWR) to deploy troops.

Railing against the Senator for abdicating responsibility is subjective to your own bias on this. Your certainly entitled to that approach, but it's not correct that Clinton dodged her own responsibility, or to correct to suggest she triggered or was a partner to what Bush ultimately did, just because she voted for the Iraq resolution which Bush eventually IGNORED.

[Girlieman]

53. Are you saying what I think you're saying?

That Clinton was justified in voting for the war because she could not have stopped the war by voting against it?

[bigtree]

57. I'm saying that your spin on her vote is dishonest or uninformed

The IWR did not 'authorize' war or anything else Bush ultimately did.

[The Magistrate]

59. Exactly, Mr. Girleiman

That is precisely what occured, and everyone who was attuned to the practical process of politics at the time knew that was what was happening. It was well known the administration was resolved on war, and would have it by hook or by crook. The enabling resolution was a political trap aimed at the '02 elections, and had no real bearing on either the preparations in train for war, or their scheduled consummation in the period of favorable weather the following spring. The enemy's calculation was that to the degree Senate Democrats voted against the resolution, as many of their voters desired, the Party could be portrayed as anti-patriot, and this image used to defeat Democratic Senators in Western and Southern states, while to the degree the Party did not vote against the resolution, large elements of the Party's voting strength would be turned against its leadership in Northern and Coastal states. On the off chance the resolution was defeated, it would simply have been the first business of the new Congress, with a solid Republican majority in the Senate, the following February, well in time for the scheduled invasion in March, the preparation for which would have continued unimpeded all the while. In this situation, the Democratic leadership in the Senate essentially passed the word to 'save yourselves', and allowed all members to cast the vote they thought would best serve their upcoming elections and future careers. The nearest thing to a real mis-judgement in the matter was the belief of just about all concerned that the U.S. military would doubtless succeed not only in invading but in pacifying the conquered territory. People who are neither students of partisan warfare, or of this particular region, can in my view be forgiven for this belief, though to people who are familiar with both these topics, pacifying the place always seemed a very dubious proposition.....

[Girlieman]

61. You are simply describing a politically expedient vote

Which I understand. That, of course, is not how Hillary is describing it, because although everyone in the world knows that she did what was motivated purely by politics, she can't possibly admit it. So we all play this stupid game where we know exactly what our candidates do, but we demand that they pretend that they are not doing what we know they are doing, and if they admit what we know, we crucify them.

Sort of like politicians who say "I don't pay attention to the polls."

[The Magistrate]

62. No One Ever Admits To Expediency, Sir

It just is not done. But people know of it all the same, and most people do not much mind it, and extend a great deal of understanding towards it, having practiced it frequently themselves in their own lives and private spheres. The game is as much a waste of time on the part of those who insist the thing meant a commitment to war, makes the war the responsibility of someone who cast this vote, etc. and ad infinitum.

"This pretense of not knowing what every idiot knows has come to define our national discourse."

[Girlieman]

64. Sorry, that might work for you, but not for me

In a sense, it's live by the sword, die by the sword. She miscalculated the political fallout for her vote. Let her live with it.

[The Magistrate]

66. We Are In Agreement There, Sir: The Lady Mis-Calculated

Doubtless she kicks herself twice some mornings over it....

But that does not render serious the fundamentally frivolous line of attack that treats it as some great moral failing.

[bigtree]

68. I've heard this explanation from you before, I think, Magistrate

I don't disagree that politicians were acting like politicians in the middle of the election trap set by the WH. But, I can't ignore the fact that inspections did resume, for a time, after the passage of the resolution. I would also note that the resolution was less an authorization than it was an affirmation of the WPA, coupled with language directing the extension of diplomatic measures by the U.N.. It was Bush who ignored those provisions and pushed forward under the WPA 'authority' to commit troops which wasn't inherent in the resolution. The resolution was more of a directing document than it was a trigger for the invasion. It made perfect sense to include the expectations of an exhaustion of diplomacy as the language Sen. Kerry and others managed to get included in the resolution. It made further sense for those who supported that return to inspections and diplomacy, especially those with no legislative vehicle at all with a chance in hell of passing, to support the resolution.

As I said above, it worked to get the inspections started again, and, it was Bush, not the resolution, who triggered the invasion by invoking his privileges under the loophole in the WPA which allows him to commit troops for a period of time without prior congressional permission. Even after that opportunistic, unilateral deployment, most Senators and others would be loath to vote for their return or cut off of initial funds.

A bit off of your point, but these answers have a way of attracting more 'questions'.

[The Magistrate]

70. Worthwhile Points, Sir

At minimum, the War Powers Act, which in my personal opinion is wholly un-Constitutional, renders moot any question of whether this resolution caused the invasion of Iraq, or makes especially responsible for that invasion those who voted for it. The thing was going to happen, and mostly for the purpose of manipulating our domestic political life to the advantage of Republicans as their strategists, particularly Rove, conceived it.

[CorpGovActivist]

77. Just a "Junior Senator"...

... that's all they've got now, by way of apologia.

- Dave

[CorpGovActivist]

76. The apologias are getting weaker.

Did you see Carville on MTP yesterday?

Lame.

- Dave

[bigtree]

29. Hannity cropped Clinton quote to accuse her of "hypocrisy" on Iraq

from Media Matters: http://mediamatters.org/items/200706180007

On the June 17 edition of Fox News' Hannity's America, host Sean Hannity cropped a December 2003 speech by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) before the Council on Foreign Relations to accuse her of "hypocrisy." Hannity claimed that, in that speech, "when most Democrats turned their back on the president's decision to invade Iraq, Hillary maintained her support." As evidence, Hannity aired a part of her speech in which Clinton said, "I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein," but not her subsequent statement two sentences later in which she noted what she said were her "many disputes and disagreements with the administration over how that authority has been used." Hannity then skipped ahead 14 paragraphs to include this quote from Clinton: "We have no option but to stay involved and committed." Hannity later accused Clinton of "quickly changing beats" after opposition to the war grew and claimed that, in June 2006, "almost out of nowhere," Clinton "started to blame the president for misleading Congress." Hannity then pointed to Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) remarks -- as quoted in Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton (Little, Brown & Co., June 2007) by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr. -- that "I didn't see early on or at least for a couple of or three years ... the allegation surface that President Bush had 'misused his authority.' " In fact, as Media Matters for America has previously noted (here and here http://mediamatters.org/items/200706010005?offset=20&show=1 http://mediamatters.org/items/200705300003?offset=20&show=1), Clinton accused Bush of misusing the authority given him in the Authorization For Use Of Military Force Against Iraq long before the June 2006 speech.

From Clinton's December 15, 2003, speech (emphasis added): http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=233760

CLINTON: I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote. I have had many disputes and disagreements with the administration over how that authority has been used, but I stand by the vote to provide the authority because I think it was a necessary step in order to maximize the outcome that did occur in the Security Council with the unanimous vote to send in inspectors. And I also knew that our military forces would be successful. But what we did not appreciate fully and what the administration was unprepared for was what would happen the day after.

<...>

CLINTON: So the question that I was asked most frequently when I returned was, well, are you optimistic or pessimistic, and I have to confess that my answer is neither. I am both a little optimistic and a little pessimistic, but what I'm trying to do is be realistic about where we are and what we need to be successful. We have no option but to stay involved and committed.

" In fact, as Media Matters noted in rebutting Gerth and Van Natta's claim, which The New York Times published in an excerpt of Her Way -- that Clinton first accused Bush of misusing his authority in her June 2006 floor statement -- Clinton has consistently voiced this concern. For instance, she told the Poughkeepsie Journal during a February 9, 2004, interview: "And, finally, I think when you are asked by a president to give him authority to proceed in one manner with the ultimate decision to use force, granted, assuming the following steps would be taken, that doesn't seem to me to be unreasonable. What happened here is that we gave authority to a president who in my view misused the authority." Also, as early as October 2003, Clinton expressed her disagreement "with the way used that authority," as she did in the December 2003 speech.

[CorpGovActivist]

35. Do you have a link to the IWR vote speech she gave? I agree with you...

... that the candidates' own, unredacted words should be the yardstick.

- Dave

[CorpGovActivist]

25. A facile facsimile of leadership.

Indeed.

[bigtree]

28. from the junior senator

in the minority

[CorpGovActivist]

36. Sorry. You lost me.

Clarify?

- Dave

[CorpGovActivist]

14. Read the title. She obviously didn't.

[bigtree]

16. silliness

Does Bush have 'authorization' to preemptively invade and occupy every country in which Congress has given permission to "use force?" Nation build? Steal resources?

Should she have just read the title, or was there anything else in the resolution of importance?


there's this:

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.


A loophole in the War Powers Act, which allows Bush to commit troops without prior congressional approval is what Bush relied on to deploy troops, not this resolution. And, EVERYONE knew Bush intended to press forward, no matter what Congress decided.

The Iraq resolution was a front for what Bush intended to do anyway. The fact that some Democrats tried to use the resolution (which was going to pass anyway in the republican controlled body) to steer Bush back to the U.N. doesn't make them responsible for Bush eventually exercising the power he already assumed he had (outside of the IWR).

[CorpGovActivist]

75. No need to excise. The OP links to the entire resolution, which she apparently read thoroughly...

... and on which she then exhibited her "very best judgment."

- Dave

[bigtree]

54. again, it's not an honest representation of what the bill was all about

The 'authority' cited in the resolution was a mere reference in the legislation to the War Powers Act. Moreover, the resolution actually states that nothing in the bill should 'supersede' the provisions of the WPA . . . among those, the provision which allows Bush to deploy troops for aperiod of time without seeking prior approval from Congress. The bill itself was NOT the TRIGGER which initiated the invasion. Bush, himself, triggered that invasion after halting inspections, by invoking his 'authority' in the WPA. The bill was mostly a congressional wish list directing Bush to carry out the diplomacy he had promised, despite the title.

Is the title of the No Children Left Behind Act accurate?

[CorpGovActivist]

56. Are you saying that Senator Clinton...

... has ignored a violation of the War Powers Act?

- Dave

[bigtree]

65. The republican Congress routinely 'ignored' violations of the law, including violations of the IWR

There wasn't an effective legislative lever the minority, in that Congress, could exercise to hold the administration to the letter of the law. Did the republicans move to enforce the provisions which mandated restraint in their own resolution? If you intend to hold them accountable through the legislature you need a sufficient amount of votes to prevail. Again, this is simply a ridiculous expectation that one Senator is responsible for that lack of accountability from the republican-controlled body or from this ineffective majority we have today.

Just keep throwing them out there. Something should stick.

[CorpGovActivist]

74. Can you point me to the Senate rule...

... that says that a junior Senator from any state - even a big, populous, influential one - cannot speak out when in the minority?

I didn't realize that the rules were changed to prevent floor speeches, or courage for that matter.

- Dave

[CorpGovActivist]

13. And now she wants us to think she couldn't grasp the nuances of the resolution's title.

Or its contents.

- Dave

[bigtree]

19. that's just some shorthand, political rhetoric served up by partisans

looking to upend Clinton. There's really nothing she could have done as a Senator to stop Bush, so the entire exercise in blaming her for Bush's ultimate decision to invade is silly. He exercised his assumed power under the WPA to commit troops, with the full support of his republican majority . . . who didn't dissent in any way at the time of the vote, unlike Clinton, who emphasized just what she intended Bush to do with the 'authority' in the resolution (which was going to pass, with or without her vote in the republican dominated Senate)

[CorpGovActivist]

33. "There's really nothing she could have done as a Senator"

You can't be serious.

- Dave

[bigtree]

38. you tell me how she personally could have stopped Bush in that Congress

as the junior senator from the minority party in a republican-controlled Senate

[CorpGovActivist]

40. Filibuster math.

It ain't complicated.

- Dave

[bigtree]

41. it doesn't add up

I'm surprised you went down this road. The shorthand won't do. You tell me how she personally could have stopped that bill from passing, in that Congress, at that time. I'm not uninformed on this, but you're the one suggesting she had all of this power. You spell it out. I believe you don't have a leg to stand on with that argument.

[CorpGovActivist]

47. Well, the longhand version of her speech helps.

Every time I have to remind myself, I just watch that.

- Dave

[Girlieman]

43. A nation made prostrate and starving by the inhumane sanctions imposed on it.

By her husband, who felt little pain of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died as a result of the sanctions.

So if he didn't care, why would you expect her to?

[DiamondJay]

18. the IWR was not a "declaration" of actual war

it was just giving authority. but i do agree hillary shoulda known better

[CorpGovActivist]

24. War Powers Act n/t