Hillary Clinton and Her Vote for the IWR

[Stand and Fight]

There seems to be a bit of confusion over exactly what her position was in October of 2002. After reviewing her speech explaining her vote for the resolution, I am left with a deeper respect for the good Senator. Likewise, while it may be an unpopular position to take on DU, I do feel that most people and veterans would understand her line of thought in voting for authorization. As a recent veteran myself -- I got out in February 2004 -- I do not at all fault Senator Clinton for her vote on the resolution. Furthermore, I believe that she is wholly justified in NOT apologizing for her vote. I wholeheartedly agree with her that looking backward is not the approach we should take. Rather we should look forward and decide how to fix the problem that was caused by George W. Bush's irresponsible use of congressional approval. If possible, can we please discuss this issue in a manner befitting intelligent adults who are, after all is said and done, members of the same political flock.

What follows is the full text of Hillary Clinton's speech as given on the floor of the Senate on 10 October 2002. I have underlined what I feel are the relevant and revealing portions explaining her vote and my own comments are italicized:

Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.

I am honored to represent nearly 19 million New Yorkers, a thoughtful democracy of voices and opinions who make themselves heard on the great issues of our day especially this one. Many have contacted my office about this resolution, both in support of and in opposition to it, and I am grateful to all who have expressed an opinion.

I also greatly respect the differing opinions within this body. The debate they engender will aid our search for a wise, effective policy. Therefore, on no account should dissent be discouraged or disparaged. It is central to our freedom and to our progress, for on more than one occasion, history has proven our great dissenters to be right.

Let's be sure to remember this portion, as it because largely relevant in the aftermath of the invasion and even later on in this speech...

Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.

On this point, I am completely in agreement with HRC. These are facts that are well-known and well-documented within the public record.

In 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait, losing the support of the United States. The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab states, and threw Saddam out after forty-three days of bombing and a hundred hours of ground operations. The U.S.-led coalition then withdrew, leaving the Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to Saddam's revenge.

As a condition for ending the conflict, the United Nations imposed a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to do the work. Saddam Hussein agreed, and an inspection system was set up to ensure compliance. And though he repeatedly lied, delayed, and obstructed the inspections work, the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities.

In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated "sovereign sites" including the so-called presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.

In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

I can only speculate that Senator Clinton was misled by the intelligence reports that were coming out of our intelligence agencies; nonetheless, even at the time this intelligence was widely questioned by dissenting voices that turned out to be right about this issue and about the coming quagmire in Iraq. It is entirely possible that Hillary Clinton could have exercised better judgment in this matter, but if one continues reading the text of the speech it becomes more clear why she did not... More importantly, the next portion of the speech (all underlined by yours truly) are particularly revealing.

It is clear, however, that 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.

Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?

Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.

Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it. This too has great appeal for different reasons. The UN deserves our support. Whenever possible we should work through it and strengthen it, for it enables the world to share the risks and burdens of global security and when it acts, it confers a legitimacy that increases the likelihood of long-term success. The UN can help lead the world into a new era of global cooperation and the United States should support that goal.

But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto, on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act. In Kosovo, the Russians did not approve NATO military action because of political, ethnic, and religious ties to the Serbs. The United States therefore could not obtain a Security Council resolution in favor of the action necessary to stop the dislocation and ethnic cleansing of more than a million Kosovar Albanians. However, most of the world was with us because there was a genuine emergency with thousands dead and a million driven from their homes. As soon as the American-led conflict was over, Russia joined the peacekeeping effort that is still underway.

In the case of Iraq, recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve force against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons.

So, Mr. President, the question is how do we do our best to both defuse the real threat that Saddam Hussein poses to his people, to the region, including Israel, to the United States, to the world, and at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations?

While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq.I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.

The passage above is quite revealing in my mind. It is clear that Mrs. Clinton did not view her vote as an authorization to use force. This was indicative of the answer she gave in tonight's California debate with the honorable Barack Obama. It is my earnest belief that Senator Clinton gave a straight-forward answer to the question, as her answer tonight was right in line with the contents of this speech. Mrs. Clinton clearly did not view her vote as an authorization for this president to attack Iran -- she viewed it as congress leaving the responsibility in the lap of the president. President Bush choose to use this power in a way that is clearly contrary to the purpose of Mrs. Clinton's vote. This is backed up by the next underlined portion....

If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.

If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.

The emphasized (underlined) portion makes it clear that Hillary Clinton was not -- in her mind -- voting for authorization to use force. It is high time that this myth be done away with once and for all. Mrs. Clinton was advocating a reasonable approach and giving the president the benefit of the doubt -- that he would ultimately do the right thing. It is not Mrs. Clinton's fault --based upon the premise of her speech -- that President Bush chose to act contrary to her thoughts. Therefore, it seems to me, that when Senator Clinton says had she been president there would have been no attack on Iraq, I COMPLETELY believe her. Unlike Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton did not have the luxury of being able to say later that she would have voted against the resolution. She was very much in the public spotlight. Had Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and -- given her view of her vote -- used said weapons after inspections had been conducted, Mrs. Clinton voting in opposition would have been disastrous and political suicide to boot. This is spelled out in no uncertain terms in the next paragraph....

If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls for Saddam's compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving some nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose any Security Council action. They will say we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only support the United Nations when it does exactly what we want.

I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein's biological and chemical weapons. Today he has maximum incentive not to use them or give them away. If he did either, the world would demand his immediate removal. Once the battle is joined, however, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and to give what he can't use to terrorists who can torment us with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed by this possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it. And according to recent reports, the CIA agrees with this analysis. A world united in sharing the risk at least would make this occurrence less likely and more bearable and would be far more likely to share with us the considerable burden of rebuilding a secure and peaceful post-Saddam Iraq.

Mrs. Clinton was clearly against President Bush taking unilateral action in Iraq. It is clear that she believed -- wrongly -- that the intelligence indicated that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and that he intended on using them. Senator Clinton viewed this as a particularly vital issue. It was imperative that something be done about Saddam Hussein because failure to do so could very well mean that weapons of mass destruction would get into the hands of terrorists. As I see it this is the measured response of mature leadership that this country so desperately needs -- the sort of leadership that has been wholly absent from the Bush administration.

President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

This last passage is the most disheartening for me as a former soldier. I am somewhat disappointed that Mrs. Clinton showed a certain kind of nativity by extending so much trust to President Bush. Nonetheless, I will acknowledge that given the fact that the wounds of September 11th remained fresh, it is no wonder that Mrs. Clinton -- and the majority of Democrats were willing to trust the president. She acknowledges that the resolution is not EXACTLY what she wants, she decided to go forward with an affirmative vote. Was this a mistake? Perhaps. Was it a lapse in judgment, a bit too trustful? Yes. However, that is the benefit of hindsight -- we can so easily say what we would have done. We must take into account that Senator Clinton was privy to information that simply was not made available to the public, and despite this, she still took the responsible role of suggesting moderation in regards to Iraq. She cannot be held accountable for Mr. Bush's utter lack of seasoned and mature judgment and leadership.

Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.

"...war less likely..." Think about that for a minute, folks. Senator Clinton clearly did not see her vote as an authorization to go to war. She saw it as an authorization for the president to pursue a more aggressive diplomatic stance with the United Nations. Senator Clinton even says in the next line that this is the hardest decision she has ever had to make because she acknowledges that it could lead to war. However strong her conviction may have been, she clearly saw her vote as an authorization -- not to go to war -- but to be able to pursue more aggressive diplomacy in the interest of building a stronger coalition should the use of force become necessary IF inspections did not work.

This is a very difficult vote. 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.

And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them.

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

Let those words sink in people -- especially those who have accused Senator Clinton of voting for this resolution on the basis that it was to go to war. "My vote is not a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism..."

Over eleven years have passed since the UN 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. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.

Senator Clinton is urging President Bush to seek unlimited inspections BEFORE pursuing the use of force. President Bush did not heed this sage advice.

And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am.

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.

"...use these powers wisely AND as a LAST RESORT."

Thank you, Mr. President.

Now, what say you, DU?

EDITED TO ADD: Can I shamelessly ask for recommendations so more people see this? I believe discussing this issue is of vital importance and would help to dispel the innuendo and slander that permeates the discussion of Senator Clinton's stance on this issue. Thanks!

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

1. She's DLC, which is pro Iraq war and anti populist

look up DLC.

They are solidly Pro Iraq War. Its not a mistake, its a deliberate choice,
a stance of the DLC which Hillary is a member of.

[ErnestoG]

3. Amen.

[MADem]

4. ...

:eyes:

[joshcryer]

5. So what she said in that speech doesn't matter? Her vote trumps her beliefs?

That's pretty fucked up.

[AGirl]

6. so Obama's speech doesn't matter, his non vote is what counts.

[ErnestoG]

23. What non vote?

Or is it now magically possible in our system to vote on Congressional legislation if you are not an elected legislator?

[Stand and Fight]

11. If I understand you correctly, I agree...

I think that it is a matter of great importance that Senator Clinton was willing to put her thoughts and feelings into the public record. For a long time I had bought into the mythology that she was a war hawk who fully supported attacking Iraq. However, after reviewing this speech -- I did not get to watch it as I was knee-deep in training soldiers at the time -- I have come to the conclusion that Senator Clinton made the best decision she could based on her thoughts. Furthermore, I am not entirely convinced that an apology is warranted given what is contained in the speech referenced above. In all fairness, I believe that the content of her speech and her vote tells me a heck of a lot more about her convictions than someone who was not in the Senate saying they opposed it when they didn't even have the ability to make such a tough choice in the first place.

[joshcryer]

13. Practically all of the Democratic Senators who voted yes gave similar speeches.

They had to do it for political reasons, reasons many people, who think issues are black and white, yes and no, simply cannot comprehend. Remember, Bush won in 2004 almost entirely on the Iraq War issue. Just think about what the landslides would've been had the whole of the Democratic Senate voted no (without any effect whatsoever on the War actually happening).

[John Q. Citizen]

68. I read the first line. What nuclear program? What WMDs? Didn't she bother to read the

first UN Inspection Report?

All she wanted to do was to make the world safe for Exxon and US military bases, after all.

2/3 of the Dems in thre House of Representives and 23 othewr US Senators knew better. They knew there wasn't good evidence of a "nuclear program," or of WMDs. They knew it was about oil and military bases.

Hillary has always been a hawk. Always. Nothing new. She's still a hawk.

[Stand and Fight]

7. I really must wonder if you even bothered to read the post.

Your response certainly does not lead me to believe that to be the case. Please do try to make a meaningful contribution to the debate rather than wallowing in sarcastic juvenile attacks and empty platitudes.

[joshcryer]

9. In 3 minutes? Highly highly unlikely.

But then again I'm sure even the most dispicible Obama supporters have read her position in the past, it's just that they have blindfolds on and don't understand exactly what she felt. It's all about the vote, the speech is irrelevant.

Quite a double standard when contrasted with their support for Obama.

[niceypoo]

61. Right, thats why she will immediately draw down troops

Do 3 seconds worth of research next time you post, save yourself the embarassment

[Window]

106. She's complicit. Period.

A hawk.



Peace:thumbsup:

[Individualist]

139. Hear, hear!

DLC supporters can spin all they want, but that doesn't change the fact that she voted for war.

When votes were being announced, I said those who voted for IWR would have the blood of all the dead on their hands. Lady MacClinton hasn't even attempted to wash the blood from her hands.

[MADem]

2. K/R

:thumbsup:

[maximusveritas]

8. "it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President"

That is what it comes down to.

She gave this incompetent and irresponsible president the authority to go to war. That is a collosal failure in judgment and something that I believe she should apologize for, as John Edwards did 2 years ago.

[joshcryer]

14. You missed the part about the 1991 UN resolution.

She knew that he could go without their vote to begin with.

[Levgreee]

57. But it would be without the support of congress, a BIG deal... perhaps impossible politically

[NursesluvHillary]

89. Do you REALLY Think it would have made Bush not go to war ?

[rhett o rick]

148. So your argument is that Sen Clinton's vote to support the war was ok because Bush would have done i

anyway. Are you nuts. The war was wrong and her vote was wrong. Over a million people have died. Do you care at all?

[Stand and Fight]

15. And I believe that this is debatable.

Unlike Senator Clinton, George W. Bush did not outline his thoughts in a speech. How many times did he lie to members of Congress and the American people in the lead up to the war? Do the wars, "All options are on the table" mean anything? I think that Mrs. Clinton -- like many other Americans and especially members of Congress -- felt that ultimately this responsibility lay at the feet of the president. If I learned nothing about being a leader it was that ultimately the tough decisions were mine to make and therefore mine to screw up. President Bush screwed up. That is the central issue. That is what it comes down to. Senator Clinton and many other members of Congress called for cool heads, patience, and, most of all, real analysis. Senator Clinton could not have known that anyone would have been so stupid. I certainly did not believe at the time -- as a member of the Army -- that the president would choose to take the wrong path. I believed that he would put this country first. However, I was not guided by the same intelligence that Senator Clinton received. I went on my gut and what I could find in the news and through online and public discourse. I would have made the same decision that Senator Clinton did with the same conditions, and furthermore I would not apologize when the ultimate responsibility lay with the president.

[NursesluvHillary]

ITA I feel Clinton was just thinking of the safety of the US .

President Clinton had to bomb Iraq. Clinton knew all the horrors that Saddam could do bc he had them done to his own ppl.

I wish Bush hadnt taken us into war. But we are there now and I think Hillary can get us.

[Seeker30]

22. As soon as Obama apologies for funding it

[NursesluvHillary]

88. Great point

[rhett o rick]

147. Another Sen Clinton supporter with less that 20 posts. There are lots of em. Is that you karl?? nm

[Political Heretic]

10. I'm not sure what about those comments makes you feel better.

Half of what she said about Saddam and Iraq was false.

If I knew the case for war in Iraq was lies before the IWR, then no member of congress has any excuse. Now, as a former Edwards supporter - the fact that the supported the war is not lost on me. I do feel that he was more candid in admitting that he was wrong than Clinton has ever been. BUT, I'm not writing a candidate off even because of a vote as bad as the IWR vote.

I am however, writing Clinton off for the same reasons someone else posted - which is that she is DLC, which is pro-corporatocracy and anti-populism.

[Stand and Fight]

19. It is not FEELING better.

I am approaching this without feeling and from a completely objective standpoint. In my mind, Senator Clinton -- based on what she said -- made the best possible decision.

As to you knowing the case for war in Iraq was lies before the IWR... Well, I would disagree with your actually "knowing" this in the truest sense of the word. I was fairly certain at the time -- based on research and lurking here at DU -- that the case being made was definitely circumspect. However, I also knew that there were classified briefings I received in the Army that were in direct contradiction to some of the things I was reading on DU and elsewhere. Given that fact, I find it difficult to believe that anyone "knew" anything for sure. In the end, I was convinced, based on the information I had gathered, that in all likelihood there was little or no basis for war.

Clinton -- unlike Senator Edwards -- did not co-sponsor the resolution. Clinton, unlike Edwards has stuck to her guns. Is that the wrong thing to do? Perhaps. However, the one problem I have faced in talking to people about Senator Edwards is that many of them -- and I'm not talking political junkies like you and I -- believed his sincerity. Time-and-time again I have encountered those who feel that Clinton definitely has the strength of conviction. I cannot base my thoughts about her vote on supposition or feelings -- I must base it on her words and the conviction she has maintained all this time.

While it is a popular notion on DU that the DLC is evil incarnate, the vast majority of the voting block either have not heard of it and if they have they do not view it in the context that DUers do. Furthermore, while the DLC may be the things you say, I can find very little evidence that Hillary Clinton shares their core beliefs and values. Lastly, I am not writing any Democrat off, because both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have the potential to be great presidents. They both have positions that may seem pro-corporate. I do not believe that either of them are anti-populism. I must confess that I have written off all of the Republicans. ;)

[joshcryer]

21. Politically, yeah, it was a smart move. Both Edwards and Kerry made the same move, politically.

And Kerry gets a pass on it because he came out and apologized for the vote, to pander to his far left constituants. It probably cost him the election in 2004.

[ErnestoG]

25. I'll be sure and let the families of those who lost loved ones in Iraq know that

[joshcryer]

26. Let them know that withdrawal in 2009 wouldn't have been possible were it not for it.

Thanks.

[ErnestoG]

31. What in the FUCK does that mean?

LOL, what gibberish nonsense! So the families should be grateful for a war supporter so that their kids could be withdrawn in 2009?

Are you insane?

[joshcryer]

43. The war was going to happen anyway.

They made the most politically astute decision they could have at the time. Politics is a decade long affair. It took us how long to get out of Vietnam?

[ErnestoG]

46. Not without congressional approval it wasnt. Thats why they had a VOTE

[joshcryer]

50. You're absolutely wrong. We were still at war with Iraq.

The 1991 resolution made that clear. Peace was never declared. You need to look up the UN resolution process. We were still attacking Iraq into the late 90s. The "invasion" would not have been "an act of war" but merely "an esclation of an ongoing war." Thus was Bush's viewpoint then, and everyone agrees he had the legal backing to go back to war.

[ErnestoG]

55. then why bother with an IWR vote in the first place? You're painting yourself into a corner!

And using RW talking points to do it.

[joshcryer]

56. Diplomacy, the "Coalition of the Willing" wouldn't have been possible without it.

In fact, we never went to the UN to get a "new" resolution, because we were already at war, which is why it's ridiculous to think that the IWR was necessary. It wasn't.

[ErnestoG]

58. What diplomacy? You yourself said the war would have happened anyway!

[joshcryer]

59. Yes it would've. It's not like the "Coalition of the Willing" is big.

[ErnestoG]

70. So you're screwed then. The IWR was necessart or Bushhole wouldnt have needed it

which means your candidate voted FOR something she knew damn well would mean a war of aggression.

Next....

[joshcryer]

91. I never said it was necessary, the "Coalition of the Willing" wasn't necessary.

You tell me what you think would've happened if all the Democrats voted against it. Do you think the incumbants and junior Senators would've fared well in both the elections and political process after that point? Hardly. Nothing would've gotten done that they wanted. And the incumbants would've been fucked.

[ErnestoG]

98. But the IWR was. War Powers says the prez cannot carry on with the military indefinitely..

without Congressional authorization.

Seriously, do you know anything of the law?

[joshcryer]

99. Yes, and we were at war already, don't you get that?

How do you think we were able to continue bombing Iraq even after the Gulf War ground missions were over? We were still at war.

[ErnestoG]

100. No, we weren't. No war was declared. It was a military action.

Seriously, have you ever read Article 1 Section 8 Clause 11 of our Constitution?

Please do, and get back to me.

[joshcryer]

102. 153. [102nd] S.J.RES.2

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by Senate)

102d CONGRESS

1st Session

S. J. RES. 2

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678.

SJ 2 ES

102d CONGRESS

1st Session

S. J. RES. 2

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678.

Whereas the Government of Iraq without provocation invaded and occupied the territory of Kuwait on August 2, 1990; and

Whereas both the House of Representatives (in H.J. Res. 658 of the 101st Congress) and the Senate (in S. Con. Res. 147 of the 101st Congress) have condemned Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and declared their support for international action to reverse Iraq's aggression; and

Whereas Iraq's conventional, chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs and its demonstrated willingness to use weapons of mass destruction pose a grave threat to world peace; and

Whereas the international community has demanded that Iraq withdraw unconditionally and immediately from Kuwait and that Kuwait's independence and legitimate government be restored; and

Whereas the U.N. Security Council repeatedly affirmed the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense in response to the armed attack by Iraq against Kuwait in accordance with Article 51 of the U.N. Charter; and

Whereas, in the absence of full compliance by Iraq with its resolutions, the U.N. Security Council in Resolution 678 has authorized member states of the United Nations to use all necessary means, after January 15, 1991, to uphold and implement all relevant Security Council resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area; and

Whereas Iraq has persisted in its illegal occupation of, and brutal aggression against Kuwait: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized, subject to subsection (b), to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677.

(b) REQUIREMENT FOR DETERMINATION THAT USE OF MILITARY FORCE IS NECESSARY- Before exercising the authority granted in subsection (a), the President shall make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) the United States has used all appropriate diplomatic and other peaceful means to obtain compliance by Iraq with the United Nations Security Council resolutions cited in subsection (a); and

(2) those efforts have not been and would not be successful in obtaining such compliance.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS-

(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 resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 3. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

At least once every 60 days, the President shall submit to the Congress a summary on the status of efforts to obtain compliance by Iraq with the resolutions adopted by the United Nations Security Council in response to Iraq's aggression.

Passed the Senate January 12 (legislative day, January 3), 1991.

Attest:

Secretary.

[joshcryer]

103. Note that none of the UN resolutions were revoked, and sanctions were still in effect.

In effect we still had power to do whatever the fuck we wanted to uphold those resolutions.

We were and continued to be at war.

[joshcryer]

92. dupe

dupe

[Carolina]

115. exactly EG

[joshcryer]

116. What?

"EG" made a non-point.

[Carolina]

119. no he pointed out the fallacy

of doped argument

[joshcryer]

131. It was a strawman. He claimed something I never said.

[Stand and Fight]

54. I would suggest that you study the first Gulf War then...

This president was determined to go to war with or without that vote. When I was in the Army, we knew for months before October 2002 -- about three months after September 11, 2001 -- that we were going to Iraq no matter what. Those were the words coming down from command. I repeat: NO MATTER WHAT.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

78. I think the IWR vote was all about Bush's re-election

You're right that Bush wanted to go to war anyway and under the War Powers Act he could have made a strike upon Iraq in the brief window afforded the President under the 1973 legislation without even presenting his case before Congress. But I think Bush wanted to appear to have Congressional support in order to avoid a sticky issue in the 2004 election. If he had gone to war and found no WMD or Al Qaeda in Iraq, and with the Congress condemning his action because he had completely failed to consult them, it might have been very troubling to his campaign. It might have given a big issue to the Democrats. I'm sure that Karl Rove was pushing for the IWR as a political necessity, while it wasn't a legal necessity. The approval of the IWR by both houses of Congress gave Bush the perceived cover and support that he needed with the electorate.

[ErnestoG]

80. Something else to thank Hillary for.

[ErnestoG]

90. The problem with your argument is our Constitution.

It REQUIRES authorization after 60 days of a military action, or in the IWR case, before such an act. Bushhole had to go through this. Regardless of what you heard in the Army, or no matter how hard Bush jerked his penis over the matter, you still have to go through the lawful channels - even if you bluff your way through it - to give the endeavor legitimacy.

And Hillary helped him do that.

[joshcryer]

93. Show me where it does. That's absurd.

There's no "60 days" limitation, you're just talking out of your ass. We've been "at war" with Iraq since 1991.

[ErnestoG]

97. Bullshit. War was never declared on Iraq. Not even in 1991.

Whatever you are smoking, I want some.

Oh, and go read the War Powers Act.

[joshcryer]

101. Resolution 678

Read it and the previous resolutions (more than a dozen total) which empowered the USA to attack Iraq, legally. There was never a peace resolution.

[Yossariant]

12. I say that that is one amazing post and I heartily thank you for your service.

your wisdom and your honesty.

:patriot:

[Stand and Fight]

24. Thank you.

I hope that I can inject some honest discussion into this issue. Discussion free of attacks -- long on well-thought-out reason and short on pointless and reckless bickering.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

16. She voted for a blank check

I don't care if she read a weather report on the Senate floor. The bill she voted for was chiefly sponsored by Joseph Lieberman and placed no pre-conditions on the President's use of military force.

Hillary Clinton in fact, in her own words seemed to realize that the Resolution did not go far enough in pushing for the complete exhaustion of all diplomatic efforts prior to war.

"...President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible. ..."

I'm particularly referring to her statement that "the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first". It boils down to fact she knew that the legislation she was voting on did not present an iron-clad prohibition of the use of force and her acceptance that Bush would, in her own words was only required to "try hard" to pass a UN resolution. Try hard? This President? On neocon Joseph Lieberman's blank check of a resolution? There was no requirement in the bill that Bush get the UN to pass a resolution but only that he "try hard". Either she didn't read the bill on which she voted or she was willing to trust a madman, which is in itself troubling to me. Hillary Clinton is very articulate and intelligent and delivers a good speech. But it's her good judgement or possible motivations that I find disturbing.

[ErnestoG]

73. Precisely. And no finger pointing at Obama will erase that.

[milkyway]

17. Her ass-covering speech meant absolutely nothing. Only the actual resolution had any

legal bearing. Bush and Cheney wanted her vote and they got it. They couldn't care less what she said on the floor of the Senate.

Here's the pertinent section of the actual resolution:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4325146&mesg_id=4325146

[joshcryer]

18. They didn't want nor need their vote.

Bush and Cheney were prepared to go without any resolution whatsoever. In fact, they were annoyed that they were being forced to "wait" until a resolution was passed.

[milkyway]

28. Very true. As they've made clear many times, bush/cheney think their are no constraints

on them at all. That emphasizes even more how ridiculous it is to hear Hillary, like Kerry in '04 and other Dems have done, go on and on about what they said in a speech on the Senate floor. Cheney probably laughs his ass off every time he hears it.

[joshcryer]

51. Exactly, it's a damn shame we didn't win a major plurality in the Senate.

Those fuckers would've been impeached by now if we had that majority.

[Dr Fate]

29. All the more reason to vote "no"- and then give the reason you just gave.

If that is such a great excuse, then why didnt she say that?

[joshcryer]

48. The same reason incumbants and other junior Senators voted for it. Politics.

Bush won in 2004 because of the Iraq War. This is pretty much indisputable. Anti-war candidates in 2004 were toast. Kerry's apology, to pander to the far left, was probably responsible for his losing the 2004 elections. And had he not voted for it he probably would've lost his Senate seat, along with a lot of the other incumbants at that time.

[Dr Fate]

63. I dont remember Kerry pandering to the boogie-man "far left." He was in the center.

Dean was the far left boogie man- Kerry was moderate on nearly every issue.

And Kennedy,who is from the same state as Kerry voted "no." A principled "no" vote could have been defended.

If Kerry had voted "no"- then the flip-flopper meme wouldnt have been there. The "flip-flopper" meme got him more than anyone's opposition to the war.

I think it is disputable that what opposition there was to the war caused Kerry to lose. Everyone knew there was no WMDs and the popularity of the war was on a down turn. Kerry lost because he framed that issue and other issues poorly. Lack of response to SBVs was big too.

To argue that supporting the war and claiming there was WMDs, etc was helpful to DEMS and good election strategy doesnt add up- I havent seen it helping us at all-out of power for years and we still "dont have the votes" even after a win.

All the DEM's supporting Bush's war did was neutralize the issue as the voters caught on and began to oppose it.

[joshcryer]

65. Most of the people, including Kennedy, who were not up for reelection, voted no.

The political aspect of the vote is so obvious it's not even funny.

[Dr Fate]

67. We agree that they voted "yes" to look tough. It didn't work.

So I guess that takes care of the myth that they were making pleas to the president to do the right thing and other such non-sense.

And I think a politician worth his salt could have defended a "no" vote. Kerry could have gotten reelected in Mass with a "no" vote if he framed his arguments right.

Still, your explanation doesn't account for the "yes" voters not up for reelection, the "no" voters who did indeed win re-election, and the over all 5 years of failed strategy that involved voting "yes",going along with Bush and the war, etc.

[joshcryer]

94. Those incumbants were safe, I think it worked as best as it could.

At least better than *all* of them voting no, which would've been catastrophic to the party.

[girl gone mad]

108. You're rewriting history.

We ran a pro-war candidate in 2004 and he lost. A good anti-war candidate like Clark or Dean could well have won.

[Carolina]

118. playing politics in a matter

like war where so many peoples lives are at stake is the most despicable excuse.

IRAQ was not an imminent threat!
Bombed to bits in 1991 and then kept under sanctions for so many years...
How could anyone in a leadership position believe such a lie.

Osama is Saudi. 15/19 hijackers (terrorists) on 9/11 were Saudi, the others were from Yemen, Egypt and UAE. Not an Iraqi among them. Why Iraq, why then... it was a lie!

How could anyone who's supposed to be so smart and ready to lead on day one believe ANYTHING coming from Bush and Cheney who lied and stole power in 2000.

Sheesh, HRC's vote was action, her speech was all empty triangulating words so she could have it both ways!

The war and the resolution that preceded it were LIES. PERIOD. And if so many citizens recognized that, then Hillary is either stupid or calculating. Her vote was political, as you say.

It was a calculating political move of moral cowardice and poor judgment.

[VotesForWomen]

105. could say the same thing about obama; who knows how he actually would have *voted* had he

been in the senate. in case you didn't notice, politicians have a habit of voting one way and giving an ass-covering speech the other way. that's why i'm not getting all excited about obama's alleged anti-war speech; we don't know how he would have voted.

[emilyg]

20. Thank you.

[hayu_lol]

33. There is a wide gulf between this speech by a sitting US Senator and the ...

crystal ball approach, without the briefing of the Iraq Study Group, in Obama's anti war speech.

It is also obvious that many or our nay-sayers(Hillary Haters)refuse to read and understand just how statesmanlike this speech of Hillary's really is. Very few bills get through the Congress without being diluted or warped from the original intent. This resolution, as Hillary points out, is not what she really wanted but as a Senator from New York(injured party with the WTC attack)she really had to go with it the way it was.

Thanks for posting this. Helps sometimes to go back to the basic facts and go over them.

[Stand and Fight]

36. I concur.

It seems however that not only will some people NOT discuss the issue, they will not even be bothered to actually read the speech -- much less my commentary. I appreciate your open mind and your ability to contribute to the discussion.

[Dr Fate]

37. Crystal ball approach? No, the anti-war DEMS had their facts straight.

The DLCers/Centrists, Republicans and other "yes" voters had their facts wrong. 100% wrong.

No-no- I dont mean the fake facts- I mean the facts that the people who opposed the war were following.

The speech is great, well written. But its just a speech- otherwise, she was giving Bush a "yes"- not a "no."

[ErnestoG]

40. Right. Much to the chagrin of the Hillary apologists, the anti-war Dems have been vindicated

While their candidate still sits clinging to a miserably bad vote.

[Carolina]

121. exactly!

[Carolina]

120. the speech was spin

to cover the ACTION of voting essentially for war.

Everyone knew what the Iraq War Resolutuion meant that's why Robert Byrd gave such a powerful speech condemning it and warning his colleagues about the administration hubris, the lack of evidence, the abrogation of Congressional responsibility, the rush to vote and yes, the rush to war. 23 other Senators and many in the House got it right.

HRC played politics and doing so in a matter like war where so many lives are at stake is the most despicable excuse

IRAQ was not an imminent threat!
Bombed to bits in 1991 and then kept under sanctions for so many years...
How could anyone in a leadership position believe such a lie.

Osama is Saudi. 15/19 hijackers (terrorists) on 9/11 were Saudi, the others were from Yemen, Egypt and UAE. Not an Iraqi among them. Why Iraq, why then... it was a lie!

How could anyone who's supposed to be so smart and ready to lead on day one believe ANYTHING coming from Bush and Cheney who lied and stole power in 2000.

Sheesh, HRC's vote was action, her speech was all empty triangulating words so she could have it both ways!

The war and the resolution that preceded it were LIES! PERIOD. If so many citizens recognized that, then Hillary is either stupid or calculating. Her vote was a calculating political move of moral cowardice and poor judgment. And all the speechifying then and now cannot defend it.

[Dr Fate]

27. So her speech said "no" to the war, but her vote said "yes" to the war.

Long speech, wrong vote. That is what it boils down to.

Unless I'm supposed to believe that Bush really was perceived as trustworthy- a very hard sell.

I disagree that we should not talk about how this is a faked, illegal war- to ignore that is to let it happen again and again.

[Stand and Fight]

32. No, her speech and her vote were for moderation -- not force.

In my mind her speech is an appeal to the better senses of this president. Her vote was the extension of giving him the ability to pursue an aggressive diplomatic stance in the UN that would have resulted in unlimited inspections and then, AND ONLY THEN, in the event of failure would force have been used. Senator Clinton stresses this time-after-time in that speech in in public pronouncements since.

I am sorry if you mistook my statements as meaning that we should not talk about how this war was faked and is in fact illegal. It is vitally important to our democracy and future generations that we have just that discussion.

[Dr Fate]

34. That's fine. But she didnt really trust the President. She voted "yes" to look tough.

I find it hard to believe that she didnt know exactly what Bush would do. I knew. Everyone I knew could see what was going down.

Her speech was not designed to appeal to Bush- she is not stupid-she knew what he was up to- that speech was designed to appeal to you. She just said a bunch of things so she could justify her vote no matter how things turned out.

Then she voted "yes."

If her justification sits well with you-if you really think she thought Bush/Cheney would consider anything she said in a speech, I'll respect that, but I honestly believe she mainly just wanted to look tough & pro-defense.

[Stand and Fight]

42. In my mind, you cannot know that...

You are assuming that is her reason, but you cannot know that. Perhaps it is my personality type, but I am not motivated by my strong feelings or those of others. Facts move me far more than emotions do on matters like these. I have no reason to conclude that Senator Clinton was anything but sincere in her speech, as she has been both consistent and thorough on this position. I can find no facts in the public record that she thought otherwise then or now. However, unlike then, there is ample evidence in the public record that George W. Bush knew he was lying and was willing to do so to get this country and its Congress to go along with the war. We can agree to disagree, but I do think we have common ground on the latter point and the fact that Bush should be held accountable -- even after he leaves the White House.

[Dr Fate]

52. I dont believe that she really thought Bush/Cheney would consider her speech.

And I dont see how you believe that.

Bush considered her "yes" vote only.

Bush wasnt about to listen to a single speech-he just wanted the green light- If I knew that, then she knew it.

[Carolina]

124. you're so right actions speak louder than words

the vote was the ACTION
the speech was the bullshit, triangulating spin of WORDS so she could cover her ass, have it both ways and fool the sheeple.

[girl gone mad]

111. Okay, then it sounds like you are trying to..

alter facts to fit your predetermined point of view. Many of us lived this as it happened. I quit a job and devoted all of my time to lobbying congress to vote against the IWR, and fighting an impossible battle to persuade the media to report facts rather than cheer-lead us into war. I remember most of the painful details.

Do you ever wonder why those opposed to the war got it so right? How a bunch of people marginalized as ragtag hippie doves seemed to know what a colossal mistake this war would be? Maybe you just figured a broken clock is right twice? The truth is that the core of the anti-war movement consisted of and relied on insiders from every level of government. People risked careers, friends, and it isn't hyperbole to say they risked their lives, to shine light on the OSP lies, the DOD's faulty planning and the MSM's rank complicity. Clinton's vote was nothing less than a punch in the gut to the people who fought so hard simply to be heard. A Senator and De facto party leader whose own constituents supported the anti-war effort in overwhelming numbers would have little to risk in a down vote, unless larger aspirations are taken into account, which they so apparently were.

The facts of Bush's march to war have never changed. They were as clear on that October day as they are now. All she had to do was listen.

[Carolina]

122. Exactly!

The war and the resolution that preceded it were LIES! PERIOD. HRC's vote was a calculating political move of moral cowardice and poor judgment. And all the speechifying then and now cannot defend it.

[featherman]

30. "And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein -

this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed" Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY)

(Honestly I don't know why I bother)

- Okay this is one of the oldest tricks in the book for aggressive nations that want to start wars. Set impossible conditions for your enemy and when they don't (can't) meet them, invade and destroy. Tariq Aziz pleaded over and over "We cannot comply. We do not have these weapons." He was right but it didn't matter.

- Second trick: it was all about Saddam Hussein, well-known bad guy. Disarm or be disarmed, you bad guy.

Problem: the "disarming" of these non-existent weapons required shock and awe raining death and destruction on the innocent people of Iraq, who had done nothing wrong, who had done nothing to us, nothing at all. Tens of thousands dead...women, children, infants, teen-agers, and Iraqi soldiers just trying to defend their country... regular people just trying to live their lives, get married, raise families, grow old together.

Five and a half years later this invading army that killed so many, destroyed so much infrastructure, impoverished an entire country is still occupying and killing every day. And apparently intends to stay for a long, long time.

Who can defend or justify this by any standard of international law or common humanity? These people had done nothing to deserve the hell we brought down on their heads.

Yes, those who authorized this unjust, cruel, and unnecessary war and created this much suffering and death for no valid reason have much to answer for.

[Stand and Fight]

35. I really don't think we're in disagreement on most of your points.

I wholeheartedly agree that it is a overwhelming tragedy and a blight on this nation, that we have engaged in aggressive, barbaric, pre-emptive war. It is my great hope that this country comes away from Iraq having learned a lesson, but this is not going to happen if we are not willing to discuss what got us there in the first place. It's not going to happen if we continue to insist on things that are of little consequence. The reality is that Hillary Clinton's vote may well have been a mistake. However, the larger mistake was made by this administration. Their mistake has resulted in lost of lives and casualities -- for both American's and Iraqis -- of untold numbers.

I believe that it is a case of Monday-morning quarterbacking to try to put people down for a vote when they have clearly explained the reasons for their vote. Unlike George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton explained why she made the choice that she did... We have yet to hear why George W. Bush LIED us into war. It seems to me that perhaps we should be more concerned with attacking Bush for instigating this in the first place. No matter how Congress voted, the 1991 Gulf War had already established a dangerous precedent; that is, that the president could go to war without Congressional approval and not be held accountable. That is the issue we should be dealing with -- holding Bush and crew accountable and making sure that this precedent is broken here and now. Going after members of Congress for a vote is avoiding what should be the most important issue in my mind.

[featherman]

44. But 23 Senators did "get it" that day and stood up when it

counted even though it may not have been the politically expedient or popular thing to do given the political climate of the time. I admire them for their courage and for their insight and good judgment. It was certainly obvious to me, a private citizen, at the time that this was an unjustified course of action. Invade a country and bring the hell of war down on them because.... we wanted to?

I just regret that Senators Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, Dodd, and Biden were not among those who stood on principle that day. I admire them all for other reasons and all that and would certainly support any (as I did) in a general election. But I can not in good conscience support any for the nomination of my Party. That's where I draw the line. But that's just me. I don't presume to hold others to the same standard.

[Stand and Fight]

49. In fairness I must ask... What about those who fund the war?

How can you support a candidate then who said he opposed the war, arrives in the Senate, and votes to fund the war time-and-time again? If those who voted for the war are that bad in your book, then surely those who continue to fund the war --- when this is the swiftest way Congress can start turning things around -- are just as bad?

[featherman]

62. In all fairness, supporting the people who are just doing their jobs

over there is a no brainer. I was raised in a military family. You go where you're ordered and do what you are trained to do. As long as they are there they need our full support.

[Stand and Fight]

66. As an actual veteran, I know this.

And I'd like for you to answer my question.

Your candidate, Barack Obama, stands on a record of opposing the war from the start, but he continues to vote to fund it. Explain why you don't have a problem with that, and please don't levy the "supporting the troops bit," because as a veteran who got out in 2004 after five years service, I find that to be completely irrelevant. De-funding the war does not mean one is not supporting the troops. That's dribble and rubbish.

[featherman]

69. Do you mean de-funding the war as a means of forcing the

administration to withdraw? There aren't the votes to do that and it's a clumsy and dangerous approach to dry up supplies for those in the field.

If you mean just voting to de-fund the war with no hope of actually accomplishing anything, I'm not quite sure I see the point of that.

I'm essentially a pragmatist, not some nutcase. What's done is done. So you deal with what you have. Keep your people fully supplied and functioning at the highest level of safety until such a time as they can be withdrawn with as little risk of loss as possible. That's just basic stuff.

[Stand and Fight]

72. You're a pragmatist, yet you're supporting a man running a campaign based on hope? n/t

[featherman]

75. Oh, well.... if you want to get into that. I am supporting Obama

because in my political judgment I believe he has the best chance of winning. That's pragmatic.

[Stand and Fight]

77. I can absolutely concur with you on that if that's your belief.

That in and of itself, is a very pragmatic approach, and I understand where you're coming from. Thanks for the clarification.

[featherman]

79. Thanks for the chat. I'm going to bed.

[LVjinx]

38. Unless I'm mistaken,

the only presidential candidate who voted no on IWR was Ron Paul... Has it helped him get over 5-10% of the vote? Some insist on seeing this in purely political terms just like that, which I believe belittles the situation. Kerry and Edwards both voted for the resolution, but all the animosity is reserved for Hillary Clinton. It seems unreasonable. Clearly, she is not going to apologize. Nor should she, Bush would have attacked anyway claiming Saddam violated the ceasefire. In fact, was planning to. Had to be coerced to go to congress at all. In this resolution, congress did it's best (against LOOONNNNG odds) to convince Bush to pursue diplomacy. It was a catastrophic failure, since he used the resolution as a rubber stamp. Now we would have seen it coming, but at the time?

[Stand and Fight]

39. Precisely.

Bush would have attacked regardless. Have we all forgotten the words contained in the Downing Street Minutes? They were determined to "wrong-foot" Saddam, and "the intelligence was being fixed around the policy." The hatred I see for Hillary Clinton in contrast with her record makes me all the more convinced that some people won't see facts no matter how often they are presented. I too feel that it is easy to say, "Why didn't they understand? Didn't they know? Why did they trust him?" One has only to read the speech of Senator Clinton and others to understand why... Thanks for contributing to the discussion.

[Dr Fate]

47. What is all this "Bush would have attacked regardless" business. I never heard Hillary say that.

If that was a consideration- and she really did want to send a message to Bush that she opposed the invasion- then she should have put that in her speech, and then voted "no."

Bush didnt give two flips about anyone's speech- the speech was for public consideration only- it had absolutely no effect on Bush.

So Hillary really thought that speech would keep Bush from invading? I dont beleive that.

It was the "yes" vote that Bush used, not the speech.

[joshcryer]

60. Read her part about the 1991 resolution.

It's in there.

[Dr Fate]

71. So her speech warned people that Bush would invade Iraq no matter what she did?

Show me that. Because that is an argument I keep hearing : "He would have dont it anyway."

Seems like her knowledge that Bush would be invading no matter what would be grounds for not trusting Bush and voting "no", doesnt it?

And besdies, Bush did not "do it w/o the votes anyway"- he did it with their "yes" votes.

[joshcryer]

95. This part of her speech:

But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.

[Dr Fate]

41. huh? Everyone watching TV that day saw it coming.

Who started this myth that no one knew Bush was going to war, and that no one paying attention to the vote that day knew that it set things in motion?

Saying that DEMS in congress really thought Bush would regard their speeches is a stretch. Of course they knew Bush didnt give a shit about what their speeches said- the speeches were not for Bush, they were for the public.

If they wanted to show that they opposed Bush invading Iraq, they could have given the similar speeches and voted "no."

[Hissyspit]

53. Yes, at the time. Plenty of us saw it coming.

I was utterly horrified and disgusted by the Dems at the time who voted for it, and most everyone here at the time was too. (I was lurking.)

Lots of revisionism going on here at DU in the name of protecting their favorite candidate and it's pretty sad.

[Carolina]

125. Very sad

I was here and as you said knew all too well what the Bushies planned to do.

The war and the resolution that preceded it were LIES! PERIOD.

If so many of us citizens recognized that, then Hillary is either stupid or calculating. Her vote was a calculating political move of moral cowardice and poor judgment. And all the speechifying then and now cannot defend it.

[Stand and Fight]

45. LINK:

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

[Alpharetta]

64. Sometimes votes count more than words

She voted to give Bush the right for unilateral attack, which she said she was against.

I am still freaking furious about it.

Tuesday my vote is going to count more than my words.

[Carolina]

126. exactly, actions speak louder than words

the IWR vote was ACTION
the IWR speech was bullshit, triangulating spin of WORDS so HRC could cover her ass, have it both ways and fool the sheeple.

[krkaufman]

74. Hillary's primary failure of judgement was in not knowing that Bush would use the resolution ...

... as authorization for war. Everybody I talked to knew that Bush would use the resolution to launch a war (after some show efforts at diplomacy, to fill the time between October and the long-planned launch of the war in March), so I don't have a lot of respect for the judgement of someone who can't read a politician as transparent as George W Bush.

Further, what excuse does she have for repeating the mistake in voting to support the Kyl/Lieberman Iran amendment, which, were it not for the blessedly timely and illuminating Iran NIE, Bush would have used to extend the Iraq resolution as justification to attack Iran.

The votes were triangulation, at its most costly.

[Dr Fate]

76. Maybe she did know, and the speech was just for the suckers?

I think that makes sense- she's a smart lady- surely she knew as well as you and me what Bush was up to. The speech/explanation was for whoever might buy it- it was only the vote that mattered to Bush.

[Stand and Fight]

81. DUPE n/t

[Stand and Fight]

82. So, am I to take that to mean that you believe I am a sucker?

Am I to understand that because I (and others) do not agree with your viewpoint that we're all suckers? Simply because we have a different way of looking at things? I don't see how this is meaningful, respectful, or productive communication...

[Dr Fate]

84. Poor choice of words on my part. But yeah- someone is being fooled- and it aint Hillary.

At least that is my opinion.

Hillary knew Bush didnt give two flips about her speech- she gave a speech so she could SAY that she was appealing to Bush, not because she really thought it WOULD appeal to Bush.

The speech wasnt for Bush to consider- it was your consideration.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

132. The speech wasn't for Bush to consider- it was (for) your consideration.

That's the meat and potatoes.

[krkaufman]

83. Exactly. The speech is like the Bible (stretch!) ...

... in that she can later point to various passages from it to twist the reasoning for her vote to whatever meaning is convenient at the time.

The bottom line is that she authorized a transparently crazed President to divert our forces from the hunt for bin Laden and the stabilization of Afghanistan to an unnecessary and catastrophically foolish war.

[Yossariant]

85. Representing New York, could she take the chance that Bush was lying?

Some did suspect it. I'm proud of my own state's Senators, Mikulski and Sarbanes, for voting against it and have told them so. But I don't know, nor do I know anyone who knew, a single person who died on 911.

[Dr Fate]

87. I'd say that would have been a good bet. And Saddam didnt have anything to do with 9/11.

Whether Bush was lying was only one factor for Congress to consider -whether they thought Bush was lying on purpose or not, the people who voted "no" or opposed the war generally had their facts straight. The people who were for it did not.

The Saddam-9/11 hoax was thin & easily debunked from the begining- but you might be right to suggest that she decided it would be easier just to go along with all of that instead of an uphill battle- ie doing the right thing.

[Yossariant]

96. Most Americans believed that Saddam did have something to do with 911, even though it was a lie.

I don't think that the members who voted against the IRW did it because they suspected or knew that Bush was lying. I think they did it because, like me and regardless of whether Bush was telling the truth, they didn't believe that Iraq posed an imminent threat to our country.

And, even though it was a lie, the Iraq/al Qaeda link was put forth and people believed it. And she represents New York.

[NursesluvHillary]

86. I was very angry

when the vote came down. I could not believe they were giving so much power to Bush. I understand they gave him the power to send a message to Sadam. But in Bushes hands that kind of power was like a kid in a candy store.

I am a military wife and my husband was in the middle east last year. I am thankful he came home unharmed. My husband and I are voting for Hillary. We feel her reason for voting was just and true and her trust placed in the wrong hands. But she put the safety for the American ppl 1st when she voted in 2002. I cant fault her for that.

[VotesForWomen]

104. dems picked kerry in 2004. it's too late to make IWR a test. write in kucinich if you really care

about IWR. i'm not kidding. obama is really no alternative to clinton when it comes to the whole niraq situation.

[girl gone mad]

107. Hollow words.

Everybody who was paying a modicum of attention knew this was a vote for war. She failed to represent her Senate district, which was overwhelmingly against the war.

[Yossariant]

109. Not true. 70% supported military action:

Americans Want Weapons Evidence Before Starting War With Iraq

NEW YORK, Jan. 24, 2003

(CBS/AP)
...

It also found support for military action -- if it becomes necessary -- is still high, but it has slipped from just two months ago -- 64% now compared to 70% last November.

...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/23/opinion/polls/main537739.shtml

[girl gone mad]

112. Did you even read the article?

(CBS) According to a CBS News/New York Times poll, Americans support the idea of using military force to remove Saddam Hussein. But they overwhelmingly want diplomatic efforts and the inspections to run their course first -- they would want to see clear evidence against Iraq before going to war.

If the inspectors haven’t found any weapons by next Tuesday -- a deadline for U.N. weapons inspectors to report their findings -- Americans say give them more time. Most Americans think those weapons are there to be found, though many doubt inspectors will find them.

The poll found 63% of Americans want President Bush to find a diplomatic solution.

It also found support for military action -- if it becomes necessary -- is still high, but it has slipped from just two months ago -- 64% now compared to 70% last November.

What's more, Americans seem to want hard evidence that Iraq is cheating. More than two-thirds (77% to 17%) say if inspectors haven't found a smoking gun, they should keep looking.

For the moment, diplomacy is the clearly favored course with regard to Iraq, a feeling that hasn’t changed from two weeks ago.


WHAT SHOULD THE U.S. DO NOW WITH IRAQ?

Use military force:
31%
Find diplomatic solution:
63%

Was there ever clear evidence? Were inspections allowed to run their course. No, thanks to the IWR. Clinton's vote was a vote against the will of the people she was elected to represent. Was Hillary's vote a vote to let inspectors keep looking? NO. It was just the opposite.

[Yossariant]

113. FYI, IRW passed in October, 2002.

The article clearly says that, in November, 2002, 70% supported military action against Iraq.

[girl gone mad]

114. No, it doesn't say that.

Once again, you are misinterpreting the data.

What the poll does say is that in Nov. 2002, 70% supported force if it became absolutely necessary.

The war was never necessary, therefore this poll is meaningless.

In Nov. 2002, nearly 70% of the country preferred a diplomatic solution rather than war. The numbers were even higher in Clinton's state.

[Yossariant]

117. LOL! You are making stuff up.

Point me to "ABSOLUTELY." It clearly says that "70% support military action if necessary."

As opposed to all that "unnecessary" military action the citizenry goes around supporting.

[girl gone mad]

127. Read it again.

WHAT TO DO IF INSPECTORS’ REPORT SAYS…

Found no weapons of mass destruction so far

Start military action:
17%
Keep looking:
77%


WHAT SHOULD THE U.S. DO NOW WITH IRAQ?

Use military force:
31%
Find diplomatic solution:
63%

The overwhelming majority of Americans were opposed to Bush's plan for invasion right up until it happened. In New York, that opposition was greater than in the nation as a whole. Your kind of revisionism doesn't on a Democratic discussion board. DUers aren't dumb. We lived through this.

The poll you posted is further proof that Americans wanted diplomacy, not war.

[Yossariant]

134. I'm going to try this S L O W L Y:

By the time this article was written, the Iraq War Resolution (IWR) had already passed.

The article was written in January, 2003 and the IWR passed in October, 2002.

In November of 2002, 70% of Americans favored miltary action against Iraq, if necessary.

In Novemeber of 2002, 70% of Americans supported military action to remove Saddam Hussein.

What you are quoting are the results from January, 2003 when the article was written!

Some of the article refers back to November, 2002 but most of the article does not.

I have told you this already.

The Iraq War Resolution (IRW) was passed in October, 2002.

Public sentiment in November of 2002 is closer to what public sentiment would have been in October, 2002 when the IWR was passed than it would be to 2003.

LOL! I am actually explaining to you that 2002 comes before 2003. LOL!

Read the article carefully. You are confused and as a result, you are making false and outrageous statements.

[girl gone mad]

140. Are you trying to argue that the war was absolutely necessary?

That Iraq posed a genuine threat and therefore Bush was correct to invade? Because that's the only case you could make in which this poll would support your assertion that the public wanted war. The poll very clearly states that the public favored a diplomatic solution, but would support military action if became absolutely necessary.

In fact, military action in Iraq was never absolutely necessary.

At no time in 2002 or early 2003 did the broad public prefer war. "Military action to remove Saddam" is not war, and it's a far cry from what Clinton voted for with the IWR.

I'm anything but confused. I was there. I lived this fight 10 hours a day for over a year. Our efforts to persuade members of congress to do the right thing included passing along information from these polls, which all showed the public supported diplomacy in large margins. The poll you cited shows the same, despite your strange attempts to spin it as a pro-war poll.

[Yossariant]

142. I remind you of your incorrect claim that her district was overwhelmingly against the IWR.

I gave you a link to show that you are wrong.

Please stay focused on that issue.

Maybe you have insulated and isolated yourself and are out-of-touch with mainstream America.

Your insistence that the 70% of people who supported "military action to remove Saddam 'is a far cry from the IWR'" is factually incorrect --- in light of the fact that they voiced that opinion after the IWR was passed.

You insist that 70% is an "overwhelming" MINORITY. :shrug:

Perhaps that's one reason your campaign was unsuccessful.

[girl gone mad]

143. Your link showed no such thing.

Your link was to a poll that said 70% of people supported war if it became "absolutely necessary". This statistic has no meaning and was simply designed by the complicit MSM to beat the war drums. We could just as easily poll people today with the question "Would you support military intervention against Sweden if it became absolutely necessary?" and likely get the exact same result.

Trumping up MSM push polls is a pretty low tactic, particularly when the very poll you linked to says that most people preferred diplomacy to military action and wanted to give the inspectors more time.

People might have liked the idea of the Air Force dropping a couple of bombs on one of Saddam's palaces, or the CIA sending in a hit squad. That did not equate to broad support for the IWR or the invasion and occupation.

Your petty insult aside, the anti-war effort was unsuccessful due largely to the cowardice and shameful self-interest of elected officials like Clinton.

I stand 100% behind my assertion that the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of Clinton's constituents opposed Bush's rush to war. That is a solid fact.

[Avalux]

110. Watch this video then tell me you still respect her. She knew Bush would use force.

2003, right before the bombs fell. Pride goeth before the fall.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYATbsu2cP8

[desi]

123. Excellent well thought out and presented synopsis.

You've also done a very credible job of engaging those who have chosen to challenge you, some with strong opinions of their own and the usual spirits of contradiction with their hyperbole. Kudos...

Here is a link to a piece that may help you better understand what Senators were being told behind closed Congressional doors at the behest of the Bush/Cheney administration. Of course they were lied to.

I want to take this occasion to inform the Senate of specific
information that I was given, which turns out not to be true. I was one
of 77 Senators who voted for the resolution in October of 2002 to
authorize the expenditure of funds for the President to engage in an
attack on Iraq. I voted for it. I want to tell you some specific
information that I received that had a great deal of bearing on my
conclusion to vote for that resolution. There were other factors, but
this information was very convincing to me that there was an imminent
peril to the interests of the United States.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2004_cr/s012804b.html

[Stand and Fight]

135. Thank you. I will read this... n/t

[bigtree]

128. I wish I could recommend this more than once

great effort in pulling together Clinton's statements. To some these are irrelevant to her vote. That is a legitimate view, but these statements can't be dismissed out of hand by anyone who wants to put their own spin on her motives.

[Stand and Fight]

136. It is imperative that we have honest discussions.

I am not one who believes in trying to divine people's thoughts and motivations based on my emotions. That is illogical. Therefore, I can only judge Hillary Clinton by the consistency of her words and actions. She has criticized Bush and his handling of the war FAR more than she has carried any water -- if any at all -- for him. I believe that she is being sincere in her speech and has continued to be sincere to this day.

[Geek_Girl]

129. Thanks for Posting this

I'll take it all into consideration on Super Tuesday.

[MethuenProgressive]

130. "...use these powers wisely AND as a LAST RESORT." The HillHaters love blaming her for what Bush did

Excellent and accurate account, a fine Democratic post. Thank you.

[joshcryer]

133. It's called faulty thinking. Black and white. Yes or no. Right or wrong.

People lack clarity that the world operates in shades of greys.

[girl gone mad]

146. Not me. I bame her for what SHE did.

Ignoring e-mails or sending shallow form letter responses and even having her office hang up on people. Refusing to read intel or meet with insiders who could give her real facts. Enabling Bush at a time when she knew her vote meant all-out unilateral war and occupation. Refusing to uphold the will of those who put her in office, New Yorkers, who wanted continued diplomacy and were against unilateral military action. Voting to continue funding the war time after time, long after it was clear to everyone what a disaster this war was.

That's just scratching the surface.

[Writer]

137. If Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton can spend two hours last night talking about policy in DETAIL...

then we can spend the two minutes it takes to read the above post, and the remaining 118 minutes TO THINK CRITICALLY about it.

We owe that much to our party and to the democratic process.

~Writer~

[Stand and Fight]

138. Thank you so much for your input. It is sincerely valued and appreciated.

Thoughtful discourse is something that has fallen by the wayside on this board lately, but there are users -- like yourself -- who remind me of why I joined DU in the first place.

[PassingFair]

141. Some of us have spent five years thinking about it.

We were watching at the TIME.

She voted thinking she could spin her way out of
her cynical vote.

If the invasion was a "cakewalk", well, she voted for it.

If the invasion was a total SNAFU, well, she was "hoodwinked"
by bad intel.


Problem: Some of us were watching.

[WildEyedLiberal]

144. Kudos for having the courage to post this and stand up to the DU thoughtpolice

Hillary Clinton is NOT my choice for president - she was always my last option even among the full, pre-Iowa field. However, the CONSTANT rehashing and blatant, shameless misrepresentation of a 5+ year old vote needs to stop. To say that Hillary or anyone who voted for the IWR - purely by that vote alone - is a "warmonger" who loves to kill soldiers and make profits from killing Iraqi babies is infantile slobbering idiocy of the highest order. Thanks for reminding me that there are a few rational posters left on DU.

[Stand and Fight]

145. I'm like you in a way.

The reason I posted this is precisely because I've gotten sick and tired of people distorting the truth about a vote from years ago. They use hyperbole in an attempt to make their points, but yet they try to pawn it off as being some sort of gospel. I cannot sit idly by why the truth is sacrificed for reasons that are entirely mono-sighted.