Hillary lied about the Levin Amendment last night when explaining why she voted against it..

[jenmito]

She said she voted against it because it gave the UN veto power. Keith Olbermann just put the Levin's explanation of the amendment on the screen and it specifically said the UN does NOT have veto power over our ability to use force.

[genie_weenie]

1. Hillary's a warmonger? Wow, who could have known...

[jenmito]

2. Yup. And she's a liar, too. I'd like to see her supporters explain this one.

[Demeter]

4. Some People Will Sacrifice Anything for a Goal

Intelligence, integrity, you name it.

[jenmito]

18. I agree. I hope others see that before it's too late.

[neutron]

30. Olberman is a Liar

[jenmito]

33. Carl Levin's a liar, too? Because Keith put up Levin's words.

[neutron]

45. Olbermann Lied about "Fairy Tale" Gate

which is when I stopped watching him.
He went on for days about this "scandel."

Finally, Dan Abrams aired the entire Clinton speech
on Fairy Tale, and it was vapor. I was shocked. There was nothing.

I don't know what the deal is with Olbermann. He sucks up to
the Daily Kos people, possibly not realizing that it is strongly
suspected that a lot of the posts are made by one person to give
the illusion of many. He thinks he's going to up his viewership.

In fact, I have a feeling he has lost the people who looked to
him as an honest news guy.

Olbermann sold out his integrity.

(he's also a bag of wind, and Oddball is an embarassment)

[jenmito]

52. Wow. You just dis ANYBODY who speaks the truth against the Clintons, don't you?

[neutron]

62. Excuse me? Calling Olbermann's Lie is Dissing?

Only on Daily Kos, son. And this forum doesn't Troll rate
people off for telling the truth. Even if it's about your favorite
TV personality aka blowhard nutcase.

[jenmito]

76. He didn't lie. And he's the most anti-Bush person on tv.

For people to think he's a RW hack is hilarious.

[neutron]

42. self delete

self delete

[Individualist]

66. They can't explain it, so they try and spin it and/or slam Olbermann.

[MonkeyFunk]

3. Maybe she interpreted it differently

Kerry, Feingold, Cleland and 72 other Senators voted against it.

[jenmito]

5. She lied. Are you saying she misread it or didn't read it at all and she should be president?

I don't think so!

[MonkeyFunk]

8. I'm saying there are ways to characterize

her position without calling it a lie.

But I don't expect you to understand. Some people want to do nothing but attack and destroy our candidates.

[jenmito]

21. Um, no there aren't unless you want to sugar-coat the fact that she lied.

Unless she's incompetent, she HAD to know the facts of the amendment. So is she incompetent instead?

[MonkeyFunk]

22. Only if

Feingold, Kerry, Edwards and Cleland are incompetent.

[formernaderite]

73. they're not running for pres

are they? so let's stick to what the person running thought. Has she issued a statement explaining her vote?

[Barack_America]

10. Levin presented them with the correct interpretation...

She didn't misinterpret it. And I certainly hope that she would take Levin's word above Bush/Cheney.

She just didn't want to seem weak on terrorism for political reasons.

[Ravy]

13. Sec 4. Authorization for use of US Armed Forces

Pursuant to a New UN Security Council Resolution.

Seems pretty clear to me.

[Barack_America]

27. You need to read Section 3:

(3) affirms that, under international law and the United Nations Charter, the United States has at all times the inherent right to use military force in self-defense; and

(4) will not adjourn sine die this year and will return to session at any time before the next Congress convenes to consider promptly proposals relative to Iraq if in the judgment of the President the United Nations Security Council fails to adopt or enforce the resolution described in paragraph (2).

That says that the amendment does not establish a precedent for the US to only to go to war with UN approval -and- that in the event that the UN did not grant a resolution for the US to go to war with Iraq, that the US Congress would be immediately convened in order to vote on authorization of force.

Lots of people like to leave that bit out in their rationalization for having voted against it. But it was there.

[Ravy]

36. Yes, but that is off the point.

This amendment says that the US has the right to use force in self-defense, which it always has under UN Charter.

The IWR says that the US has the right to use force to make Saddam comply with the UN Resolutions.

This resolution essentially say, in order to use the force to make Saddam comply with UN Resolutions (weapons inspectors, distruction of any WMD or related technology, etc) that the UN will have to specifically approve it.

[Barack_America]

49. No, it's the same point.

Section 3 says that if the UN was unwilling to grant the United States a resolution to use force on Iraq, the United States Congress would be immediately convened to vote on their own resolution to use force.

That means that, no matter what the UN said, the United States Congress still retained the ability to unilaterally authorize use of force on Iraq. Levin clarified this before the amendment was ever voted on.

[Ravy]

65. Right. So... if the UN says it is OK, then you are authorized for war.

If they don't come back and we will see what we can do.


How is that not leaving committment of UN troops up to the UN? Can you not see that that is distasteful to many, many Americans?


I know it is an unpopular stance here, but I firmly believe the IWR was working. There was real progress being made in the search for WMD, destruction of missles that were "technically and arguably" out of spec. Saddam was seeking asylum.

What went WRONG with the plan was Bush just decided to invade, despite all attempts at compliance by Iraq.


Saying "they should have known" and stuff is all well and good, but it is undermining the true fact that Bush is responsible for the war. He was *not* doing the will of congress. If they knew, then there was no harm from his lies at all.

To me, that is giving Bush a pass.

[Egnever]

71. Of course it was working

are you trying to say if we hadn't gone to the UN first he wouldn't have allowed inspectors in? Cause he clearly did. it is precisely the point that levin would have gotten the inspectors in without allowing bush to make that end run. Hillary chose to trust bush despite millions of people in the streets.

It may be distasteful to a lot of americans but it was the right thing to do. It would have saved countless lives and billions of dollars. Sometimes it takes leaders to bring people to the right choice. Hillary did not lead on this in fact she tried and continues to try to put distance between herself and a horrible calculated position.

[jasmine621]

6. Keith is being naughty here. Did he show the entire amendment?

[jenmito]

9. He is not. It specifically refuted what Hillary claimed it said:

Levin wrote, "...There is no veto given the United Nations in this resolution of ours. Quite the opposite. We explicitly make it clear we maintain, of course, a right to use self-defense."

[jasmine621]

12. What was Hillary's exact statement about this? nt

[jenmito]

16. If you want to see the transcript, you'll have to wait. But what she said in effect was she didn't

want to give the UN veto power over our military.

[Ravy]

19. Switched arguments there? The IWR called for US Forces

to be used if Saddam did not start complying with existing UN Resolutions.

The Levin Amendment pretty clearly states that the UN will have to have a new resolution from the UN for action:

Sec 4. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES PURSUANT TO A NEW UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION.
(a) AUTHORIZATION.--Pursuant to a resolution of the United Nations Security Council described in section 3(2) that is adopted after the enactment of this joint resolution, and subject to subsection (b), the President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States to destroy, remove, or render harmless Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons-usable material, ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers, and related facilities, if Iraq fails to comply with the terms of the Security Council resolution.

[Perry Logan]

7. I'm sorry. We get 1,163 false accusations against Hillary a day here. You'll have to take a number.

[Barack_America]

11. This is the biggest and most important critique of Hillary, IMO.

I can forgive her for many faults, but not this one.

[jasmine621]

15. Why is it a lie if you say you believed something.

(B) authorizes the use of necessary and appropriate military force by member states of the United Nations to enforce such resolution in the event that the Government of Iraq refuses to comply;

This is the section of the amendment that one could easily say the UN would be controlling our troops.

[jenmito]

32. If she believed what she said, then she's not fit to be president nor CIC:

Senator Levin’s amendment called for United Nations approval before force could be authorized. It was unambiguous and compatible with international law. Acutely cognizant of the dangers of the time, and the reality that diplomatic options could at some point be exhausted, Senator Levin wrote an amendment that was nimble: it affirmed that Congress would stand at the ready to reconsider the use of force if, in the judgment of the president, a United Nations resolution was not “promptly adopted” or enforced. Ceding no rights or sovereignty to an international body, the amendment explicitly avowed America’s right to defend itself if threatened.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/opinion/01chafee.html?ex=1330405200&en=df93344977234907&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

[maq-az]

14. Who to trust?

The media? People sure have a short memory. Really it was only 3 years ago the media did the same thing to Howard Dean. Oh! and by the way did any of us on DU ever ask John Kerry or John Edwards during that primary 3 years ago to say they were sorry about their vote for the war?

[sniffa]

17. KO is a RW tool

[maq-az]

20. Sure is looking like it.

[burythehatchet]

26. Rachel Maddow went over to the dark side as well. Whats next

[jenmito]

37. Or MAYBE they're all right and Hillary's wrong.

Ever think of THAT?

[burythehatchet]

40. NOOOOOOO!!! I CANT HEAR YOUUUUU!!!111!!!

[jenmito]

35. So Carl Levin's a right wing tool, too?

[City Lights]

39. Telling the truth makes him a RW tool?

When have RW tools ever told the truth?

[sniffa]

47. It's been looking like it forever

He's been a Bush backer forever!

[jenmito]

53. I REALLY hope you're being sarcastic. Keith's the biggest Bush critic on tv!

[sniffa]

54. I am

But the :sarcasm: is for the weak.

[jenmito]

60. Whew. I'll consider myself strong then

since at least I HOPED you were being sarcastic. :)

[jenmito]

38. So his "special comments" are a farce to pretend he's NOT a RW tool?

:eyes:

[sniffa]

48. EXZACTLY!!!11!

[Hailtothechimp]

69. Watch one of his special comments and say that again.

He's laid into Rumsfeld, Cheney, Gonzales, Rove, Mukasey, all of them.

And you call him a tool. Fucking unbelievable.

[jenmito]

24. So you don't trust Carl Levin? Is he considered "the media" now?

:shrug:

[K Gardner]

23. I don't think she lied. I think she's just caught up in trying to explain away her votes in a way

that won't harm her. She evidently thinks the average voter won't catch the nuances.

[Barack_America]

31. Clintons rarely out-and-out lie. They more often mislead.

And what she said about the Levin Amendment was misleading, and in contrast with what Levin himself says about the amendment.

[K Gardner]

59. Exactly.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

25. Is Keith the next guy in the doghouse?

Joining Rachel Maddow, Ted Kennedy, and a host of evil-doers?

[City Lights]

28. Yes. Anyone who speaks the truth about HRC, obviously sucks.

Someone on another thread said Keith was turning into Bill-O right before our eyes! :eyes:

Unfrickin' real.

[mark_bruns74]

29. foreign policy

and military matters aren't her strong-suit. she needs obama as vp to advise her

[jenmito]

41. No way. She doesn't need Obama to advise her. She needs to lose the primary and OBAMA

needs to be president.

[David Zephyr]

34. I thought to myself: why does she need to lower Carl Levin's brave attempt in order to make a point

Say anything. Hurt anyone. Ambition. Ambition. Ambition.

[jenmito]

44. Exactly. They don't hesitate to throw ANYONE under the bus in order to try to

gain power.

[jasmine621]

46. How many other Dems voted against that amendment and why did they?

did any others say why?

[jasmine621]

50. 126 Dems in the House voted against the Levin amendment and 21

Dems in the Senate voted against it. They must have had their reasons and maybe they were similar to Hillary's.

[suston96]

43. You should have no trouble finding what Olbermann put up on his screen

To authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces, pursuant to a new resolution of the United Nations Security Council, to destroy, remove, or render harmless Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons-usable material, long-range ballistic missiles, and related facilities, and for other purposes.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00235

Uh - "use of the United States Armed Forces, pursuant to a new resolution of the United Nations Security Council"? That's what Hillary Clinton said. The US Forces would be used under that UN Security Council resolution.

Pretty clear to me.

[suston96]

55. Remember the explosive arguments about US Armed Forces under the UN....? nt

[stillcool]

57. and you know this had anothing to do...

with US Forces under the UN. That is a lie.

[stillcool]

56. You did read "New "Resolution Right?

You do remember "1441" right?
You do remember Colin Powell at the UN right?

Text of UN Security Council Resolution on Iraq: November 8, 2002
United Nations
New York, New York
November 8, 2002

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America: draft resolution

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/29/magazine/03Hillary-t.html?pagewanted=4&_r=3The long-overlooked vote was on an amendment introduced by Carl Levin and several other Senate Democrats who hoped to rein in President Bush by requiring a two-step process before Congress would actually authorize the use of force. Senators knew full well the wide latitude that they were handing to Bush, which is why some tried to put the brakes on the march to war. The amendment called, first, for the U.N. to pass a new resolution explicitly approving the use of force against Iraq. It also required the president to return to Congress if his U.N. efforts failed and, in Senator Levin’s words, “urge us to authorize a going-it-alone, unilateral resolution.” That resolution would allow the president to wage war as a last option.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/29/magazine/03Hillary-t.html?pagewanted=4&_r=3

[jefferson_dem]

51. Check this out - - -

Voting With Hawks

This was an important vote, and the New York Democrat lined up with the war hawks, a position she has successfully shed during this campaign. The reason she voted against the Levin initiative, she explained, is it would have given the UN ``a veto over American presidential power,'' which she said is inappropriate ``no matter who is president.''

It did no such thing, Levin said at the time and a spokesman reiterates now. The proposal's language explicitly required that Congress ``not adjourn'' before it ``promptly considers proposals related to Iraq if the United Nations fails to adopt such a resolution.'' Senator Joe Biden, a Delaware Democrat who, like Senator Clinton opposed the Levin amendment, said at the time the UN charge was ``specious'' and that this was a vote about supporting an invasion.

During the lengthy Senate debate on this measure, Clinton not only never uttered this standard conservative critique, she never spoke.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=agZ18RGY8wjM&refer=politics

[jenmito]

61. Thank you!

:hi:

[Laura PourMeADrink]

58. Wolf was right - Naive. And stupid, IMO. Also don't forget

she would have had to know the neo-cons were hell bent in starting a war since they pleaded with her husband in 1998 to overthrow Saddam. I do not support her one iota. But, if I was advising her - I would have told her to admit mistake long, long ago.

Even me, a nobody, knew the minute Bush sped up when nothing was being found that he was a lying sack of shit war criminal.

[Disturbed]

63. Sen Clinton does not believe that her IWR vote was wrong.

She believes it was the correct vote & will never apologize for it. I don't believe that she was
stupid or naive at the time. She knew that Busholini was going to invade Iraq & she was in favor
of that invasion & still believes that it was the correct action. She was in favor of the US Occupation
& said so while she visited Iraq. She said things were going in the right direction while she was there.
Research will prove that she supported the Busholini Iraq policy until things turned real bad there & the American people started turning against the US Occupation.

[neutron]

67. The Clinton era was one of peace. This is all BS

[Indenturedebtor]

70. As she herself says

... when it is expedient: "This is my candidacy not Bills"

Sorry guys but when I learned of the Rezco scandal I was scandalized. I'm still not completely ok with that. Don't know that I will be. Have to see how it unfolds really.

Your support is cheapened by not facing up to her faults. This is a Dem politics board. Not a HRC fansite. She lies and triangulates on a regular basis. Go ahead and deny it and paint yourself as full of shit.

Its ok really, its no worse than what we've had for decades really this sort of politics.

[johnnydrama]

68. she was in favor

because she thought it was an easy victory. Flowers and chocolate and all that, and she knew she was going to be running for President one day, and didn't want anybody to frame her vote against, our glorious victory in Iraq, against her.

How would she look if there was a 3 month war, and Saddam was ousted, and Iraq was all smiles if she voted against all that.

"Why would you vote against our easy victory in Iraq" against wannabe worse than Bid Laden Saddam, any Republican opponent would ask her 5,000 times.

I'm afraid this is why Kerry voted the way he did as well.

You frame all that against Obama's anti war speech, and it's no contest.

"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda."

How more right could he have been?

[jenmito]

75. I agree...as do many others I hear talking about this.

She had to "prove" she's "strong on 'terror'" because she knew she'd be running for president. Meanwhile, Obama had the guts to speak out AGAINST it when he was already in the State Senate and must've known he was going to run for the U.S. Senate.

[jenmito]

64. I agree.

Same here.

[Perry Logan]

72. Note the irony of anti-Hillary people calling someone a liar.

[jenmito]

74. It's been noted. MANY times.