Obama has fooled his supporters by mischaracterizing the debate on the IWR.

[MethuenProgressive]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wilson/battletested_b_86355.html

Senator Obama claims superior judgment on the war in Iraq based on one speech given as a state legislator representing the most liberal district in Illinois at an anti-war rally in Chicago, and in so doing impugns the integrity of those who were part of the debate on the national scene. In mischaracterizing the debate on the Authorization for the Use of Military Force as a declaration of war, he implicitly blames Democrats for George Bush's war of choice. Obama's negative attack line does not conform to the facts. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I should know. I was among the most prominent anti-war voices at the time -- and never heard about or from then Illinois State Senator Obama.

George Bush made it clear publicly when lobbying for the bill that he wanted it not to go to war but to give him the leverage he needed to go to the United Nations and secure intrusive inspections of Saddam's suspected Weapons of Mass Destruction sites. Who could argue with that goal? Colin Powell made the same case individually to Senators in the run up to the vote, including to Senator Clinton. It is not credible that Senator Obama would not have succumbed to Secretary Powell's arguments had he been in Washington at the time. Why not? Obama himself suggested so in 2004. "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,' Obama said. 'What would I have done? I don't know." He also told the Chicago Tribune in 2004: "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." According to press reports, Powell is now an informal adviser to Mr. Obama.

In his tendentious attack, Obama never mentions that Hans Blix, the chief United Nations weapons inspectors, declared that without the congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force the inspectors would never have been allowed into Iraq. Hillary's approach -- and that of the majority of Democrats in the Senate -- was to let the inspectors complete their work while building an international coalition. Hillary's was the road untaken. The betrayal of the American people, and of the Congress, came when President Bush refused to allow the inspections to succeed, and that betrayal is his and his party's, not the Democrats.

Joe Wilson was a true DU hero not long ago. I expect he'll be attacked by some on DU for calling out Barack Obama on the self authored Fairy Tale that has become excepted "fact" by so many here.

[SoFlaJet]

1. SIGH..............

does anybody think all these Obama bashing threads by Clinton supporters will stop when Barack wins the nomination? I hope so...

[Kittycat]

9. Too some extent, maybe.

But my doubts are growing.

[rodeodance]

10. most of Obama supporters post threads that diss Hillary. and

no, i will not do a linky for you. just open your eyes and stop whinning about Hill supporters!

1. SIGH..............

does anybody think all these Obama bashing threads by Clinton supporters will stop when Barack wins the nomination? I hope so...

[TheWraith]

41. They had better, lest those people get banned.

DU rules say when the nomination's settled, the primary debate stops.

[Maribelle]

43. Don't hold your breath ...

about Obama winning the nomination.


And when he loses it, you can be sure the hate-filled explosive posts against Hillary will increase.

The arrogance of Obama supporters knows no bounds.

[Kahuna]

108. Once a nominee is chosen, they won't be allowed to bash him/her on DU...

Dems the rules!

[workinclasszero]

142. Hopefully but..

maybe they have ulterior motives.

They support a candidate who approved going to war with Iraq. John McCain also approved it.

So maybe they will look kindly on their fellow war hawk in the fall???

Just sayin...

[Rock_Garden]

2. Wonderful piece, mp. K&R!

[MethuenProgressive]

73. Thank you!

[Little Star]

99. Barack Obama's Problems with the Iraq War Vote

Daily Kos
Barack Obama's Problems with the Iraq War Vote
by mikepridmore
Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:09:44 AM PST

~snip~
Problem Number 2

The second problem that Barack Obama has with the Iraq War Vote is that in July of 2004 he said me might have voted for the war if he had seen different information. (link):

"‘But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,' Mr. Obama said. "What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.'"
He obviously was not as clear in his support as was Ted Kennedy or the abovementioned well-known political bloggers, but he was certainly not as vocal against a vote for the war as he had been in 2002 or as he is now. The main problem with this statement is that it opens up discussion of other things he vociferously opposed before he was elected to the Senate and yet ended up supporting once in office and having to deal with the political realities of the moment. A case in point is war funding. Although he said he would never vote for war funding, his actual record is similar to Senator Clinton’s. (link) Here he is stating "unequivocally" that he would not vote to fund the war once in office: Here is what he said there:

"Just this week, when I was asked, would I have voted for the $87 billion dollars, I said 'no.' I said no unequivocally because, at a certain point, we have to say no to George Bush. If we keep on getting steamrolled, we are not going to stand a chance." ~snip~

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/3/125446/0795/623/448909
GREAT READ FOR ANYONE WHO WANTS TO KNOW THE TRUTH, MUCH MORE AT LINK.

[MethuenProgressive]

146. Hope more read this!

:dem:

[Captain Hilts]

3. Thank you. People do not understand what was going on at all. Or don't want to. nt

[Radical Activist]

30. Joe Wilson is one of those people.

The article is pretty clueless.

[Captain Hilts]

40. Wilson's supporting Clinton. nt

[Straight Shooter]

4. "Joe Wilson looking for his 15 minutes of fame."

That's how one DU'er referred to him, on the prior thread that posted his endorsement of Hillary.

This is the concise summary of the problem with blaming those who voted yea on the IWR: "Hans Blix, the chief United Nations weapons inspectors, declared that without the congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force the inspectors would never have been allowed into Iraq."

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. Really? How'd he do that?

Because I was appalled at Clinton because of her vote for the war before I'd ever heard of Obama.

[MethuenProgressive]

11. So you say Hans Blix is a liar?

In his tendentious attack, Obama never mentions that Hans Blix, the chief United Nations weapons inspectors, declared that without the congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force the inspectors would never have been allowed into Iraq. Hillary's approach -- and that of the majority of Democrats in the Senate -- was to let the inspectors complete their work while building an international coalition. Hillary's was the road untaken. The betrayal of the American people, and of the Congress, came when President Bush refused to allow the inspections to succeed, and that betrayal is his and his party's, not the Democrats.

No rah-rah speech of Obama's can change the facts of the matter.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. Hans Blix was against the war in Iraq.

As opposed to Hillary Clinton.

[Maribelle]

33. Hans Blix warned Iraq of serious consequences if it attempted to hinder or delay his mission

and he admonished Saddam for "cat and mouse" games.

What on freakin earth do you think Blix meant by "serious consequences"?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

36. Who do you think Blix would rather be president?

I'm guessing the guy who doesn't have blood on his hands.

[MethuenProgressive]

38. The one who voted the way he wanted: Hillary Clinton.

In his tendentious attack, Obama never mentions that Hans Blix, the chief United Nations weapons inspectors, declared that without the congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force the inspectors would never have been allowed into Iraq. Hillary's approach -- and that of the majority of Democrats in the Senate -- was to let the inspectors complete their work while building an international coalition. Hillary's was the road untaken. The betrayal of the American people, and of the Congress, came when President Bush refused to allow the inspections to succeed, and that betrayal is his and his party's, not the Democrats.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

45. Then that's a shame.

If that's true, then fuck Hans Blix.

Not that I think it's true.

[Maribelle]

50. Blix would want the brave lady.

No doubt about it.

[MethuenProgressive]

37. Here is what Blix wanted: (It's not what Obama has convinced you)

In his tendentious attack, Obama never mentions that Hans Blix, the chief United Nations weapons inspectors, declared that without the congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force the inspectors would never have been allowed into Iraq. Hillary's approach -- and that of the majority of Democrats in the Senate -- was to let the inspectors complete their work while building an international coalition. Hillary's was the road untaken. The betrayal of the American people, and of the Congress, came when President Bush refused to allow the inspections to succeed, and that betrayal is his and his party's, not the Democrats.

[jackson_dem]

48. Why has this truth been hidden on the netroots for so long?

Thank you for bringing it to light MP and Joe Wilson! :patriot:

[rodeodance]

82. Hill has often said --to let the inspectors do their work'--gets drowned out

[JTFrog]

136. And what do the inspectors say about her letting them do their work?

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0303-23.htm

See Hillary Run (from Her Husband's Past on Iraq)
by Scott Ritter

Senator Hillary Clinton wants to become President Hillary Clinton. "I'm in, and I'm in to win," she said, announcing her plans to run for the Democratic nomination for the 2008 Presidential election. Let there be no doubt that Hillary Clinton is about as slippery a species of politician that exists, one who has demonstrated an ability to morph facts into a nebulous blob which blurs the record and distorts the truth. While she has demonstrated this less than flattering ability on a number of issues, nowhere is it so blatant as when dealing with the issue of the ongoing war in Iraq and Hillary Clinton's vote in favor of this war.

This issue won't be resolved even if Hillary Clinton apologizes for her Iraq vote, as other politicians have done, blaming their decision on faulty intelligence on Iraq's WMD capabilities. This is because, like many other Washington politicians at the time, including those now running for president, she had been witness to lies about Iraq's weapons programs to justify attacks on that country by her husband President Bill Clinton and his administration.

"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," Senator Clinton said at the time of her vote, in a carefully crafted speech designed to demonstrate her range of knowledge and ability to consider all options. "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."

Hillary would have done well to leave out that last part, the one where her husband, the former President of the United States, used military force as part of a 72-hour bombing campaign ostensibly deemed as a punitive strike in defense of disarmament, but in actuality proved to be a blatant attempt at regime change which used the hyped-up threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction as an excuse for action. Sound familiar? While many Americans today condemn the Bush administration for misleading them with false claims of unsubstantiated threats which resulted in the ongoing debacle we face today in Iraq (count Hillary among this crowd), few have reflected back on the day when the man from Hope, Arkansas sat in the Oval Office and initiated the policies of economic sanctions-based containment and regime change which President Bush later brought to fruition when he ordered the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

...much more at link

Scott Ritter served as a former Marine Corps officer from 1984 until 1991, and as a UN weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 until 1998. He is the author of several books, including "Iraq Confidential" and "Target Iran". He also co-authored "War on Iraq" with William Pitt.

[sloppyjoe25s]

98. Hans Blix was a Patsy

and a regular apologist for the war.

There were DOZENS of attempts to slow the resolution - and DOZENS of ways to get the inspectors in with a resolution with many more checks and balances.

This was a BLANK CHECK. Voting for it was an act of pure political cowardice.

I'm VERY PROUD - that my Senator - Jeff Bingaman from New Mexico - READ THE EVIDENCE - and Voted AGAINST the IWR.

Strange how it really can be to have guts to stand up in a critical moment.

[sloppyjoe25s]

90. Very weak argument

This is an unbelievably weak argument. I'm glad it's been put forward. But it is not so convincing.

Essentially it amounts to saying that there was no other alternative to get the inspectors back in than THIS RESOLUTION - with all it's flaws - and the faulty intelligence. There were 1000 ways to make this resolution better - less of a "Blank Check" to go to war - and they were scrapped in the heat of the moment.

Hillary did NOT champion the alternate point of view - that perhaps Sadaam was not a grave threat - and then reluctantly vote. She said at the time she cast her vote "with conviction" that Sadaam was a grave threat to the USA.

She voted agains the Levin Ammendment as well.

She admits now - that she did not even READ the intelligence at the time - the same intelligence which - WHEN READ - was filled with caveats about how much of a thread Sadaam was.

Not only will she be UNABLE to debate McCain thanks to this vote - it also shows how she got "Caught up in the moment" - and "acted politically" to make sure she would "look hawkish enough for a general election" in the future.

Terrible judgement - plain and simple. Not the kind of thoughtfulness of a great president.

Obama spoke multiple times against the war - and was active in rallying Democrats against it before the IWR.

This is just a weak weak argument.

[MethuenProgressive]

132. ...

[Mojorabbit]

22. So was I

People had mass demonstrations all over the world as well as here. Even I knew this vote meant war and I am not a "smart" elected official.

[AtomicKitten]

6. Obama was brilliantly prophetic in his 2002 anti-dumb-war speech:

Excerpt:
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

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.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

[rodeodance]

17. O.=1. hates it, 2, does't how how he would vote, 3 funds it. 4. runs for Pres and opposes it!

[MethuenProgressive]

26. 5. gets supporters to buy he's been consistant!

[rodeodance]

32. oops I will have to work on getting that into one line:-)

[AtomicKitten]

94. Apparently BS is a prerequisite for supporting the Goddess of War.

[MethuenProgressive]

20. "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don't know."

That there is "dumb," but telling.

[AtomicKitten]

93. "What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made for authorizing the war."

Here's what Barack ACTUALLY said:

In July of 2004, Barack Obama: 'I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. ... What would I have done? I don't know,' in terms of how you would have voted on the war. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made for authorizing the war."

You misleadingly and continually leave off the last sentence. Why is that? Oh yeah, I know. Because Hillary's campaign is now officially running on bullshit, farts, and chewing gum.

Summary: Interviewing Barack Obama on Meet the Press, Tim Russert read a quote he attributed to Obama to suggest that he has "not been a leader against the war": "In July of 2004, Barack Obama: 'I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. ... What would I have done? I don't know,' in terms of how you would have voted on the war." Russert did not quote the very next sentence of Obama's statement, which was, "What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made" for authorizing the war.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200711110004

[jackson_dem]

49. And Joe Wilson actually fought to stop the war

I'll take Wilson's word over Obama's speech catering to his base in the most liberal district in Illinois.

[thereismore]

7. Isn't this the same piece that gets recycled over and over? The way I see it,

Joe Wilson is mistaken. There, I said it.

[bunnies]

8. Yes. We're all idiots who are easily fooled.

Is that the response you're looking for?

[rodeodance]

14. leave out the 'all' and I will give op a high 5.

[MethuenProgressive]

15. How about ' "Is that what really happened?? I had no idea! Why does Obama lie to me?"

That'd be a good response.

[Blue State Bandit]

27. When I heard Obama's speech, I said,

at least somebody gets it.

So how did I get fool again?

[Akoto]

Hate to tell you, but ...

ALL politicians lie to you, and that includes the campaign promises they're making right now. It comes with the territory. Our history is replete with Presidents who gloss over their histories. Choosing a candidate is very much a 'lesser of two evils' affair.

[Bicoastal]

13. Well, I'm not going to pretend that he isn't biased in favor of the Clintons.

He got his best positions and titles working under Bill Clinton, so of course as a Op-Ed writer he'd be inclined to boost his former boss's candidate over a guy he has no connection to.

If this was, say, Al Gore writing this, of course, that'd be a different story. But as heroic as Joe Wilson unoubtedly is, I get the feeling he picked a horse in the race long before it even started.

[Blue State Bandit]

23. True that.

"I feel for ya Joe, but 'cha killin' me"!!!!!

[jackson_dem]

52. As a foreign service officer who served in the Bush administration too

It isn't as if he got his positions because he was a big donor to a president like many ambassadors.

[Blue State Bandit]

103. I got that part.

That don't make me feel any more ashamed to read his attack.

[maxsolomon]

16. selective memory

bush was a warmongering liar before the IWR, during the IWR, after the IWR. he had a hard on to invade iraq from 10 a.m. on 9/11/01 on.

i knew it, my congressman bagdhad jim mcdermott knew it, joe wilson knew it, hillary clinton knew it, and in fact, i don't know anyone who didn't know it, because i live inside a little liberal bubble called washington state's 7th district.

bush has NEVER followed up with a declaration of war as the constitution compells him to, and the congress & the senate have done NOTHING about it except approve billions & billions in deficit spending that has destroyed our treasury, our moral standing (of which we had little to begin with), and the lives of millions.

millions.

[truebrit71]

18. Nice spin. Not buying it. She knew what it was for and got bullied into submission.

"Ready from day one"...really? For what? To cave?

Sorry HRC you had your chance and you BLEW it...

[rodeodance]

25. O.=1. hates it, 2, does't how how he would vote, 3 funds it. 4. runs for Pres and opposes it!

[Blue State Bandit]

47. So you would have him leave the troops stuck in the desert...

without armored humvees, BPV's or the basic necessities of survival?

Do you really think that cutting off the funds would have saved lives?

Knowing how Bush operates, this would cause one of these two scenarios:

1) He'd blame him for the lack of armor and supplies while the die in the desert.

2) He'd use a signing statement and backdoor the funds.

It's called supporting the troops cause it's not their fault.

[truebrit71]

61. Thank you...you see, this is the part of that argument that the Hillbots can't seem to fathom...

...

[rodeodance]

84. What part do you not understand?--as BOTH have a phased withdrawal--NO stuck in the desert!

[Blue State Bandit]

104. That neither of them can implement unilaterally until 2009

but as you all seem so quick to forget,

the troops are under the mercy of the president.

And simply standing up and voting against the

funding over the past few years would not force

Bush to send in American Airlines to bring them home.

try showing some sense in your argument next time.

[Maribelle]

105. Voting against the funding would have been highly symbolic under the rubber stamp congress.

No one would have expected the 'against funding' to pass, with all that oil dripping from the mouths of the republican congress. Not ever.

Obama, in all his anti-war pomp, however, wanted to sidle up to those rubber stampers dripping oil. His fairy tale about being against the war, was in full fairy bloom, and all the while his vote didn't mean anything.

[Blue State Bandit]

110. ((((shakes head))))

You have to be kidding, a vote for Clinton IS a vote for war in Iraq.

[Maribelle]

114. Obama's fairy tale will get you nowhere, and would further degrade any respect we might have left .....

in this wide world, as many world leaders acknowledge they have the utmost respect for Hillary. And Hillary has a credible and outstanding track record to support this high esteem, as she has represented the US in 82 countries.

[rodeodance]

81. Irrelevant since both have phased withdrawals.

[BlackVelvet04]

139. There's always enough money to bring the troops home. n/t

[jackson_dem]

56. Why did Hans Blix support it?

[DemGa]

19. Obama says he "got it right"

What utter nonsense since he was not there. It's a shame it fools so many.

"On the single most important foreign policy issue of our time, I got it right," Obama said.

[rodeodance]

24. Obamacampers base there assessment on a NON-existance vote.

[tabasco]

145. Learn to spell at a 4th-grade level before you preach to me about how stupid I am.

Thanks.

[maxsolomon]

34. i think he's self-serving in the way he spins his actions/non-actions

but, frankly, i don't care. he's a politician running for the presidency. what do you expect, self-reflection & gray areas? the goal is to win, and ambivalence doesn't sell.

hillary's vote was craven & transparent. she got it wrong. joe wilson's rationales are spinning just as surely.

[Submariner]

21. That vote was political bullshit

Anyone with half a brain, including the Dems who voted for it, knew Saddam was "CONTAINED" with no-fly zones, old degraded pre-1990 chemical/biological weapons, and 12 years of sanctions, so Iraq was powerless outside it's own borders.

This Iraq crap stunk from Day 1, and the Dems let themselves be cowered by this "your with us or against us" crap, and all the repuke "you're a traitor" BS. Sorry Joe, I respect your opinion, but your just trying to put lipstick on a pig with this argument.

[MethuenProgressive]

42. Not as seen by Hans Blix,chief United Nations weapons inspector:

In his tendentious attack, Obama never mentions that Hans Blix, the chief United Nations weapons inspectors, declared that without the congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force the inspectors would never have been allowed into Iraq. Hillary's approach -- and that of the majority of Democrats in the Senate -- was to let the inspectors complete their work while building an international coalition. Hillary's was the road untaken. The betrayal of the American people, and of the Congress, came when President Bush refused to allow the inspections to succeed, and that betrayal is his and his party's, not the Democrats.

[Submariner]

55. So What?

When the inspectors were in in the late '90s nothing was found, and would not be expected to be reconstituted in 2001.

Blix was playing diplomatic poker with a mad man...Bush, and it was obvious then. The Saddam containment could have continued if inspectors were not let back in.

[stillcool]

127. Why does no one remember...

the Levin Amendment? Still?

S.AMDT.4862
Amends: S.J.RES.45 , S.AMDT.4856
Sponsor: Sen Levin, Carl (submitted 10/9/2002) (proposed 10/9/2002)
AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
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://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r107:1:./temp/~r107HChP29:e0:
Levin Ammendment

SECTION. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Multilateral Use of Force Authorization Act of 2002''.

SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL POLICY FOR UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL ACTION ON IRAQ.

Congress--

(1) supports the President's call for the United Nations to address the threat to international

peace and security posed by Saddam Hussein's continued refusal to meet Iraq's obligations under

resolutions of the United Nations Security Council to accept the destruction, removal, or rendering

harmless of its weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons-usable material, ballistic missiles with

a range in excess of 150 kilometers, and related facilities, and to cease the development, production,

or acquisition of such weapons, materials, and missiles;

(2) urges the United Nations Security Council to adopt promptly a resolution that would--

(A) demand that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access of the United

Nations weapons inspectors so that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons-usable

material, ballistic missiles with a range in excess of 150 kilometers, and related facilities are

destroyed, removed, or rendered harmless; and

(B) authorize 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; and

(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.

SEC. 3. 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 2(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.

(b) REQUIREMENTS.--Before the authority granted in subsection (a) is exercised, the President

shall make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of

the Senate his determination that the United States has used appropriate diplomatic and other peaceful

means to obtain compliance by Iraq with a resolution of the United Nations Security Council described

in section 2(2) and that those efforts have not been and are not likely to 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, Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory

authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution (22 U.S.C. 1544(b)).

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.--Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any

requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this joint resolution, and at least once

during every 60-day period thereafter, the President shall submit to Congress a report containing a

summary of the status of efforts--

(1) to have the United Nations Security Council adopt the resolution described in section 2(2); or

(2) in the case of the adoption of such resolution, to obtain compliance by Iraq with the

resolution.

[MethuenProgressive]

140. ...

"In his tendentious attack, Obama never mentions that Hans Blix, the chief United Nations weapons inspectors, declared that without the congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force the inspectors would never have been allowed into Iraq. Hillary's approach -- and that of the majority of Democrats in the Senate -- was to let the inspectors complete their work while building an international coalition. Hillary's was the road untaken. The betrayal of the American people, and of the Congress, came when President Bush refused to allow the inspections to succeed, and that betrayal is his and his party's, not the Democrats."

[HeraldSquare212]

"But he lied to me!" nt

[cjmastaw]

28. This is getting old. How many times is this going to be posted?

[rodeodance]

85. till people 'get it"

[Radical Activist]

29. Obama's opposition to the war was part of his US Senate primary campaign too.

He did it at a time when it was very risky politically and he was the only Democrat in the primary to take that firm stand. He took a stand where and when it mattered.

How many candidate for President have ever had the courage to speak at an anti-war rally? Only Obama and Kucinich. The rest don't want to be marginalized by being seen with that crowd.

Wilson doesn't seem to understand that by being the bigger person with McCain in the letter he references, it helped Obama politically. And the ethics reform bill did pass.

Wilson and many Hillary supporters don't seem to understand that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. If Obama looks like the better man who is trying to reach out it will keep the public on his side. Always being nasty and going ugly keeps more people away from politics. And the Republicans are the ones who benefit from fewer people being engaged in politics.

[jackson_dem]

57. "he was the only Democrat in the primary to take that firm stand"

"Obama's opposition to the war was part of his US Senate primary campaign too."

Put two and two together...What did he run on in that primary?

[Radical Activist]

64. Umm...He ran on opposing the war.

That's what I wrote.

[jackson_dem]

And he won because of that

He did what was best for Barack Obama then. When things changed as he began to represent an entire state, not one district with an eye to a Democratic primary, he voted to fund the war without complaints, did not even speak about Iraq in the senate for 18 months let alone try to do something to end the war, opposed a withdrawal. Again when circumstances changed he did what was best for Barack Obama and started to vote against funding and began supporting a withdrawal when he began running for president. Political opportunism is the only thing that explains Obama's inconsistency on Iraq.

[Radical Activist]

76. What is wrong with you?

He also introduced a bill to withdrawal troops by March of '08. He also spoke about it during the general election campaign. He didn't drop the war issue.

When Obama spoke out against the war before it started AND during his Senate campaign it was not a popular position among politicians. He had no way of knowing if it was going to help him or not. And frankly, his campaign focused on other issues, but he did take the right stand. How can you look at someone who stood for the right thing when it was unpopular and say that its political opportunism? What planet are you on? What drugs are you taking?

[jackson_dem]

78. He introduced it after he flip flopped when his presidential campaign began

[Radical Activist]

80. His position was always the same. He never flip flopped.

Trying to say the best thing he could to support Kerry was not a change in position. Put down the drugs and rejoin us in the real world!

[jackson_dem]

89. He did

He was for funding the war until he began running for president. He was against a withdrawal. Until he began running for president...

[napi21]

31. THANKS! I've posted the same info many times here on DU, but this

one says it so much better. I voted for Obama, but I also remember the discussions from back then, and I AGREED that the administration NEEDED the leverage when they argued before the UN.

[MethuenProgressive]

35. Clinton's vote was correct, and is not what Obama wants people to think it was.

He wants people to think there were three buttons, War, Peace, and Present.
The truth of Clinton's vote is spelled out by Wilson very correctly here:

In his tendentious attack, Obama never mentions that Hans Blix, the chief United Nations weapons inspectors, declared that without the congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force the inspectors would never have been allowed into Iraq. Hillary's approach -- and that of the majority of Democrats in the Senate -- was to let the inspectors complete their work while building an international coalition. Hillary's was the road untaken. The betrayal of the American people, and of the Congress, came when President Bush refused to allow the inspections to succeed, and that betrayal is his and his party's, not the Democrats.

[Captain Hilts]

44. Key language in her statement:

Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now

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. 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.

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.

[MethuenProgressive]

59. "A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; ...use these powers wisely and as a last resort. "

"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."

[soleft]

39. Believing this was true is the fairy tale

"George Bush made it clear publicly when lobbying for the bill that he wanted it not to go to war but to give him the leverage he needed to go to the United Nations and secure intrusive inspections of Saddam's suspected Weapons of Mass Destruction sites."

[frazzled]

46. It was called "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq"

And it contained a gaping blank check in its main clause that should have given ANYONE pause. To wit:

a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Got it? Bush was authorized to use force as HE saw fit. And everybody who knew anything knew he would see fit. And I don't buy this weapons-inspector argument alone: because the same people (and I include, shamefully, Senator Kerry, were defending the invasion on its very eve).

Were you even alive at the time this argument was going on in the fall of 2002? Cause I sure remember every word of it.

[MethuenProgressive]

54. It wasn't called the "WAR WAR WAR bill of Hillary Clinton!!!" after all?

That'll be news to the Obamas.
Just as Wilson's clear and factual slapdown of Obama's Fairy Tale was:

Senator Obama claims superior judgment on the war in Iraq based on one speech given as a state legislator representing the most liberal district in Illinois at an anti-war rally in Chicago, and in so doing impugns the integrity of those who were part of the debate on the national scene. In mischaracterizing the debate on the Authorization for the Use of Military Force as a declaration of war, he implicitly blames Democrats for George Bush's war of choice. Obama's negative attack line does not conform to the facts. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I should know. I was among the most prominent anti-war voices at the time -- and never heard about or from then Illinois State Senator Obama.

George Bush made it clear publicly when lobbying for the bill that he wanted it not to go to war but to give him the leverage he needed to go to the United Nations and secure intrusive inspections of Saddam's suspected Weapons of Mass Destruction sites. Who could argue with that goal? Colin Powell made the same case individually to Senators in the run up to the vote, including to Senator Clinton. It is not credible that Senator Obama would not have succumbed to Secretary Powell's arguments had he been in Washington at the time. Why not? Obama himself suggested so in 2004. "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,' Obama said. 'What would I have done? I don't know." He also told the Chicago Tribune in 2004: "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." According to press reports, Powell is now an informal adviser to Mr. Obama.

In his tendentious attack, Obama never mentions that Hans Blix, the chief United Nations weapons inspectors, declared that without the congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force the inspectors would never have been allowed into Iraq. Hillary's approach -- and that of the majority of Democrats in the Senate -- was to let the inspectors complete their work while building an international coalition. Hillary's was the road untaken. The betrayal of the American people, and of the Congress, came when President Bush refused to allow the inspections to succeed, and that betrayal is his and his party's, not the Democrats.

[HeraldSquare212]

109. I suppose it would have had to be named that for her to understand it.

Obama spoke out against the war when he didn't have to, as a representative of a city that many considered a likely terrorist target. that's called courage.

[maximusveritas]

51. When did Joe Wilson first oppose the war?

I could be wrong, but I don't remember him opposing the war publicly until well after it began. So his statement that "I was among the most prominent anti-war voices at the time -- and never heard about or from then Illinois State Senator Obama" seems to be very deceptive. Obama made his speech at the time of the vote, months before the war began.

[enough already]

53. So Joe Wilson trusted Bush too.

Another great moment in personal judgment....

[endarkenment]

58. Yes on IWR = against war, and No on IWR = for war?

OK.

[VotesForWomen]

69. so how did obama vote on IWR? oh that's right, he wasn't in the senate at the time, so you can

just project whatever vote you want to on him.

[endarkenment]

79. So how did Clinton vote on the IWR? oh that's right, she voted for it

so we have to spin a vote for giving Bush carte blanche to proceed as vote against the war, now that the war has become so unpopular.

Please stop. It is a transparently stupid argument. Nobody much is buying it.

Obama clearly stated his opposition to the war and the IWR at the time. It is one major distinction between the candidates.

[endarkenment]

60. Hillary's approach -- and that of the majority of Democrats in the Senate

was to duck and cover. They issued a carte blanche to Bush.

[Hippo_Tron]

62. Ted Kennedy somehow knew that Bush was going to undermine Congress

So did Dick Durbin, Patrick Leahy, and a lot of others. That's why they tried to weaken the resolution significantly so that Bush couldn't pull the trigger without UN approval.

And as credible as Colin Powell may have been personally, as Secretary of State his primary job was to promote the President's agenda and often that means sacrificing your own judgment.

[smoogatz]

63. I admire Ambassador Wilson a great deal.

He and his wife have done great service for the country. But I wish he'd explain why 22 Democrats and 1 Republican had the foresight not to trust Bush's intentions on the IWR, but Hillary didn't. I think it's a fair question, and for Wilson to suggest that we're "bashing Democrats" by asking it is an obvious distortion. If freaking Linc Chaffee was smart enough to vote "no" on the IWR, why wasn't Hillary?

[Maribelle]

67. What I Knew Before the Invasion by Bob Graham

Sunday, November 20, 2005; Page B07

In the past week President Bush has twice attacked Democrats for being hypocrites on the Iraq war. "ore than 100 Democrats in the House and Senate, who had access to the same intelligence, voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power," he said.

The president's attacks are outrageous. Yes, more than 100 Democrats voted to authorize him to take the nation to war. Most of them, though, like their Republican colleagues, did so in the legitimate belief that the president and his administration were truthful in their statements that Saddam Hussein was a gathering menace -- that if Hussein was not disarmed, the smoking gun would become a mushroom cloud.

The president has undermined trust. No longer will the members of Congress be entitled to accept his veracity. Caveat emptor has become the word. Every member of Congress is on his or her own to determine the truth.

As chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence during the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001, and the run-up to the Iraq war, I probably had as much access to the intelligence on which the war was predicated as any other member of Congress.

I, too, presumed the president was being truthful -- until a series of events undercut that confidence.

In February 2002, after a briefing on the status of the war in Afghanistan, the commanding officer, Gen. Tommy Franks, told me the war was being compromised as specialized personnel and equipment were being shifted from Afghanistan to prepare for the war in Iraq -- a war more than a year away. Even at this early date, the White House was signaling that the threat posed by Saddam Hussein was of such urgency that it had priority over the crushing of al Qaeda.

In the early fall of 2002, a joint House-Senate intelligence inquiry committee, which I co-chaired, was in the final stages of its investigation of what happened before Sept. 11. As the unclassified final report of the inquiry documented, several failures of intelligence contributed to the tragedy. But as of October 2002, 13 months later, the administration was resisting initiating any substantial action to understand, much less fix, those problems.

At a meeting of the Senate intelligence committee on Sept. 5, 2002, CIA Director George Tenet was asked what the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) provided as the rationale for a preemptive war in Iraq. An NIE is the product of the entire intelligence community, and its most comprehensive assessment. I was stunned when Tenet said that no NIE had been requested by the White House and none had been prepared. Invoking our rarely used senatorial authority, I directed the completion of an NIE.

Tenet objected, saying that his people were too committed to other assignments to analyze Saddam Hussein's capabilities and will to use chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons. We insisted, and three weeks later the community produced a classified NIE.

There were troubling aspects to this 90-page document. While slanted toward the conclusion that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction stored or produced at 550 sites, it contained vigorous dissents on key parts of the information, especially by the departments of State and Energy. Particular skepticism was raised about aluminum tubes that were offered as evidence Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. As to Hussein's will to use whatever weapons he might have, the estimate indicated he would not do so unless he was first attacked.

Under questioning, Tenet added that the information in the NIE had not been independently verified by an operative responsible to the United States. In fact, no such person was inside Iraq. Most of the alleged intelligence came from Iraqi exiles or third countries, all of which had an interest in the United States' removing Hussein, by force if necessary.

The American people needed to know these reservations, and I requested that an unclassified, public version of the NIE be prepared. On Oct. 4, Tenet presented a 25-page document titled "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs." It represented an unqualified case that Hussein possessed them, avoided a discussion of whether he had the will to use them and omitted the dissenting opinions contained in the classified version. Its conclusions, such as "If Baghdad acquired sufficient weapons-grade fissile material from abroad, it could make a nuclear weapon within a year," underscored the White House's claim that exactly such material was being provided from Africa to Iraq.

From my advantaged position, I had earlier concluded that a war with Iraq would be a distraction from the successful and expeditious completion of our aims in Afghanistan. Now I had come to question whether the White House was telling the truth -- or even had an interest in knowing the truth.

On Oct. 11, I voted no on the resolution to give the president authority to go to war against Iraq. I was able to apply caveat emptor. Most of my colleagues could not.

The writer is a former Democratic senator from Florida. He is currently a fellow at Harvard University's Institute of Politics.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802397.html

[Kolesar]

71. Pelosi said that she saw the same intelligence &she said there was no case for war

There was no threat from Saddam as was being implied (through lies and half truths) by the Bush administration.

Why the hell did not Clinton vote with Pelosi against the war? Because she was triangulating for the November 2008 presidential election already. Read my sig line

[smoogatz]

95. Most could not. But almost half did. Along with Linc Chaffee.

The point being that Hillary, unlike many of her colleagues, got suckered. Either that or she voted in the way that presented, she thought, the least political risk: vote to authorize, but give a speech (a la Kerry) that defends the rationale for the vote as essentially anti-war. It all would have been fine if a)WMD had been found in significant quantities, or b)no meaningful resistance to the occupation (and no bloody civil war) had materialized. Unfortunately for Hillary, Kerry, Edwards and the others who essentially voted to cover their political asses, things didn't work out that way. In my book, whatever their motives, that makes them complicit.

I like Bob Graham a lot, btw; it's good of him to rush to the defense of his colleagues. What he doesn't say, though, is that if Hillary and the rest of that sorry lot who voted for the IWR were unsure, they might have gone to him in his capacity as chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and sought his counsel. I'm guessing he'd have found a way to guide them without revealing double-super-secret info. Like maybe just shaking his head, or giving an emphatic thumbs-down.

[VotesForWomen]

65. correct; of course O's appeal is that people can project whatever they want on to him. nt

[rodeodance]

86. its part of the SWOON effect.

[Kolesar]

87. It is part of the "anybody but Clinton effect"

ha ha ha

[rodeodance]

96. yeah--sure is.

[IsItJustMe]

66. No doubt inmy mind that Obama is shooting a line of BS a mile long, and I can't blame him for it.

He just happened to be at the right place at the right time. So now he has bragging rights and he is taking full advantage of it. Sorry people, that's what politicians do. Never seen a politician do otherwise. I will still vote for him in the general, if he wins.

[nonconformist]

68. I have tremendous respect for Joe Wilson. K & R. nt

[riverwalker]

70. Posted about 6498 times

The same YEAR OLD article by Wilson, is that all you people have to post again and again? Joe Wilson is an old Clinton croney, he is in his own mind, being loyal. He went to Africa with the Clintons in the 90's, they drank scotch and smoked cigars. YAWN.

[MethuenProgressive]

77. This is not a "year old" - it is today's HuffPo Wilson blog. Typical response, though...

Don't read it, just hate it, as you've been conditioned to do.

[MethuenProgressive]

143. :crickets:

...

[Occam Bandage]

72. LOL, back to the old "I didn't think the Authorization for Use of Military Force meant war!" excuse.

While I appreciate how stubbornly Joe Wilson is fighting for a job, that dog don't hunt.

[MethuenProgressive]

75. "A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; ...use these powers wisely and as a last resort. "

[Occam Bandage]

100. So both Hillary and Joe Wilson trusted Bush's wise judgement. Dumbasses.

[JAbuchan08]

101. too bad a personal speech doesn't equal an amendment to the bill

so all speechifying qualifications aside she still voted for the war.

[johnnydrama]

102. just curious

What was the evidence Obama would have seen if he were in the senate.

Did Clinton and the others see evidence that we still haven't seen?

There is no evidence that Obama would have seen if he were in the senate.

Therefore he wouldn't have voted for it.

What evidence did Hillary see that Feingold didn't see?

Nice try.

[Maribelle]

122. Senator Russ Feingold 10/0/2002

None of this is to say that I don't agree with the President on much of what he has said about the fight against terrorism and even what he has said about Iraq.

http://www.senate.gov/~feingold/speeches/02/10/2002A10531.html

[Kolesar]

74. I would love to hear what weapons inspector Scott Ritter thinks about this

:hi:

[Political Heretic]

83. too little, too late.

I don't think, when it comes to IWR, Obama supporters are confused anyway. I don't care that he wasn't fucking Ghandi. I care that the other candidate voted FOR the IWR. I don't care that he wasn't in a position to vote for it. Life isn't always fair, that one sucks for Clinton and Obama gets lucky. That's life. I care what Clinton did. It is the ONE issue, out of all the issues, where I could be characterized as "anti-clinton" because my position on the issue isn't about what Obama failed to do, its about what Clinton DID.

[Kolesar]

88. Maybe this is why Obama outlasted John Edwards...?

[Political Heretic]

91. Possible. Though I supported John Edwards:

I am not a single issue voter. His vote pained me immensely, but that was one factor of many. The other factors caused me to support him until he dropped out.

With Clinton, her vote is but one factor. But when I tally pros and cons (for me) between her and Obama, I come up with Obama.

[Kolesar]

92. I funded Edwards. Hillary and Barack are evenly matched,

but I am p-ed off at Hillary. I think I will fund this downstate Ohio congressional candidate this March, and that's about it.

[AX10]

97. Joe Wilson has already been demonized around here.

Just like he was at FreeRepublic.

[sendero]

106. What bullshit..

... "George Bush made it clear publicly when lobbying for the bill that he wanted it not to go to war but to give him the leverage he needed to go to the United Nations and secure intrusive"

Anyone alive and sentient at the time knew exactly what Bush was up to and anyone who didn't should be working at a car wash.

[Maribelle]

107. You should have been aware at the time that many views were opposite yours.

Don't go saying now "anyone alive" because anyone with half a brain knows that is not true.

Pleople with your view were highly outnumbered then. Sorry, but that's the truth.

[sendero]

111. Try..

.. outnumbered by an overwhelming margin. I have a long memory, here on DU it was around 5% who would try to argue that Bush wasn't just heading for war no matter what.

Hell, he couldn't have BEEN more obvious. I can't have any respect for the intellect (or perhaps honesty is a better word) of anyone who didn't see it.

That said, I don't think Obama's politics concerning Iraq are great. They are just a helluva lot better than Hillary's, who will NOT admit a mistake (like Bush) and who STILL acts like the war is a good idea.

Her position on the war is costing her this nomination, as damn well it should. Americans should be more important than AIPAC and the neocons.

[Maribelle]

112. Obama might have plagiarized parts of Hillary's 10/10/02 floor speech for his 10/26/02 fluff puff.

And it appears he might have plagiarized Wellstone's as well, all the while calling Wellstone a what?

Obama called Wellstone a gadfly. Why?

[MethuenProgressive]

113. ...

:dem:

[Maribelle]

121. ...

:toast:

[MethuenProgressive]

130. ...

:toast: :hi:

[MethuenProgressive]

144. yeehaw!

:dem:

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

115. Note: blind faith in malicious leaders is good. Dissent bad.

[RunningFromCongress]

116. EVERYONE knew it was a vote to go to war. Go look back on this forum, you'd see that.

[calmblueocean]

117. The rewriting of history that Clinton supporters are trying to do is appalling. Refute this.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0902-07.htm

This is from 2002, and it's just one piece of thousands online calling out Bush for using the UN as a fig leaf to get us into war.

Thank god these documents still exist on the Internet -- the way Clinton supporters and surrogates are trying to rewrite history to absolve Hillary of blame would be terrifying otherwise.

Let me also say that there is much I respect about Hillary, and that I will vote for her if she wins the nomination. But there is no reason, and no excuse, for trying to re-write history here. Every time I see it happen, it turns my heart a little bit more against Hillary.

I've documented some of Joe Wilson's other lies in this editorial here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4580656&mesg_id=4581341

You realize that Joe's only link of support in that piece is to a Free Republic post, right? Joe really trashed his reputation by writing this piece. The facts refuting him are all over the Internet.

[Maribelle]

119. When the USSC placed Bush in power....

there was not much democrats could do to stop him.

If you read the speeches of those that voted against the IWR, such as that of Paul Wellstone, you will see that a majority of good people truly did not know if Obama had WMDs or not.

Paul Wellstone thought he had them, he merely questioned the urgency.

I support ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction through unfettered U.N. inspections, which should begin as soon as possible.

http://www.wellstone.org/archive/article_detail.aspx?itemID=5423&catID=3605

Democrats were left to attempt to negotiate through the verbiage of what republicans would soon pass, trying to add clauses attempting to thwart the Bush juggernaut.

[calmblueocean]

123. Wellstone got it right.

(When you wrote above, "you will see that a majority of good people truly did not know if Obama had WMDs or not," I did a double-take. I know you meant Saddam, so I'll ignore that, and deal with your underlying point.)

It's not a question to me of whether or not people thought Saddam had WMD, it's a question of how irresponsible it was to give Bush a blank check for war, and "trusting" him to be a diplomat, when he'd been chomping at the bit for a war in Iraq since even before he was selected president. The notion that you give the president the authority to invade a country as a way of "sending a signal" to that country that you are serious is just unconscionable to me. We had many other options. This was a war of choice.

She should've stood with the other 23 Senators who refused to vote in favor of this authorization, and her reasons for refusing just don't hold water. The speech you quoted from Wellstone is a powerful refutation of Hillary's vote. I'm just surprised you linked to it.

I will close by saying that I don't hate Hillary, and will vote for her if she's our nominee. But I don't believe her stated reasons, and I loathe the way she and many of her surrogates now are trying to rewrite history to expunge their blame.

[MethuenProgressive]

138. Oh. You're right. Hillary Clinton alone is responsible for Bush's War in Iraq. It's all her fault.

Shame on her.

[bigtree]

118. This is good for my own reading, but you can't reach those who just want to blame Democrats

for Bush's preemptive invasion and occupation. It's an easier route than actually confronting and stopping Bush, who isn't listening to any dissent.

But, the point about the inspectors is lost with these folks. Shortcut attacks follow their shortcut perusal of history and the facts surrounding that vote. For me, the most interesting thing about the Iraq resolution is that Bush didn't follow ANY of the provisions in the document which Congress actually used their authority to mandate, like exhausting all peaceful means, and returning to the Security Council before military action was considered.

The only provision he did follow was the one that doesn't originate in the Iraq resolution. Opportunistically placed into the document as the 'authority' for the president to commit troops, is a reference to the War Powers Act, stating that, NOTHING in the resolution supersedes the provisions of the Act.

Bush pulled the inspectors out of Iraq before they were finished their job and opportunistically deployed the troops, relying on a loophole in the WPA which allows him to commit troops for a time without informing or getting permission from Congress beforehand. He didn't need the Iraq resolution to do that. Clinton didn't need a resolution to send troops to Haiti either. The loophole is a mile wide, and illegal, some say.

But, none of the 'authority' Bush assumed and advantaged himself of to invade was original or exclusive to the Iraq resolution. As I said, Bush actually ignored whatever provisions in that document which Congress had actually used their authority to mandate anew.

[Maribelle]

120. Bush had not choice but to pull the inspectors ...

for they were about to prove Bush's WMD claims false.

[stillcool]

124. the Levin Ammendment?

do we have to do this again?

[dkf]

125. Sadly, we here know whats going on better than he does.

I hope he isn't trying to spin us.

[krkaufman]

126. Wilson again selectively filters Obama's 2004 comments.

Wilson diminishes his own credibility through his need to distort the record of his preferred candidate's opponent.

In the simplest sense, anyone who didn't recognize that Bush would use the resolution to go to war with Iraq lacks the judgment to lead this country.

And if Bush betrayed the American people and the Congress in not allowing the inspections to succeed, why haven't those in Congress who proclaim betrayal held Bush accountable? Where has been Hillary's call for impeachment hearings? Did I miss it?

[MethuenProgressive]

128. So, you didn't support Edwards or Kerry in 04 or Edwards in 08?

Where has been Barack's call for impeachment hearings? Did I miss it?

[krkaufman]

131. I did not support Kerry or Edwards in '04, primarily because of their war votes.

I preferred both Dean and Clark. I felt that Kerry's pro-IWR vote was a weakness that failed to sufficiently differentiate him from the warmongering Republican incumbent.

As for '08, I preferred Edwards, in spite of his IWR vote, because his emphasis on poverty and the "2 Americas" was strong enough to somewhat outweigh his admitted IWR mistake (knowing that Edwards stood no chance of becoming the nominee, but wanting him to remain in the race longer than he did, to force poverty into the debate).

Re: Barack's call for impeachment hearings? He hasn't proclaimed that he was misled by the Bush Administration prior to voting for the war, so he isn't within the scope of my statement. Should he be calling for impeachment? Yes. Should every Democrat be calling for impeachment? Yes. Should those Democrats who proclaim to have been misled by Bush be the loudest voices calling for impeachment? Yes.

[LSK]

129. why would Joe Wilson know about a State Senator from IL?????

I never heard of Joe Wilson until after the war started.

:shrug:

[Apollo11]

133. Hillary and Edwards and Kerry believed Powell and Rice and Blair.

At the time, it seemed like the right thing to do, to put pressure on Saddam Hussein so he would cooperate with the UN inspection teams.

With hindsight, it looks like Iraq did not have significant WMD capability, so we can say it was a mistake.

But then it was also a mistake for John Kerry. So Obama should be ashamed to stand on stage with Kerry.

If Obama is happy to stand on stage with John Kerry, then he should not attack Hillary on this issue.

Unfortunately, life is not fair, especially during Presidential campaigns.

Most often, Obama uses this point not to attack Hillary, but to highlight a contrast with John McCain.

"They won't be able to say that I voted to authorize this war" - which is a legitimate point for Obama to make.

[Imagevision]

134. George Bush made it clear, he was going to war with or without Britain's support

and after the bungled war Tenet announces it's time to spend more family time together (like Rove) and then Bush comes out with his; "we got it wrong statement" continues on with, well not me but our intelligence was way off the mark bullshit.

[indimuse]

135. he was against IT..before he was FOR IT!...uh..oh..He's against IT..AGAIN!

OVER 300 billion IN FUNDING Barack H Obama YES!! HE"S for it!!! He has to be... He never AFTER being elected to the US senate has EVER written a bill..a speech...NADA baby about Stopping the funding..or bringing our troops home now...nothing...he has ALWAYS vote to extend and increase funding!

I live in FL...now, I know what a FLIP FLOP looks like! HA!

[MethuenProgressive]

137. Voting exactly the same as Clinton on every Iraq War vote shows how much Change! he represents!

Obama world is a very strange place.

[MethuenProgressive]

141. ..

[MethuenProgressive]

147. Kicking this because another DUbama has just blamed Iraq on the vote of one senator.

Ignorance abounds.