reminder: Hillary Clinton's floor speech 2002 supporting Iraq invasion

[ORDem]

"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.

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."

- Sen. Hillary Clinton, floor speech on A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. October 10, 2002 http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

:dem:

[Zueda]

1. And she expects people to believe she has the judgement to be ready on day one?

[papau]

3. intelligence reports show " - as if those reports were known to be lies

[mckeown1128]

5. How would she know what the intelligence reports showed...

she admitted that she didnt' read the NIE on Iraq before she voted.

[Evergreen Emerald]

51. This argument shows the lack of knowlege of the way the Senate works

Aids and assistants read the NIE and create reports outlining the issues. She reads the reports. To suggest that she was unaware of what it said is just ignorant of the process and a disingenious argument.

[SOS]

68. Does the Senate work differently for Bob Graham?

"Former Florida Senator Bob Graham, who chaired the Intelligence committee at the time, has said he read the NIE.
And Graham says that not only did he read it — it is what moved him to vote against authorizing Bush to invade Iraq."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10782562

[pocoloco]

9. Did you believe bush also??

Remember what Blitz and Ritter among many other experts were saying??

[Downtown Hound]

15. Gee, I knew they were lies based on the way Bushco was acting

alone. It was so obvious that they wanted a war and would do or say anything to get it. A story even appeared in the San Jose Mercury news in October of 2002 about how the CIA was being forced to cook information to suit the administration's agenda. This whole, "how were we supposed to know that we were being lied to" bullshit is just that, bullshit. Hillary has no defense, none. And neither does any other Democrat that went along with it. If they really were stupid enough to believe that bullshit that was fed to them then they have no business being president. It was just politics, pure and simple. The Democrats were afraid of looking weak on "national security," so more than a million people died as a result. Yet another example of how they continually let the Repukes frame the debate time and again. And up until recently, why they lost elections time and again.

[SOS]

19. Powell knew they were lies in February 2001:

"Hussein has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."

-Colin Powell, February 24, 2001.

Greg Thielmann at the State Department knew, why didn't anyone listen?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/14/60II/main577975.shtml

[Clovis Sangrail]

73. we already knew Bush was spouting many many lies

doesn't it seem prudent question the validity of a report from a group of people that you know is less than honest?

Millions of people knew the Bush administration was spouting bullshit to justify going to war.
Buy hey, what the hell did we know? we didn't see the intelligence report.
Funny that we turned out to be RIGHT isn't it?

[City Lights]

2. K&R.

Thanks. Bookmarking to use as needed.

[blm]

4. I've often believed that DC Dems were far more influenced by Bill's analysis of Iraq

based on what he said he knew and saw as president than they ever were by Bush's case, and THAT is why so many Dems would support the IWR.

The more I know about Bill's closeness to BushInc, the less I trust that he was giving Congressional and Senate Dems an HONEST assessment.

[babylonsister]

13. It'd be very interesting to find out how he made the case for war,

and how honest he was about it. Now you have me wondering...

[paulk]

44. a lot more WMD was found by the arms inspectors between

1991 and '98 than anyone expected. That's one of the primary reasons Kerry gave for voting "yes" on the IWR.

Bill's closeness to Bush, which exists primarily under that tin hat you're wearing, had nothing to do with it.

[blm]

45. I disagree. You have yet to show how Jackson Stephens and Bush1 were held accountable

after Bill Clinton was handed the BCCI report.

If you could do that instead of posting insults to those of us who BOTHERED to read the report and expected answers when reading Bill's book.....

[paulk]

59. strawman

[SOS]

55. 1998 is an interesting choice as cut off date, 4 years before the IWR vote

In December 1998 and through much of 1999, Operation Desert Fox smashed Iraq, destroying 100 targets.
By the end of 1999 every single suspected WMD facility, along with Hussein's home and the Iraqi air defense, had been destroyed.
It seems that the assertions behind Kerry's reasoning, as you describe, were years out of date.

[paulk]

58. that's when the inspectors were kicked out

by Saddam. Iraq had had four years to rebuild their programs.

I don't think it was unreasonable to supect that they had done so - the real question was whether they were a threat to the United States. The answer to that is no, of course - that's why Bush's findings on the IWR were so bogus and, in themselves, reason enough to impeach. Our national security was never an issue as Bush claimed.

To me, the IWR was to get the weapons inspectors back in - for the first time in four years - to determine whether or not Iraq was rebuilding their programs. Bush violated the tenets of the resolution by pulling the inspectors out and invading Iraq .

[SOS]

65. UNSCOM was not thrown out

They were pulled out in advance of Operation Desert Fox.
Bush asserted in the "axis of evil" speech that UNSCOM was thrown out, but that is not correct.
Richard Butler is on the record as saying that US Ambassador Peter Burleigh (on orders from Clinton) told him to get out because the US and UK were going to bomb Iraq.

The AuMF says that "Congress supports the efforts of the President" to enforce UNSC resolutions. Yet Bush made no efforts. It was the UN through UNMOVIC, with Iraq's cooperation, that tried to avert war by allowing inspections. As Blix said in March 2003 " "No evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found". Yet Bush, like Clinton in 1998, abruptly called for UNMOVIC to get out in advance of the bombing.
But Bush did not violate the AuMF because the determination as to whether peaceful means would be adequate was left to Bush, and only Bush.

[paulk]

78. it's not that simple - there had been a series of escalating crisis

for a year and a half with Saddam kicking the inspectors out then letting them back in after threats either from the US or UN. Yes, it's true that UNSCOM pulled them out before the bombing campaign, but that didn't happen in a vaccuum.

[bigtree]

6. but, none of that supports your header

. . . nothing in her speech says that she supported Bush's preemptive invasion.

[SOS]

20. Her speech did not support preemtive invasion

Her vote did.

[bigtree]

24. no it did not. Bush pushed PAST the provisions of that resolution,

. . . used assumed authority under the War Powers Act to mobilize and deploy troops without prior congressional authorization. All the resolution did was affirm his assumed power to use the Act as cover. Congress has done that by the default of their own reluctance to refuse to fund these deployments, as that Congress did in the ACTUAL affirmation of Bush's invasion, the first $87 billion 'emergency' funding bill.

[SOS]

26. Yes it did - AuMF is a joint resolution

Bush did not "push past" the AuMF. It was written by his lawyers. He's covered.

WPA 5 (b) is circumvented via declaration of war or joint resolution. AuMF is a joint resolution:

"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." See Sec 3 c 1
Here's a look at the law:

“Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq 2002”

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

There are no conditions presented in Section 2. None. Congress only “support(ed) the efforts” of Bush to realize sections (a) and (b). What exactly were those “efforts”? The efforts did not exist. Section 2 is empty, meaningless rhetoric crafted by the White House lawyers to create the appearance of conditions. When read carefully it is clear that there were absolutely no conditions. No mention of a last resort, weapons inspectors or any legally binding demand. There were no conditions!

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(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.

As “HE DETERMINES” to be necessary. Very simple. Very clear. Bush is given 100% sole authority to use military force as he (and he alone) determines. 3 (a) 1 and 2 are also empty phrases, since the determination rested only with Bush. Was his “determination” a surprise to anyone?

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.
In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate HIS DETERMINATION that
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and
(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Bush determined that peaceful means would not achieve 3 (b) 1 and 2. Surprise! The only thing required of Bush is that he inform Congress of his attack on Iraq 48 hours before the beginning of the invasion. Bush complied. He cut and pasted 3 (b) 1 & 2 and delivered his negative determination to Congress exactly 48 hours before bombing. Bush complied with the letter of the law. In 3 (b) 2 we see that “necessary actions” against other terrorist nations are also authorized.

(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. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS
(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).
(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

The AuMF is a joint resolution, thus allowing the circumvention of the 90 day limit set by the WPA. Section 5 (b) of the WPA puts a time limit of no longer than 90 days for the use of United States Armed Forces in a foreign nation without a declaration of war or a joint resolution (AuMF is a joint resolution) of Congress otherwise authorizing the use of force. The joint resolution covers Bush again.

[bigtree]

28. 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.

The WPA was the 'authority' Bush used as he pulled the inspectors out (which the implied use of force had enabled) and preemptively invaded, not the resolution.

[SOS]

30. WPA 5b and 8a1:

5 (b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces. 

The specific authorization is the AuMF.

8 a 1:
SEC. 8. (a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution

AuMF is the specific authorization.

Bush did not need the WPA to "pull out inspectors" sincepulling out inspectors does not constitute force. The requirements of the WPA were met, therefore need no supeseding.

The AuMF gave Bush 100% determination and authorization to use force against Iraq.

[bigtree]

38. you cited the relevant provision in the first paragraph.

Congress approves or disapproves, AFTER the deployment, with their funding vote. Bush forced the inspectors out with his threat to invade. He invaded, or deployed troops, under 'authority' cited in the resolution as residing in the War Powers Act. I highlighted the provision of the Iraq resolution above. It clearly states that NOTHING in the resolution is to SUPERSEDE any provision of the War Powers Act. Under the WPA, presidents are able to deploy troops for a time without prior congressional approval and return for their judgment later. The law states that Bush would have to end the military action if Congress did nothing further to support the action within the time period specified in the Act.

As in your response:

"The President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces.

and further:


Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution.

The resolution isn't that authorization. This provision is merely restating the 'authority' inherent in WPA which Bush advantaged himself of. He didn't need the resolution to deploy troops to Iraq, but he did need their approval afterward in the form of funding. Nothing prevents Congress from refusing funding, except for the will of whatever balance of power exists. Nothing in that resolution prevented Congress from grinding the occupation to a halt in 2003. Nothing in that resolution precludes Congress from halting funding now. That's where the irrelevance of the Iraq resolution is revealed.

[SOS]

42. We are discussing only 3c and 4 here

Congress authorized the use of force against of Iraq with this vote.
Sections 2 and 3 are very clear:

The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary

That sums it up. Congress did not "authorize" after the deployment with funding. They authorized with this bill.

The AuMF does not supersede the WPA, because "Congress has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces"
That specific authorization is the AuMF.

If Bush had "pushed past" or violated the law as written in the AuMF, don't you think someone (anyone?) would have noticed by now?
And if the AuMF does not specifically authorize military force against Iraq (as a joint resolution) why didn't a single Senator or Representative demand an end to military force after 90 days?

[catgirl]

43. Her husband thought it was okay to invade

and WITHOUT a new U.N. resolution. Google his interview with Larry
King before the invasion. He felt Bush could legally invade. Now tell
me Hillary didn't consider this scenario.

[Ichingcarpenter]

7. She was the only Democrat that gave that kind of speech that day

and that is undisputed too

[bullimiami]

8. if congress was lied to and given false intel reports why is she not screaming for impeachment?

it just reminds me again how mad i was at the time.

[Alex K]

10. exactly!!! impreach bush and cheney, i still don't understand why we don't do this.

also, i started reading this article in rolling stone magazine, where the writer was explaining why the democrats, even with a majority in congress, are still capitulating to bush's demands to fund the war. anyone else read this article?

[City Lights]

11. Hiya, Alex K!

:hi: Welcome to DU! :hi:

[Zueda]

12. If "Senator Clinton" decided NO to the authorization I bet a sufficient amount of fellow dems...

to defeat it would have followed.

[MonkeyFunk]

37. Only in your fantasyland

The resolution would've passed easily regardless of what Clinton did.

[Arkansas Granny]

14. I have read the speech in it's entirety and would like to point out

the following paragraphs:

"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."

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

I don't see anything here that leads me to believe that she supported the actions that Bush ultimately took against Iraq. She was not the only Democratic senator who voted for this resolution due to the bad intelligence that had been given them by the Bush administration.

[MethuenProgressive]

17. Thank you for that rational look at her speech of that day.

Much appreciated!

[GodlessBiker]

18. But there were Congress members who saw through the sham, exercised sound judgment, and voted no.

[bvar22]

22. Yes!

The Democratic Party Honor Roll
These Democrats should be remembered for their principled stand against the WAR Machine.

Authorization To Use Force (IWR)

United States Senate

In the Senate, the 21 Democrats, one Republican and one Independent courageously voted their consciences in 2002 against the War in Iraq :

Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii)
Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico)
Barbara Boxer (D-California)
Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia)
Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota)
Jon Corzine (D-New Jersey)
Mark Dayton (D-Minnesota)
Dick Durbin (D-Illinois)
Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin)
Bob Graham (D-Florida)
Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
Jim Jeffords (I-Vermont)
Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)
Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
Carl Levin (D-Michigan)
Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland)
Patty Murray (D-Washington)
Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island)
Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland)
Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan)
The late Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota)
Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)

Lincoln Chaffee (R-Rhode Island)


United States House of Representatives

Six House Republicans and one independent joined 126 Democratic members of the House of Represenatives:

Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii)
Tom Allen (D-Maine)
Joe Baca (D-California)
Brian Baird (D-Washington DC)
John Baldacci (D-Maine, now governor of Maine)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin)
Xavier Becerra (D-California)
Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon)
David Bonior (D-Michigan, retired from office)
Robert Brady (D-Pennsylvania)
Corinne Brown (D-Florida)
Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)
Lois Capps (D-California)
Michael Capuano (D-Massachusetts)
Benjamin Cardin (D-Maryland)
Julia Carson (D-Indiana)
William Clay, Jr. (D-Missouri)
Eva Clayton (D-North Carolina, retired from office)
James Clyburn (D-South Carolina)
Gary Condit (D-California, retired from office)
John Conyers, Jr. (D-Michigan)
Jerry Costello (D-Illinois)
William Coyne (D-Pennsylvania, retired from office)
Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland)
Susan Davis (D-California)
Danny Davis (D-Illinois)
Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon)
Diana DeGette (D-Colorado)
Bill Delahunt (D-Massachusetts)
Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut)
John Dingell (D-Michigan)
Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas)
Mike Doyle (D-Pennsylvania)
Anna Eshoo (D-California)
Lane Evans (D-Illinois)
Sam Farr (D-California)
Chaka Fattah (D-Pennsylvania)
Bob Filner (D-California)
Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts)
Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas)
Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois)
Alice Hastings (D-Florida)
Earl Hilliard (D-Alabama, retired from office)
Maurice Hinchey (D-New York)
Ruben Hinojosa (D-Texas)
Rush Holt (D-New Jersey)
Mike Honda (D-California)
Darlene Hooley (D-Oregon)
Inslee
Jackson (Il.)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E.B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Maloney (CT)
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller
Mollohan
Moran (Va)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Udall (CO)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Woolsey
Wu

[GodlessBiker]

27. Thank you for that list.

[SOS]

21. The speech is not US law.

The law is the "Authorization for the Use of Force Against Iraq 2002"
The law authorized Bush to determine whether to use force against Iraq.

It's like giving a drunk teenager the keys to your car and saying "Don't do anything stupid".

[Rosa Luxemburg]

25. but Osama Bin Laden was in Afghanistan Hillary, NOT Iraq

[Skip Intro]

32. She said the vote wasn't for war, as did Kerry, yet Kerry is hand in hand with Obama on the trail

as O calls Hillary a person of bad judegement for her vote, whle the Odrones here cheer him and call Hillary every name they every applied to bush. The lopsided, blinded unfairness of how the O camp has tried to affix that IWR like an albatross around her neck, yet look the other way for Kerry is breathtakingly unfair, yet a keen insight into the kind of hot air that fills the balloon-O-hope.

[PassingFair]

47. Kerry was also a FLAWED candidate because of his war vote.

There is NOTHING "breathtakingly unfair" in
holding people's feet to the fire for their
actions.

[dansolo]

79. I'm not looking the other way for Kerry

I still hold the IWR vote against Kerry, Edwards, Biden, and Dodd.

[MethuenProgressive]

16. This was way back when Obama was just a nobody in Rezko's hip pocket, right?

No wonder you don't people to think about what BO was doing way back then.

[otohara]

29. Did People Die

because of this Rezko relationship?

I do remember the millions of people around the world and in this country protesting, begging, pleading with Sen. Clinton to vote NO on IWR. Did she listen to the critics, her constituents? The answer is no, even worse she didn't even read the IWR.

[leveymg]

23. The embellishment, the word "undisputed", is a tell-tale indicator she was being deceptive.

It's lawyers-speak for "highly disputed." An advocacy tactic for weak arguments.

She knew it, too. Anyone who read the fricking Washington Post or NYT knew that the head of the IAEA was loudly disputing these claims, as were U.S. intelligence agencies, themselves.

Hillary is just as guilty of cherry-picking her intelligence sources as Douglas Feith or Richard Cheney.

If she has simply said, "I am persuaded by the Administration's version of the evidence", that would have at least been honest, and we probably wouldn't hold it against her so much. But this . . . what a weasel.

Thank you for reminding us of what she actually said, and why I feel so strongly that she's disqualified herself from consideration as the Democratic Candidate to be the 44th President.


NOT SO CUTE WEASEL

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

31. Whoops.

:rofl:

[workinclasszero]

33. Hillary Clinton: Ready to f**k up on day one!

Yup she's been vetted by Bush, Rummy and McCain and won cheers from them.

The neocon's war-monger's best friend, Hillary Clinton!

[bvar22]

34. Just more Hillary "Two Face" rhetoric.

She votes FOR authorizing Bush* to Use Force Against Iraq, and then makes a Cover Your Ass speech AGAINST using force.

Classic Clinton Triangulation.....trying to have it BOTH ways.

[MonkeyFunk]

35. You left out this part:

"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."

[PassingFair]

50. ...but I'm gonna give you the authorization to do it, anyway! n/t

[indimuse]

36. why not post the WHOLE thing?

It was NOT a vote for war....and YOU know it!

[SOS]

39. It was a vote to authorize Bush to use military force against Iraq

nt

[ElsewheresDaughter]

40. May I asked you who did you vote for in 04?

[suston96]

41. The parts left out ....

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.

Yeah, we can understand why these parts are left out, can't we........?

[superkia]

46. I also like this part where she talks about that EXPERIENCE...

from her 8 years in the white house and then mentions wanting bush to have the pwoer to go to war. I wish they would have brought it up on the debates when she talks about experience and mentions how she didnt want or think that bush would go to war. Lying fuck she is!


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" ( THAT WOULD BE BUSH ), 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 ( BUSH AGAIN )efforts to wage America's "WAR" against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction.


This speech alone, as she was spewing war propaganda just like bush was, tells you who she is. How her supporters can feel good about our childrens future if they are voting for a person that is lying straight to us all, is just confusing to me??????

[Cha]

49. And so wishes it would go

down the rabbit hole. Inconvenient truth.

[EndElectoral]

48. though ...apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001"

enough said...and she still voted for it.

[Evergreen Emerald]

52. you provided a distorted view of the speech--here is some more that provides perspective

"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."

[PassingFair]

53. "But I'm going to give you the authorization anyway." n/t

[Redstone]

54. Now, THAT'S damaging, I knew that war was full of shit before it happened.

Redstne

[Scurrilous]

56. Kick

:thumbsup:

[sloppyjoe25s]

57. And she made this speech not even having READ the intelligence

at the time.

She did not think reading the intelligence and seeing what it REALLY said was important.

not as important as her "First General Election Speech"

[ElsewheresDaughter]

60. Obama's record is even less defensible..He said he was against the war until he had a Senate vote...

Then he voted for each and every pro-war appropriation!!!

[SOS]

67. There is a huge difference

between authorizing Bush to use military force against Iraq and funding the US military after the war has begun.
Can you cite one instance in US history where the Congress defunded the military while forces were in combat?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

69. you're delusional and can you say VIETNAM?!?! yes congress defunded it to end it!

[SOS]

71. What utter nonsense.

The Paris Peace Accords were signed in January 1973.
Under the Paris Peace Accords, US combat forces were withdrawn from Vietnam by the deadline of March 1973.
The Church amendment, ending funding for combat operations, was passed by Congress in August 1973, five months after the last combat troops were withdrawn.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

74. June 1973....................not holding my breath for an apology..................

June 1973, Congress passes the second Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY1973. This legislation contains language cutting off funds for combat activities in Vietnam after August 15, 1973

[SOS]

75. LOL

Your assertion was wrong. You call me delusional. Now you want an apology?
In regard to Vietnam, Congress did not "defund it to end it".
I was wrong in that the Church amendment was in June, leading to an end of funding in August. I thought the vote was in August and effective immediately.
Yet the fact remains, combat ended in March and defunding took effect in August, five months after combat troops were withdrawn.

Do you still maintain that Congress ended the Vietnam conflict by defunding it?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

76. Apr. 29, 1975: Last U.S. military personnel killed, in rocket attack........

Apr. 30, 1975: North Vietnamese capture Saigon, ending the Vietnam War.

[SOS]

80. Wrong again

The war between North and South Vietnam ended on April 30 1975, not the combat role of the United States.
US operations ceased in January 1973 and all combat troops were out by March. Congress ended support for combat operations effective August 1973, but Congress did allow the continued support of South Vietnam.

April 29th 1975 was the evacuation of the US embassy in Saigon.
An NVA rocket was fired at Tan Son Nhut air base (Saigon), killing two U.S. Marines.
The last American killed in combat was Lt. Col. William B. Nolde on January 27, 1973.
The Paris agreement called for cessation of hostilities, territorial integrity, exchange of prisoners (McCain was released in March 1973) and withdrawal of US combat forces.

The Paris agreement allowed the US to continue supplying the South Vietnamese Army.
South Vietnam continued to exist and a small number of US personnel stayed there to supply the South, not for war against the North.
Air bases and the embassy continued to operate, but these operations were not limited by the Church amendment.
The Church amendment cut off funding for combat operations, which had already ceased in January 1973. It had nothing to do with the continuing supply of the South.

[tabasco]

81. Guarding the embassy!

Combat brigades were OUT!

[Maribelle]

61. And from Hillary's colleagues at the same time:

“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by: Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002


“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do”
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002


“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

“It appears that with the deadline for exile come and gone, Saddam Hussein has chosen to make military force the ultimate weapons inspections enforcement mechanism. If so, the only exit strategy is victory, this is our common mission and the world’s cause. We're in this together. We want to complete the mission while safeguarding our troops, avoiding innocent civilian casualties, disarming Saddam Hussein and engaging the community of nations to rebuild Iraq.”
Sen. John F. Kerry March 20, 2003

[mmonk]

63. I don't see my Congressional rep's comments. He voted against it.

Why not post ALL comments on both sides of the debate of members of Congress at that time?

[Maribelle]

66. That's fine with me. Who is your rep?

Or - please feel free to post your rep's comments. I would love to see them. My thesis is that Obama did not make up his speech of 10/26/2006, but merely copied words from other's comments. Me thesis is that Obama showed no judgment skills in any of this, except poor judgment in not attributing those words he cloned to the person that originally made them.

[HootieMcBoob]

62. Obama's 2002 speech regarding Iraq and war

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don’t oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

I don’t oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

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.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

[suston96]

64. Selective quotes from that Hillary Clinton speech by the OP.......

This is what Hillary Clinton said:

"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."

[SOS]

70. That's very nice

But a floor speech is not the law of the United States.

The law, which Clinton voted for, is entitled "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq 2002"

If Clinton was against "a rush to war", why did she vote yes?

[suston96]

83. Deleted

Self delete.

[Milo_Bloom]

72. Undisputed, except for all the dispute.

Like the fact that an ACTUAL WEAPONS INSPECTOR came out in September of 2001 to publicly state that there were no WMD left in Iraq.

[Hepburn]

77. ............

.........:grr:

And she does not have the courage and strength to fucking APOLOGIZE! Fuck her.

[rodeodance]

82. .........

This is what Hillary Clinton said:

"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."
Alert Printer Friendly | Permal

[SOS]

84. Her floor speech is irrelevant.

Means nothing.
Her speech is not the law of the United States.

The only thing that matters is the text of the AuMF.