Hillary is smarter than Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy,

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

and 20 other senators, because she knew that voting for the IWR was the right thing to do at the time, and they voted against it.

Obama was strongly opposed to the IWR, but that doesn't matter because he wasn't in the senate at the time, and if he had been he would have voted for the IWR just like Hillary instead of voting against it like these 23 senators.

Did I get that about right? :eyes:

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

[JimGinPA]

1. Nice Post

K&R

[tyne]

2. Note

that she went against Carl Levin who was HER Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

[ClassWarrior]

3. Makes complete sense...

:crazy:

NGU.

[bahrbearian]

4. Sure Obama "Strongly opposed IWR"

And in March 2006, Obama went out of his way to travel to Connecticut to campaign for Senator Joseph Lieberman who faced a tough challenge by anti-war candidate Ned Lamont. At a Democratic Party dinner attended by Lamont, Obama called Lieberman "his mentor" and urged those in attendance to vote and give financial contributions to him. This is the same Lieberman who Alexander Cockburn called "Bush's closest Democratic ally on the Iraq War." Why would Obama have done that if he was truly against the war?


From his web site "Expand the Military"


" Rebuild Trust: Obama will rebuild trust with those who serve by ensuring that soldiers and Marines have sufficient training time before they are sent into battle.
Expand the Military: We have learned from Iraq that our military needs more men and women in uniform to reduce the strain on our active force. Obama will increase the size of ground forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines.
New Capabilities: Obama will give our troops new equipment, armor, training, and skills like language training. He will also strengthen our civilian capacity, so that our civilian agencies have the critical skills and equipment they need to integrate their efforts with our military.
Strengthen Guard and Reserve: Obama will restore the readiness of the National Guard and Reserves. He will permit them adequate time to train and rest between deployments, and provide the National Guard with the equipment they need for foreign and domestic emergencies. He will also give the Guard a seat at the table by making the Chief of the National Guard a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "

We never deployed our Gauard over seas until the Bush's
Barrack says he will rest them between deployments. WTF
Look for more war on terror.

[NYCGirl]

6. So why did Ned Lamont strongly endorse Barack Obama?

http://nedlamont.com/news/2256/why-im-supporting-barack-obama

Ned Lamont, January 10, 2008

When I decided to run for Senate, I did so because I deeply believed that the citizens of Connecticut were yearning to see fundamental changes in our politics – changes that would make government work for them again.

Today, with our Presidential primary in Connecticut less than a month away, I am announcing my support of Barack Obama for President because I am convinced that his forward-looking, progressive vision provides the best chance to enact meaningful reforms in the way Washington works.

Sen. Obama has the tone and temperament to bring out the best in our people and our nation, and to bring new coalitions together in support of the progressive policies we all want to see enacted. His campaign has already reflected this, not only by bringing hundreds of thousands of new voters of all ages to the polls, but by inspiring so many who are new to politics to become activists as well.

Making healthcare affordable for all Americans, rebuilding our aging infrastructure, and ending our dependence on foreign oil are all problems that require more than a tax credit here or an earmark there. Barack is the candidate best able to enact these big changes necessary to getting our country moving again.

We have seen that Sen. Obama has the wisdom and judgment to get the big decisions right – as he did on Iraq more than five years ago. And when President Obama steps out of Air Force One in countries around the world, he will represent a fresh start with friends and allies. He will end the war in Iraq, work for a comprehensive peace in the Middle East, and start investing in America again – and we will be safer and stronger for it.

We Democrats are fortunate to have had many strong candidates running for President. As you may know, I was proud to work hard for Chris Dodd during his campaign. I have the deepest respect and admiration for Sen. Dodd – especially for his powerful calls to defend our constitutional freedoms by restoring habeas corpus, closing Guantanamo, and living up to the spirit of the Geneva Conventions. I know that Sen. Obama, a former professor of Constitutional Law, has been and will continue to be Chris’ ally in fighting to protect our Constitution.

As Barack often says on the campaign trail these days, “with the challenges we face at this moment, the real gamble in this election is playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expecting a different result.”

It’s time to change the game.
—-

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

[bahrbearian]

9. Endosing Barack is the same as endorseing Lieberman?

Maybe because he didn't want to endorse Clinton? Neither Barack nor Hilliary did Ned any favors.

[GarbagemanLB]

31. He was the 'anti-war' candidate, after all...why not Hillary over Obama?

[bahrbearian]

66. Like I said Hilliary didn't do him any favorites either.

Upon Edit I'm not a Hilliary Fan either.

[Omega3]

59. don't let the facts get in the way of a good debate :)

[bahrbearian]

68. Meet the New Boss ,same as the old boss

Same as it ever was.

[Maribelle]

5. Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer, and Ted Kennedy voted YEA on the Durbin amendment for the IWR

The Durbin amendment for authorization for the use of the Armed Forces to cover an imminent threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction .

YEAs ---30
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00236

[cali]

7. LOL!!!

What part of they voted NO on the AUMF don't you get? Pathetic.

[Maribelle]

10. You're the one not getting it - YEA on the Durbin amendment is a vote for the use of military force.

Perhaps you need to read the amendment.

[cali]

13. No, dear. it's not. I've read it, and being more informed than YOU

I've read and heard what Senator Leahy said about it. You need to educate yourself. Surely you're capable of that.

[Maribelle]

23. As I said below, if you review why Bush went to war in March of 2003, you will clearly see that

he would have done exactly what he did even if the Durbin amendment passed.

[karynnj]

63. You do realize that the Durbin amendment would have altered the IWR

making it a better bill. That does NOT mean that everyone who voted for the amendment would have voted for the final bill. Some may have voted yes because the IWR was going to pass and this made the language more restrictive.

The fact is it did not matter what words were in the amendment as far as Bush going to war. The difference it made is that had it been in, there would have been a cleaner case that Bush violated it.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

14. I think you need to re-read the amendment.

Or at least consider why the same people who voted for that amendment, voted AGAINST the IWR.

[Maribelle]

21. No - you need to re-read history. In March of 2003 Bush used the threat of imminent WMD attack...

as a reason for invasion.

Bush would have done exactly what he did had the Durbin amendment passed.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

22. So what is your point?

The people I listed voted AGAINST the IWR. If the IWR hadn't passed, the invasion probably wouldn't have occurred.

[Maribelle]

24. Oh brother. Are you saying had they passed the Durbin amendment to the IWR they then

would have voted against it? That does not make any sense whatsoever.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

26. Good lord. You have no idea how congress works, do you?

Often amendments like these are added to bills to limit the damage they cause if they PASS.

So yes, if they amendment had passed, they likely would have still voted against the bill.

[Maribelle]

28. Your fondness for total speculation does not negate their vote approving the amendment.

The FACTS are on the ground, your wild speculation is not.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

30. For the last time, the amendment was meant to LIMIT Bush.

I'm done. If all the other posts in this thread haven't helped you understand this, I'm not going to keep trying.

[Maribelle]

33. But it wouldn't have limited Bush because he pushed the WMDs all throughout March.

And even understanding the repercussions of the amendment better than you, I totally understand your need to cling to the bash Hillary-for-her-vote concept that is convoluted logic spun into mud at best.

[Occam Bandage]

36. But would have if the inspections had been allowed to continue and had uncovered no imminent threat.

That is, it would have had the Levin amendment also passed--which Hillary also voted against.

[Maribelle]

42. Bob Graham voted against the Levin amendment also. Levin wanted a UN resolution.

Bush would have done exactly what he did.

[Occam Bandage]

44. And Bob Graham was wrong. Wellstone, Leahy, Kennedy, and the rest were right. And the argument

that Bush would have invaded regardless of the restrictions Congress could have placed is absolutely ridiculous. Seriously. "Um, these guys voted for an anti-war amendment that Bush probably would have ignored in clear violation of the Constitution. So, er, they're JUST AS BAD."

[Maribelle]

49. Wrong. The amendments were not anti-war, but were casus belli for WMDs or a UN resolution.

Bush would have done exactly what he did regardless.

[Occam Bandage]

53. LOL. I will never again look at your name without thinking,

"Hey, it's that idiot who thought that the Durbin amendment was pro-war."

I don't know who you think you're convincing with this. Perhaps yourself. I'd be too ashamed to post on DU for a week if I had done what you've done in this thread.

[Maribelle]

54. Are you resorting to flamebaiting, hero?

[Kittycat]

43. I think by now you're beginning to realize you're wrong.

But at this point, to save face - you refuse to admit it, or drop the issue and let it go quietly in to the night.

Why the hell I ever took you off ignore, I'll never know. But back you go.

[Occam Bandage]

45. I think she realized she was wrong about five posts into this exchange, and the rest has been

a desperate attempt to make it look like "a contested issue" instead of "an epic failure to read what one was posting."

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

48. No! It is clear that WE are the ones who don't understand.

Because trying to limit Bush's power is.... uh.... the same as voting for the IWR!!!! or something like that.

[Occam Bandage]

51. Also, every Senator but Graham and Clinton. They were all confused too.

[Maribelle]

55. You asked a question. I answered. Now you and your preprimary friends cry in a group.

Mocking me en masse merely shows off your hollow nature.

[Maribelle]

52. I have been trying to debate. You resort to a personal attack. Then put me on ignore? lol

Way to go coward.

[bvar22]

67. It is the Hillary and Bush* defense....

You are NOT wrong if you never admit it.

[Occam Bandage]

47. Yes. That is exactly what he is saying. Because that is how Congress works. Do you remember

"I was for it before I was against it?" That is what happens.

When there's a bad bill that you think is going to pass, you propose amendments that would make it a better bill. You vote for the amendments and hope to stick them on. Then you vote against the bill in hopes of killing it. Sometimes, you vote for the bill as part of negotiations to gain support for the amendments.

Your ignorance is further exposed with each post.

[karynnj]

16. You are the one not getting it - it was to LIMIT the reasons for attack to WMD

The problem is that HRC voted no. This is saying that she was ok with reasons other than WMD for the invasion. Of all the amendments it is the one that is the most straight forward of all the amendments. It would have replaced the much vaguer language that was in the IWR. You can argue that the language in Levin could be misinterpreted (my paraphase of what HRC said - and I do get her point there), you can't argue it here. I think that once this amendment lost, Democrats should have backed away from the resolution. (This would have been an excellent place for the Senate to have a "present" vote - then they could have avoided voting yes making it clear that they didn't like it as written.0

[Maribelle]

20. No you're not getting it.

Please. The Durbin amendment would not have limited Bush in any way shape or form. When on freaking earth did Bush not say the WMD threat was imminent in March of 2003?

Bush was in fact pushing the WMD concept from day one.

[Occam Bandage]

35. Jesus Christ. Look, if all the arguments presented about this don't convince you, just

fucking look at the vote list. Note how not one pro-Bush Senator voted for this. Note how virtually every anti-war Senator voted on it. Then think: "Is it possible that I am wrong on the meaning of this? Or is it possible that every other DUer, and every Senator but Hillary Clinton (both pro- and anti-war) were wrong on the meaning of this?"

[Maribelle]

37. Every Senator but Hillary Clinton?????? Oh give me a break.

Go away with your dramatic pomp, will you. You're not even making sense.

[Occam Bandage]

39. Er, yeah. Because you're suggesting that every Senator on that list was voting

contrary to their stated position, and every Senator not on that list was voting contrary to their stated position--except for Hillary Clinton.

[Maribelle]

46. No I was not. Only Bob Graham voted no on all three.The IWR, Levin amendment, Derbin amendment ....

the three in whichever shape or contortions in which thye were passed would not have mattered to Bush - - Bush would have done exactly what he did, regardless.

Only one democratic senator voted against a three - - and his is my voice of authority.

[Occam Bandage]

50. Bob Graham was making a PR decision. He wanted to go on record as

opposing anything that had anything to do with Iraq. I believe he was wrong. Leahy, Kennedy, Wellstone, Durbin, Feingold, and the rest voted yes to restrict Bush's war powers should the IWR pass, and no on the IWR itself. They had the correct positions. Clinton was wrong on all three votes.

[Maribelle]

57. Sorry, I implicitly believe Bob Graham who told us the intricate reasons for his decisions.

Bob Graham is arguably one of the most honest politicians in this nation.

He did not do it for PR reasons. And he was absolutely correct.

The fact that you merely make things up, then resort to mocking anyone and everyone that does not fall in lock step with your contrived brand does a perfect job at stifling this debate - - exactly what you seem to want.

[Kittycat]

56. Durbin, not Derbin.

*twitch*

[Maribelle]

58. Please put me back on ignore, cry baby.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

60. Oh no, you're way to amusing to have on ignore.

:rofl:

[Kittycat]

65. ..

:rofl:

[Kittycat]

61. Is that the best you got? You are afterall supporting HRC.

The queen of whine.

[karynnj]

62. What I am saying is that had this been the text,

it would have been clear that the only valid reason for invading was WMD. Had this been the text there would have been no ambiguity that Bush violated this when he threw the inspectors out whne they were saying that no WMD were found. (It also would have made the cherry picking of intelligence more damning)

The fact is that NOTHING would have stopped Bush. As it was he attached a signing statement to the IWR saying that he didn't accept what he saw as limitations. The difference this amendment could have made was that Democrats who voted for the IWR would have had a stronger basis to stand on saying that they did not authorize what happened. For that to have had real believability they would have had to speak out when it was clear that Bush was violating the promises he made on how to use it. That would have been tough because it would have required Senators to speak against going to war on the eve of the war, which could have political ramifications if the country favored the invasion - which had a 70% approval rating when the invasion occured.

Look at the Senators on that list - that should give you a hint that this LIMITED the IWR. The good vote was a "yes". (Good rule of thumb - look where Kennedy is on this)

[Occam Bandage]

8. LMAO. Wow. The Durbin amendment was to be attached to the IWR, and

was to make it clear that invasion was only authorized for evidence of an imminent threat of Iraqi WMD attack, and was not authorized to counter an "ongoing threat" of Iraqi WMD. That is, Bush can only invade if we have evidence that Saddam is about to launch an attack, and not for the mere reason that he possesses WMDs or a WMD program.

You'll note that is a who's-who list of Senate liberals voting for it. Hillary voted against it. That makes her look even worse.

[Maribelle]

17. Wrong. First it was not approving an 'invasion' but rather 'the use of Armed Forces'

Second, Senator Bob Graham voted against this amendment - - - this is an extremely important factor that could be 34,000 feet over your head.

[Occam Bandage]

29. LMAO. So that's your defense? Wow, you really did have no clue what it was about.

[LSK]

40. use them for what? washing cars????

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

11. Thank you for helping me prove my point!

[Maribelle]

27. You don't even get the point. Had the Durbin amendment passed...

In March of 2003, Bush would have done exactly what he did since he pushed the WMD threat exactly as it was worded in the Durbin amendment that your three examples voted for.

[tabasco]

38. So your argument boils down to:

These senators that tried to take some bullets away from Bush are just as bad as the senators that gave madman Bush a gun and bullets?

That is the stupidest thing I've read all day.

You are pwned.

[Occam Bandage]

41. Your argument has been reduced to "the anti-war bill those guys pushed

probably wouldn't have stopped the war anyway." Wow. What an epic pwning.

[DemGa]

12. BO said he didn't know what he would do

"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.’

His vantage point of NOT being in the Senate. Maybe he would've went with John Kerry, no on can say with certainty. But you are right, it doesn't matter, because he wasn't there.

[rodeodance]

15. He was so mixed up. Once he decided to run-he he was SURE

[ElsewheresDaughter]

18. Who did you vote for in 04?

[Occam Bandage]

32. In the primary? Howard Dean, who did not vote for the Iraq War.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

34. tag...you're it

[karynnj]

64. Though Dean in fall 2002 said he would have voted for Biden/Lugar

a much better bill and one that many Democrats - Kerry, Dodd, Biden preferred as well, but it was not the bill that was on the floor of the Senate. Once Leiberman and Gephardt met in the Rose Garden with Bush, the Democrats lost all leverage. Bush knew he had the votes in both Houses. What is clear is that all those amendments were an attempt to try to create a better bill. There were also changes in IWR itself - taking out language that made it cover more than Iraq and allowed vaguer reasons (I think that the spreading democracy that was said out loud first in 2005). Oddly, these changes that many Democrats alluded to proudly in their speeches were a trap - there existence led to some Democrats voting for it who wouldn't have otherwise. But, an argument can be made that without those changes, Bush would not have violated the intent of the IWR when he invaded.

[JVS]

19. Wow, that lost is a cavalcade of dumbasses!

NOT!

[knixphan]

25. BOXER '16!

That's a woman I can back for pres.

[stop the bleeding]

69. umm two things

none of those jokers that you highlighted in the Senate are running for preznit and your hindsight future telling of Obama's decision is worthless.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

70. Dick Durbin, Paul Wellstone, Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer: jokers

gotcha.

Are you sure you're on the right board? Limbaugh Underground is a few miles to the right.

And what exactly is a "hindsight future telling"?