Yes it's the 5th Anniversary of YOUR Iraq war, Mrs Clinton!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

Today and every day we all should be reminded that this woman voted FOR the Iraq war.

Thousands killed, maimed living with their injuries and heartache.

How on earth can she sleep at night? How could she have misjudged?

And yet, here she as large as life scrambling for a few more votes in Michigan determined that she will be our candidate!

[YOY]

1. Misogynist!

You are truly anti-vagina for pointing such truths out!!!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

4. anti what?

[YOY]

31. Sorry forgot the sarcasm tag

I didn't think it needed it...but....

[MethuenProgressive]

2. You've bought the Fairy Tale, I see.

Obviously you know very little about the resolution and how GWB violated it to start his war.

[MadHound]

5. You're still trying to spin, spin, spin this as somehow not Hillary's fault

Even though millions upon millions of people knew that the IWR would simply give George a blank check to go into Iraq, even though some of her fellow Senators were smart and courageous enough to vote against the IWR, Hillary and her supporters are trying to spin her vote as somehow being George's fault. Sorry, but the anti-war contingent, and millions of others, are smart enough to see through your bullshit.

Despite the spin, the fact of the matter is that Hillary voted, against the will of her constituents and the will of the people, to enable George and his war by voting for the IWR. Yes, there is the blood of innocents on her hands.

[MethuenProgressive]

8. You keep on believing that Fairy Tale if you want,

...but wishing won't make it true.
Grorge W. Bush started this war with Iraq, violating the resolution that our lawmakers passed.

[MadHound]

22. LOL, geez, you are delusional.

Yes, Bush started this war, however those who voted for the IWR enabled it. Somehow millions of Americans were smart enough to figure that out, as did those Congressmen who voted against the IWR, yet Hillary didn't? You're left in a tough spot there, either Hillary made a cold calculating political decision to vote for the IWR in order to look tough, and thus doesn't have the morality to hold office, or she was fooled by Bush, and therefore is too stupid to hold the office. Which is it?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

62. Hillary was pro war or else she would have spoken out about it

she had a voice and didn't use it at the time.

[Ravy]

116. She spoke out in her floor speech, in a letter to Colin Powell, and an

Associated Press article just weeks before the invasion.

[Hepburn]

84. Title of the Resolution:

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002

If she did not know that she was voting pro-war, then Hillary should drop out of the primary race solely because she is a total, incompetent fucking idiot who does not have a minimal level of comprehension of simple English words.

BTW: What is YOUR excuse for lack of comprehension as to the title of that resolution?

[polpilot]

206. Hillary: 'Iraqi War Resolution?. Maybe that means Universal Healthcare For All. I'm voting for it.

You Goddam Fool!! I'm so fucking sick of the Clinton apologists. She didn't know what it meant. NAFTA's good. 'I been working for universal healthcare since Bubba & I came outta them thar hills.' Yeah there's deep resentment to what the Clintons have done with the American people's trust. Wake fucking up!!

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

90. These people wish Hillary had stood up against the war instead of voting for it

No excuses Hillary, you are supposed to be an adult who is
responsible for your VOTE.

[Ravy]

10. :Check the polls.

She voted WITH her constituents and the will of the people.

Remember you guys all spouting that she did what was "politically expedient"? That means she voted the people's will instead of your own personal view.

[Political Heretic]

13. If 76% of my constituents want me to vote to have rape legalized, I'm voting no.

Supporting and unjustified, illegal war leading to the murder of tens of thousands of people is the same level of moral issue.

[MethuenProgressive]

21. Not "present"?

Good for you!

[Ravy]

23. Don't argue both ways. The person I was responding to

said it was beyond the will of the people.

Supporting the unjustified and illegal war? You mean, as in voting for funding for it? You guys have drummed out all of our Democratic candidates who didn't vote to fund this unjustified and illegal war. We are left with two candidates who support it with funding.

[Political Heretic]

32. De-funding is not something to do lightly.

This crazy asshole of a president would leave our troops there without protection.

If I was in congress and the debate about how to end the war was going on, I'm not sure I'd land on the side of de-funding.

De-funding is in no way equivalent to Authorizing the War. Once you have real soldiers whose lives depend on your every decision, figuring out the most humane way to stop the madness isn't quite so simple.

[Ravy]

37. You are not sure which way you would land?

Nice to hear an Obama supporter admit that you may have to think about it a bit differently bit more when your vote is on the line. Not as easy as it is for me just sitting back and saying "You aren't worthy of my vote if you voted to fund the war" when there are no consequences, good or bad, to my words.

Leaving the sanctions going in Iraq was not a good solution either. Iraq was a bad situation, and had been for years. I wish the Clinton administration had tackled it more, but they didn't.

[Political Heretic]

48. None of which justifies authorization of war.

[Ravy]

68. Authorization is not the problem.

You are probably authorized to drive in your state. That doesn't mean that if you drive on a sidewalk and kill a bunch of pedestrians that the state wanted you to do that.

The president needs authorization of some acts to get things done. In this case, he needed authorization to make Saddam comply with the UN Resolutions.

Do you think Bush was being perfectly honest and letting his actual intentions known at the time? How do you explain a 10-0 vote in the UN *after* the resolution, and not even being able to get a majority security council vote as he proceeded towards war. Clearly world leaders, and members of Congress, who were in favor of the IWR at the inception were not in favor of the way Bush was wielding his authority with it.

Yet, in 2004, the American people voted to re-authorize Bush to wield the power of the presidency, with the help of all you people who bashed Kerry and Edwards over and over and over for their vote on the IWR.

[Political Heretic]

85. You're still wrong.

You don't authorize the use of military force until you're ready to use military force. There was no defensible case for war. Even at the time. I was able to read enough material and pay enough attention to know the case for war was false. Twenty three Senators, some of whom were on the intelligence committee knew enough to know the case for war was insufficient.

The fact that you sit there and compare the authorization to attack a sovereign nation that posed no threat to us and send innocent American boys and girls to their deaths to driving a car is absolutely offensive in the extreme.

The fact that somebody on Democratic Underground is picking up Bush's talking points and making his LYING argument for him all the the name of defending Hillary Clinton's vote just boggles my mind.

As William A. Cook pointed out, about the UN resolutions that were "so critical" to enforce:

"But Bush forgot to mention that almost all the resolutions are years old deflating the immediacy of their enforcement now; that other nations including the US and Israel have not complied with UN resolutions; that the business of enforcement is the responsibility of the UN membership, not the prerogative of a single nation, super power or not; and that opening the door to resolution enforcement requires equity of treatment against all nations that have defied the UN. Extending logic that far would negate the purpose of Bush's talk, to convince the uninitiated that war is necessary."

PS - I noticed you've quietly backed away from the "bush violated the terms of the resolution" horse shit since you've run into someone who's actually read the resolution.

[Ravy]

106. We had to be ready to use it. That is the point,.

Otherwise the UN that was getting rich on the Oil for Food program, and Saddam, who was ignoring all previous UN declarations and his cease fire agreement would have just ignored this as well.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

135. the intelligence on Iraq WMD was flawed

they knew it was flawed no one can dispute that. The evidence of faulty intelligence was there.

[Ravy]

142. It amazes me that even the people who claim that everyone

knew the intel was flawed were absolutely sure that Saddam had no WMDs, and that also believed that the sanctions that were killing the Iraqi children were a good thing.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

92. Maybe she's Morally Blind and didn't see this:

Hillary Authorized Blood Thirsty Bush to Launch a War

the entire reason Congress had war powers was to prevent madmen like Bush from
doing just what he did.

Hillary's judgement is awful. Or else she's just plain crooked.

[Ravy]

107. When was that picture taken?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

98. "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002"

Gee, who'd a knew that this meant "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002"???

Maybe Millions should have protested the war before HIllary voted for it.

Oh, thats right, THEY DID PROTEST, AROUND THE WORLD, NOT JUST IN DC AND US.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

134. Millions around the world protested against the war

[BornBlue]

73. I think you missed the point.

Political Heretic was not saying that once you are there now your opinions change because you are on record, he was saying that it was a moral choice Obama made to fund the war to give the troops the supplies they need to survive in Iraq. I support my troops but I am against the war, my nephew will be returning for his 4th tour overseas, 2 in Afghanistan and 2 in Iraq. I am thankful that Obama can see shades of gray, and knows that you can't punish the troops on the ground because you disagree with the reasons they are there. If they are going to be there, for the right or wrong reasons, they need armor and weapons and food and lots of other things that cost money, hence the reason Obama voted to fund the war. Remember, the bus is/was already in the ditch, it costs money to get it out.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

97. yes it will cost us to get the troops out

[MadHound]

27. Actually no, that's not the case

Messages going into Congressional offices were running 268:1 against voting for the IWR. The latest Gallup poll had sixty eight percent of the people wanting to wait before doing anything, including voting on the IWR, until after the inspectors got in and finished their job.

Sorry, but she did indeed take the politcally expedient route, and now the blood of innocents is on her hands.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

65. correct 68% wanted to wait but not the 'Daisy Cutter Queen'

yes people wanted to wait.

[Ravy]

78. Will you take NPR as a source?

http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/transcripts/2002/oct/021031.ydstie.html

You guys always confuse the invasion in March with the IWR vote the year before. I wonder if you do it on purpose. I know some are really glad you are confused on this issue.

This article talks about how many wanted to *INVADE* Iraq in October 2002, without sending the weapons inspectors back in and finding evidence first.

[Ravy]

69. The fucking inspectors were PUT IN IRAQ as a result of the UN vote as a result of the IWR.

Good God. Read a little.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

94. Lets see, WHY didn't Saddam Use the WMDs if there were any?

cause - there weren't.

And we knew it.

[Ravy]

105. You mean when we invaded?

Our guys were in chem gear. Obviously *they* didn't know it.

I don't think we should have invaded. I will not even attempt to defend the indefensible. But Hillary didn't think we should invade either, and said so consistently in her floor speech for the IWR, and in a letter to Colin Powell months later, and even in an AP interview right before the invasion.

[cali]

95. You fucking read a little Read Leahy's speech on the eve of the

war. The one where he called the vote unconstitutional, a blank check for war and compared it to the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. He knows just a bit more than the likes of you.

[MadHound]

113. No, the inspectors were put into Iraq as a result of a UN resolution

The IWR didn't have a damn thing to do with that UN resolution. Stop trying to revise history.

[Ravy]

114. Of course it did. It SPECIFIED that Bush go to the UN to get the

resolution.

In part:

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.

[MadHound]

128. Go reread your history and stop distorting

Iraq and Saddam were offering to let UN inspectors in before the IWR was passed. Again, the IWR was nothing but a way to get Congressional cover for Bush's war, and Hillary enabled it.

[Ravy]

141. Yeah, a few weeks before the impending passage of the IWR, Saddam

was trying to stop it.

You think that just out of the blue, he came up with that? No. Saddam responded only to threats. The IWR threatened him. Passage of it threatened him further. He not only allowed for unimpeded UN inspectors, he allowed U-2 overflights, and was seeking asylum.

Bush fucked this up, and you saying that it was the fault of Congress, and particularly Hillary Clinton is disgusting and dishonest.

I know I am not going to change any minds on DU, but I will point out that this type of distortion (that Hillary wanted war, that Saddam was coming around on his own) is what demoralizes Democrats, as it did in 2004 with Kerry-Edwards. I blame the distorters in large part for having this last 4 years of Bush. Now these same people are still defending him by saying that congress wanted him to invade in the first place.

[MadHound]

150. So there it is

No need for the IWR, which basically gave Bushboy the Congressional cover he needed. Saddam was willing to let the inspectors in without having to pass the IWR. And guess the fuck what, sixty eight percent of the American people wanted nothing done, no IWR , no invasion, nothing done until those inspectors finished their job.

You also keep mis characterizing what I and others are saying. We are not putting the blame solely on Hillary and the other Dems who voted for the IWR. We are fully aware that this is Bush's war. However we are also moral and ethical enough to hold accountable those who enabled Bush's war by providing him cover with the passage of the IWR. If Bush had no IWR, it would have been a hell of a lot harder for him to go to war, get it.

You are mis characterizing those of us who will hold Hillary and others of her ilk responsible. Not surprising, since you yourself have expressed your favor with the IWR:puke: Just gotta cover your fellow warmonger's ass, don't you.

[Ravy]

153. Oh, yes, there was need for the IWR.

Having Saddam allow weapons inspectors back on his terms would be to allow them in the same state as they were when we pulled them out to bomb in 1998. They could go where Saddam allowed them to go. They would have to give their agendas in advance.

To top it off, the UN did not even act on his request. Many of them were getting rich, so why should they.

I know that looking in hindsight Bush shouldn't have been allowed any opportunity to go to war. As far as I am concerned, he shouldn't have had any opportunity to be president at all. But *at the time* he was giving assurances all around that he was going to allow diplomacy to work. That is why he got unanimous support in the security council, then couldn't even muster a majority of them by the time he wanted to invade. It was *OBVIOUS* to everyone awake that he did not, and had no intention of letting diplomacy work.

That is why people say "Millions marched against it in Feb 2003 yet Hillary still voted for the IWR". There is an element out there that wants you to believe that. This same element worked to defeat Kerry/Edwards in 2004, and may work this time if Hillary is the nominee. At the time of the IWR vote, 62 percent of Americans wanted to invade Iraq WITHOUT even the weapons inspectors being put in (according to the NPR article I linked in this thread).

People who believe that Hillary voted for, and promoted a pre-emptive war are every bit as mistaken as those that believe Saddam was responsible for 9/11. Both groups were being misled by different people for their own personal gain.

[MadHound]

161. Again, stop with the revisionist history,

You're simply making yourself look stupid and dishonest.

The inspections were indeed not limited, the were indeed scheduled to go in, all before the IWR was passed. Why in the hell do you think that sixty eight percent of the people didn't want a damn thing done, including voting on the IWR, until after the inspectors came out? D'uh!

And quite frankly your hindsight argument simply doesn't work, in fact it makes you look even more foolish. Congratulations, you were fooled by our dumbest president:crazy: It was obvious to everyone with half a brain that the IWR was nothing more than a blank check for Bush to go to war. If you didn't see that, at the time, then perhaps you need to either stop being so gullible or get a bigger brain.

As far as your poll goes, well a CBS poll at the time showed 62% of the American people wanted a diplomatic solution, and a Gallup poll showed that 68 percent of the people didn't want anything done, including voting on the IWR, until the inspectors were finished. Yes, I would love to provide you with a link, but being as these are paper sources that I have, you'll have to scour the respective websites on your own. Oh, and for your information, that NPR poll was taken shortly after they had a high level RW takeover in their management, so it's no wonder it's skewed, badly.

And yes, millions of people, across this country, and across the world, marched against the war. I was one, were you? Oh, yeah, that's right, you actually were in favor of the IWR:eyes: Whether you choose to believe this or no is up to you, but it is a fact none the less. And if you go check Congressional records, you'll find that messages to all members of Congress were running aprox. 268;1 against the IWR. And yes, despite how you try and spin it, Hillary did vote for an illegal, immoral war. And as you've said yourself, she continues to support it via funding, furthermore she has rattled the saber at Iran(Kyle/Lieberman) and has repeatedly stated that she will keep combat troops in Iraq, going on combat missions, for an indefinite time, perhaps all of her first term. Sure sounds like a warmonger to me.

[Ravy]

166. Post a contemporary poll showing that, please.

Because I posted a contemporary NPR article that said 62 percent were for the invasion of Iraq before weapons inspectors even went in.

Until that time, there is not much use in continuing any argument. I post a link, you post undated and unsubstantiated claims.

[MadHound]

184. Just like Hillary, you're too lazy to do your own research

Hell, I even gave you places to go and still you want it spoon fed to you. OK, here you go:

"Americans are willing to wait for that approval: a majority wants Congress to wait until the U.N. has acted before voting on a resolution authorizing military action against Iraq, even if that would take longer than the few weeks in which the administration wants action."
<http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/24/opinion/polls/main523130.shtml>

"They're clear, though, where they want to go now, which is down this path with the U.N.,"
<http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec02/iraqpolls_10-07-02.html>

There's more out there if you will look.

Again, the majority of American people wanted to let the inspectors do their job before doing anything, including the IWR.

[Ravy]

191. Would have all been good if there had been inspectors there...

but it took the act of Congress to get that going.

[MadHound]

200. No it didn't,

Saddam had already stated that he would allow inspectors in, with free reign, three weeks before the IWR. There was no need for the IWR, the public didn't want Congress to pass the IWR until the inspectors finished, all the IWR did was enable Bushco's illegal, immoral war.

Oh, and for your information, over 85% of the people now think that the IWR was a mistake, yet here you are still supporting it. You've been proven wrong on the issue, your position is a mistake, yet you still persist in supporting the IWR. I wonder why. Oh, yeah, that's right:think:

[Ravy]

209. If that is what you think, then WHY weren't the inspectors there?

You want people to think that Saddam said they could come in, and the IWR was unnecessary. You want people to think Saddam's offer had nothing to do with the impending IWR.

What I want to know, if what you say is the case, then WHY didn't they send the inspectors back in?

The UN didn't act. Congress did. THEN the UN reacted.

[Milo_Bloom]

149. We still telling this lie?

Iraq agreed to the return of the inspectors on 9/16/2002, 3 weeks BEFORE the IWR.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/16/iraq.un.letter/


The IWR actually kept inspectors OUT for several more weeks, since it was a declaration of war on its face.

[Ravy]

154. What a coincidence.

"The timing of Iraq's letter coincides with a major push by the Bush administration to draft a new, tougher U.N. resolution ordering weapons inspectors back into Iraq on a tight deadline -- and threatening the use of military force if Saddam does not comply.'

[Milo_Bloom]

167. As long as you don't keep repeating the lie...

That the IWR had ANYTHING to do with inspections and instead tell the truth... that it was a WAR RESOLUTION on its face... you can make whatever connection you wish.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

63. that's a get out - no she didn't vote with the will of the people

she voted because she didn't have a spine to stand up against Bush

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MethuenProgressive]

18. As I said, "GWB violated it to start his war"

Why are you Obama followers so full of hate and fear?

[Political Heretic]

33. That's simply false. What was the name of the resolution again?

I've read the bill. Have you? Or have you just read commentary about it?

[MethuenProgressive]

39. You do know, don't you, that there were a whole buncha words after the title?

The resolution outlining the conditions under which and by which force could be used was called, naturally, Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.
Anyone familiar with it knows Bush violated the conditions set forth in the resolution.
A few cheap hacks, trying for cheap political 'points' on the Internet, use Bush's crime to slander those who wrote and voted for the resolution he violated.

[Political Heretic]

44. God you are like.....always wrong.

The resolution "encouraged" diplomatic efforts. It required NONE. It gave the president to the power to determine when diplomatic efforts were not effective. It gave immediate authorization to the president for the full use of force has he saw fit "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" without any need for further consultation with congress.

Bush violated a grand total of ZERO condition of the resolution.

I ask you again, have you ever read the resolution?

[Political Heretic]

50. Further more, what you are saying would only be true with the Spratt Amendment

The Spratt Amendment
Required U.N. Security Council authorization for any use of force against Iraq. In the event that the Security Council would not authorize use of force, the President would be required to come back to Congress for a second vote before acting unilaterally. Sponsored by Rep. John Spratt (D-SC).


It was DEFEATED Defeated 155 - 270 and NOT part of the authorization.

[MethuenProgressive]

51. There *weren't* words after the title??? This is HUGH!!1!!!1

Lord, how desperate you Haters are to Hate.

[Political Heretic]

77. There were no words after that title that voided the authorization of force

And you're calling me a hater for just telling the truth. :(

I haven't named called anyone or done anything. I'm a reasonable poster. Everything I've posted in this thread has been FACTUALLY ACCURATE.

All you do in return is name call.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

96. Bush violated Hillary's permission for him to launch war?

makes no sense. Hillary voted to let him start a war if he wanted to.

And he did.

Not like she didn't know thats exactly what he would do.

No way would she have shown moral leadership and even read the frigging National Intelligence Estimate.

Its all about money and power for her.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

99. and the focus is on HER because she could be president!

[Hepburn]

81. Soooooooo....

...Hillary voted AGAINST the IWR??? I think you are the one in the midst of a fairy tale. The facts are: She voted for it and has never admitted that it was a mistake nor has she then apologized.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

83. and the focus is on HER because she could be president!

we can't make the same mistake again

[cali]

87. Obviously you actually believe you know more than Robert Byrd

Pat Leahy and others who called it a blank check for war. You. Do.. NOt.

[MethuenProgressive]

115. Byrd never blamed Bush's war on Hillary.

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=233783
"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." -HRC

[MethuenProgressive]

117. dupe

.

[cali]

124. Byrd and Leahy condemned those voting yea on the AUMF

[Milo_Bloom]

148. bush violated nothing in the IWR

It is and always was a war resolution on its face with absolutely no pre-requisites.

[Ravy]

3. The IWR was a vote for war?

I thought it was a vote to end the sanctions and put weapons inspectors back into Iraq. GWB started the war.

I hate it when these Bush defenders want us to believe that their boy was just following the will of the Congress.

[blogslut]

6. I shall borrow a technique I learned from Richard Ben-Veniste

What was the name of the IWR?

[MethuenProgressive]

16. Let's go back, way back in time...

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

While the outcome of the vote was never in doubt, its passage followed several days of spirited debate in which a small but vocal group of lawmakers charged the resolution was too broad and premature.

The resolution requires Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed.

Bush also must certify that action against Iraq would not hinder efforts to pursue the al Qaeda terrorist network that attacked New York and Washington last year.

"If the American administration is interested in inspecting these sites, then they're welcome to come over and have a look for themselves," he said.

The White House immediately rejected the offer, saying the matter is up to the United Nations, not Iraq.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

[blogslut]

25. And what was the name of that resolution?

hmm?

[MethuenProgressive]

28. It wasn't "Yippee! War!" like you've been conditioned to believe.

If all you know is based on an assumption, you're an Obama supporter for sure.

[blogslut]

30. You just can't bring yourself to state the name of the resolution, can you?

Why is that?

[MethuenProgressive]

See post 39, and become informed.

[Hepburn]

86. For those who are saying that Hillary had no clue....

...let me post the exact title of the piece of legislation that Hillary wants all of us to believe would not lead to a war:

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002

Geeeeeee, that sure sounds like diplomacy and inspection to me....how could I have missed it in that title!

:sarcasm:

[Ravy]

109. How could you not read past the title.

Senators don't operate on Cliff's notes. We should not either. Read it.

[MadHound]

7. It's not that Bush was following the will of Congress,

It is the fact that those who voted for the IWR enabled Bush, gave him the political cover to prosecute his war. Yes, Bush started the war, but he would have had a lot more trouble doing so, especially since Congress is the only one who can declare war. Perhaps he would have gone ahead with the war anyway. But Congress didn't have to enable him, yet sadly, many of the Dems rolled over for George. So yes, they have blood on their hands too.

[Ravy]

14. Check Hillary (and Bill's) contemporary interviews at the time.

She was clearly *against* the invasion with the lack of evidence and world opionion.

Had Bush not invaded, the IWR was making progress in a tough part of the world (weapons inspectors back in, Saddam seeking asylum). Remember the French being vilified for just suggesting that we give the weapons inspectors more time (Freedom Fries). There was a pretty large contingent of countries and US politicians that were saying that the US should not invade at the time, and Hillary was among them.

[MadHound]

56. If she was "clearly against" the invasion, then she would have joined her fellow Congress members

And demonstrated her position by taking a political risk and voting against the IWR. Instead she took the politically expedient route, and now is trying to have it both ways. Besides, her claim to have been against the invasion is belied both by her saber rattling at Iran(Kyle/Lieberman) and her repeated statement that if she gets the office, she will keep combat troops, going on combat missions, perhaps throughout her entire first term.

[Ravy]

61. I am sorry, but I think the IWR was a good vote, and a good policy

fucked up by Bush.

The sanctions we put on the people of Iraq were killing hundreds of thousand (or millions). It was clearly *not* a good thing to keep going. With *any* possibility that Saddam was continuing a WMD program, we needed to go back in with weapons inspectors and check it out. He had kicked out weapons inspectos before, and after they were put back in, he denied them access to some facilities. But they had been out of there for four years.

Some of the powers-that-be in the UN were making considerable cash from the Oil for Food program, so the UN was not going to act. Our planes were getting targeted by Iraq as they were enforcing the no-fly zone.

The IWR led to the resolution (approved 10-0) to put weapons inspectors back in. They should have been allowed to complete their work, Saddam was not an obstruction this time, and in fact, he was seeking asylum if he could find another country to take him.

If the weapons inspectors had come back with a clean bill of health, the new Iraq government would have had the sanctions lifted and we would be applauding the brave votes of the people who voted for the IWR and made it all possible.

Bush and his cronies fucked it up, and I refuse to let them off the hook by saying that he was only doing what Congress wanted him to do.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

100. You supported this: Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002

then you are Pro War

[Ravy]

108. You must be Pro-ignorant to believe that.

The threat of force can be used to *prevent* war.

You must be pro-sanctions that were killing hunderds of thousands of Iraqi children. Nice stance, there.

[MadHound]

129. Ah yes, the last resort for the morally compromised and intellectually bankrupt

When all else fails, launch the personal attack.

As I said upthread, the sanctions were an abomination perpetrated throughout Clinton's term in office, and we should have lifted them.

As far as using the threat of force being used to prevent war, sorry, but that doesn't fly. You don't point a gun at somebody unless you are ready to fire it at them, and you don't put through a war resolution unless you're ready to unleash the dogs. Hillary knew full well that the IWR led straight to war, and since Iraq was already inviting the inspectors in before the IWR was passed, your argument just fell apart.

But hey, way to keep rationalizing an illegal, immoral war that your candidate backed.

[Ravy]

143. Ah.. like calling me Pro-War was not a personal attack.

I also said on somewhere here that Clinton should have eliminated them.

Yet I criticize Obama and Clinton for voting to fund the war, you defend one of them, and call *me* pro-war.

I don't back either candidate. But, hey, continue the distortions.

[MadHound]

151. I'm not defending anybody on this one

I'm simply calling Hillary to account for her actions, which is after all, the main topic of this thread. And given that you've stated up thread that you thought the IWR was a good idea(even though it was nothing but a call to war), I think pro-war is apt. Don't like the term, then don't back the legislation that let loose the dogs of war:shrug:

[MadHound]

125. You're right, the sanctions were an abomination

A shame that Bill continued them throughout his entire term in office. He should have gradually eased them off, as other countries were advising him to.

As far as the oil for food program goes, the ones who were making the majority of money off of it weren't UN officials, no, those would be private US citizens, who also went on and backed Bush's war of empire.

As far as the UN resolution to put inspectors back in, that was on the way through the UN before the IWR was voted on, and would have passed irregardless of the IWR. In fact, if the IWR hadn't been passed, it most likely would have led to even more positive results with the inspectors, and it's quite likely they would have stayed in. As it was, once Bush got his IWR, he was able to push the inspectors out.

As far our planes getting targeted, stop buying into that bullshit. Show me one, just one US plane that was shot down or shot at. Iraq simply didn't have the resources to do that, and all that we were doing was bombing innocents on a thrice weekly basis throughout the Clinton administration.

And nobody is letting Bushco off the hook, it was his war. However we're not letting people like Hillary off the hook either, because people like her enabled Bushco's war to proceed with at least a modicum of cover. If Hillary, as you supporters claim, was somehow tricked or duped into voting for the IWR, thinking that it would somehow prevent Bush from going to war, then quite frankly she's too stupid to hold the highest office in the land. Millions of ordinary people, around the country and around the world, knew full well that passing the IWR would green light Bush's invasion. If, on the other hand, she voted for the war out of political expediency and future political consideration(which I suspect is the true reason), then she lacks the morals and ethics to hold the highest office in the land.

As far as your own support of the IWR, well, quite frankly that says a lot about you, your own morals and ethics, and none of that is good:puke: Congratulations on backing an illegal, immoral war that has killed hundreds of thousands of innocents, drained this country's resources, and set back our country and our world. You should be ashamed.

[Ravy]

145. I didn't back the war.

I have never indicated that I did.

But I did agree with the threat of force provided by the IWR. I would have backed the war if the inspectors had found WMD and Saddam would not have let them destroy them.

I don't even support funding the war, so I will stack my anti-war stance up against yours, anytime.

[MadHound]

152. Sorry, but if you're backing the IWR,

Then you're essentially backing the legislation that let loose the dogs of war, ie warmongering:shrug:

As far as your anti-war stance, I think that by supporting the IWR you lost all credence in anti-war circles.

[Ravy]

156. Only the sheep. The real people that want you to think that

the IWR was a vote to go to war know the difference, they just don't want people to make that distinction for their own personal gain.

I don't buy into that.

[MadHound]

162. Yeah, right, whatever

It is some sort of grand conspiracy and what have you, able to fool millions of people around the country and around the world:eyes: Geez, if now you're having to reach for the conspiracy theories to back yourself up with, perhaps you should rethink your entire support of the IWR:shrug:

[Ravy]

174. No huge conspiracy theory. People have used it against Kerry, and Edwards,

and now Clinton to say that their support for the IWR was a vote for the invasion of Iraq. Lots of people have bought that line, despite the statements each of them made at the time and since. Obama does it often. Lots of people believe him, I don't. There are lots of others like me, although not many on DU.

So I unabashedly tell you exactly how I feel, what my thought process are. If you want to learn to persuade the people, like me, that don't agree with you then get your facts straight. Find evidence, and post links. That is what people like me respond to.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I will defend those three against claims that they are war-mongers.

[MadHound]

186. We're not discussing Kerry or Edwards

We're discussing Hillary Clinton, and her unabashed, unapologetic support for an illegal, immoral war. Not only that, but the fact that she is continuing her warmongering ways, what with her saber rattling at Iran(Kyle/Lieberman) and her repeated statements that she will keep combat troops, going on combat missions into the foreseeable future, perhaps through her entire term. Please stop trying to drag distractors into the conversation.

Frankly I don't give a damn about persuading you about anything. If, at this late date you still find the IWR to be a good move, then there's really no sense in trying to persuade you. Your mind is set in concrete and would take too much effort for me to change it. As the saying goes, don't try to teach a pig to dance, it only annoys the pig and makes you look foolish.

However I will unabashedly tell you that your support for the IWR, even at this late date, is flat out foolish and despicable. Look where the hell it got us, and please don't give me that "fooled by Bush" bullshit. Millions around the country and world weren't fooled. Any idiot could see that the IWR led straight to war, but like PT Barnum said, there's a fool born every minute.

[Ravy]

193. I didn't mean that I support the IWR now... knowing how Bush fucked it up

means I am sorry it turned out the way it did. I still think it was the right move at the time. Doing nothing would have just killed a bunch more Iraqis by sanctions with no hope of improvemnt. My way at least had a chance of working to end that. Even with the invasion, if it had been handled differently it would have still saved lives in the long run. But alas, with Bush, saving lives does not appear to be a criteria.

I won't let Bush off the hook by blaming Democrats for it.

[MadHound]

202. Umm, three weeks before the IWR, Saddam was willing to let inspectors in

We didn't have to continue sanctions, there was no logical reason to continue sanctions. Your way was the way of war, and yes, by supporting the IWR, you supported unleashing war. I'm sorry if that somehow offends you, but facts are facts. What, were you like Hillary, stupid enough to be fooled by Bush, or just morally bankrupt. I'm sorry, but no invasion would have saved lives, no matter how it was handled, fighting a war for peace is kinda like fucking for virginity, an oxymoron.

If you wanted to end the sanctions, then we didn't need a war to do so. All we had to do was let the inspectors in and then after their report, simply end them. But no, this was a war for oil and empire, and Bushco had to have his war, and guess what, you bought into it. No wonder you're defending Hillary, you made the same mistake she did. Well, I'm sorry that you were too stupid or too morally bankrupt to support the right thing, but frankly, continuing to defend these charges only digs that hole deeper.

Look pal, you made a mistake, just admit it and move on, stop tying yourself up in knots trying to simultaneously defend it and distance yourself from it. All you're doing is making yourself look foolish.

[MethuenProgressive]

11. Some people seem to want others to think so, Ravy.

I wonder why?

[Ravy]

15. In all fairness, the title *does* seem to suggest it. People who can read

further than the title know better, however.

[Political Heretic]

12. Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002

[Ravy]

17. The president is authorized to unleash nuclear weapons today.

Does that mean that the people who gave him that authorization want nuclear war?

Think beyond the title please.

[Political Heretic]

35. It means they they gave him the legal authorization to do what he feels is best.

So yes, they approve of that as one option. Otherwise you don't AUTHORIZE IT AS AN OPTION.

[Ravy]

41. It was the thought that withoiut the threat of force,

Saddam would simply ignore the resolution, as he was ignoring all the ones previously to it.

Putting "We really, really mean it this time" on the end of the resolution was probably not going to cut it.

[Political Heretic]

46. I don't care what was thought. It remains an AUTHORIZATION FOR WAR.

[Ravy]

80. Yes, I can see that you devalue thought...

but it is really a good thing. Try it!

[Mags]

19. and just how many times has BO voted to stop funding this war?

[zulchzulu]

26. So is Obama supposed to abandon the troops and veterans?

I'm sure now that the troops are stuck in a quagmire, they wouldn't mind not having any protection. The hell with the veterans that return home missing arms, legs, eyes or their mind.

Let's try to pass impassable legislation that actually helps prolong the war...

:crazy:

[Mags]

29. Well he has had his chances to start legislation, where has he been?

Oh, never mind he's running for President. Hasn't even had time to attend his committee meetings that he is in charge of.

[zulchzulu]

45. You mean you didn't know about this legislation?

http://obama.senate.gov/press/070130-obama_offers_pl_1/index.php

"Our troops have performed brilliantly in Iraq, but no amount of American soldiers can solve the political differences at the heart of somebody else's civil war," Obama said. "That's why I have introduced a plan to not only stop the escalation of this war, but begin a phased redeployment that can pressure the Iraqis to finally reach a political settlement and reduce the violence."

-Barack Obama

[Mags]

49. Acutally I didn't. What took him so long?

[MethuenProgressive]

132. see post 131

Vanity Bill to put on his resume.

[MethuenProgressive]

131. That was a Vanity bill introduced just after he announced for President.

The bill was never voted on, and was sent to Obama's own commitee, where he's sat on it ever since.

[zulchzulu]

20. Wipe the blood off your hands, Hillary

Think of all those innocent mothers and children you help get vaporized for political expedience.

Sure makes for great TV though....

:puke:

[MethuenProgressive]

24. Aren't you proud BO voted with her on every single Iraq War vote since he joined the Senate?

Good thing there's no 'present' button on his desk...

[zulchzulu]

54. Actually abandoning the troops and veterans is a good idea for you?

As for Obama's votes for the troops and veterans, he has done legislation:

"Our troops have performed brilliantly in Iraq, but no amount of American soldiers can solve the political differences at the heart of somebody else's civil war," Obama said. "That's why I have introduced a plan to not only stop the escalation of this war, but begin a phased redeployment that can pressure the Iraqis to finally reach a political settlement and reduce the violence."

-Barack Obama

http://obama.senate.gov/press/070130-obama_offers_pl_1/index.php

As for supporting the troops, here is what he said:

I am proud that I opposed this war from the start, because I thought that it would lead to the disastrous conditions that we've seen on the ground in Iraq. What I've also said is if we're going to send hundreds of thousands of our young men and women there, then they have the equipment that they need to make sure that they come home safely. I'm proud of the fact that I put forward a plan in January that mirrors what Congress ultimately adopted. And it says there's no military solution to this. We've got to have a political solution, begin a phased withdrawal, and make certain that we've got benchmarks in place so that the Iraqi people can make a determination about how they want to move forward.

-Barack Obama

Source: 2007 South Carolina Democratic primary debate, on MSNBC Apr 26, 2007
http://www.ontheissues.org/2007_Dem_primary_SC.htm

[MethuenProgressive]

57. Why are you quoting John W. McCain to attack Democrats?

[BigDDem]

34. If Hillary had voted "No" what would be different?

To use your logic - BO keeps paying for the bombs,
YOU HAVE BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS!!!!!!

[MadHound]

36. Then Hillary would have demonstrated that she has the moral and intellectual capability

To be the president. As it stands, she has neither.

[BigDDem]

40. But give a pass to the guy who said in 2004 he didnt know

how we would have voted, and give a pass to the guy who keeps paying
for the bombs.

Sounds about right.

[MadHound]

53. Sorry, but it's about accountability

Is Obama my first choice, no. Kucinich is, but alas, the only candidate who actually voted against the IWR is out of the race. That leaves me a choice between a warmonger who needs to be held accountable, or somebody who wasn't in the Senate at the time. Hmmm:think: I think I'll go with the guy who wasn't in the Senate at the time, since not only do I believe in holding politicians accountable for their actions, but Hillary has continued to demonstrate that she's a warmonger, first by rattling the Kyle/Lieberman saber at Iran, and by repeatedly stating that she would keep combat troops, going on combat missions, indefinitely, possibly throughout her entire first term.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

74. no we cannot trust her

[SeaLyons]

38. what a rediculous exaggeration...

This is NOT Clinton's war. It's Bush's war. Nobody buys what you are saying.

[MadHound]

47. Actually this war belongs to all who supported it, including those who voted for the IWR

This doesn't exclude the fact that yes, this is Bushboy's war, and he has most of the blood, and blame on his hands. But every single Congress member who voted for the IWR also share responsibility for enabling Bush's war, and therefore also have blood and blame on their hands.

At one time around here, about five years ago, DUers believed in holding all of those who enabled this war accountable. Sadly, many Hillary supporters have conveniently forgotten that promise, and are now trying to downplay Hillary's role in enabling this war. Sad, really, really sad. Especially in light of the fact that Hillary has gone on to rattle the saber at Iran with Kyle Lieberman, and has repeatedly stated that she would be keeping combat troops, going on combat missions, in Iraq indefinitely, quite possibly through the end of her first term. Sounds like the words of a warmonger to me.

[SeaLyons]

60. There is not much more than a sliver

in difference between Obama and Clinton on foreign policy when it comes to the war. Just because he was not in Congress for the vote, does not make him some anti-war hero. He has voted exactly the same way Hillary has since coming to Congress. The old "bus in the ditch" cliche doesn't get it. It's Bush's war, and everyone on this board (Democratic Underground) should agree on this.

[MadHound]

130. Nice try, but that doesn't absolve Hillary of her part in enabling this war to proceed

Nobody here on either side of the fence denies that this is Bush's war. However what those of us who oppose Hillary are saying is that she helped to enable that war with her vote on the IWR and she should be held accountable for her actions, just as we hold Bush accountable for his.

No, not being in Congress for the IWR vote doesn't make Obama an anti-war hero. However he is a better alternative in that regards than Hillary who not only voted for the IWR, but then went and rattled the saber at Iran(Kyle/Lieberman) and has repeatedly stated that she'll keep combat troops, going on combat missions, in Iraq, perhaps throughout her entire first term. Stacked up against that, Obama looks like a much better choice in regards to the war and foreign policy.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

71. Yes Hillary supporters are trying to play down her role

I think she will carry on Bush's global war strategy if she becomes president. We don't need to go down that road.

[calico1]

42. Poor, poor George W. Bush. To think

that all these years so many people have blamed him and his staff. So not fair.

:sarcasm:

[SammyWinstonJack]

76. ...

:spray: :evilgrin:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

43. Oh The Melodrama.

How silly...

[MadHound]

58. Way to trivialize a million dead,

Our country's resources tapped, our standing in the world ruined, all due to the fact that many, many Congress members, Hillary among them, didn't have the courage to stand up and do the right thing.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

59. Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah. Oh The Melodrama.

You and others trivialize it by trying to rewrite accurate history and context with your closed minded hatred. So go preach to someone else, ok?

So silly.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

66. Clinton made the wrong judgement

Clinton screwed up and she knows it. No matter how her supporters spin it won't go away.

[MadHound]

133. Rather than responding with facts and such, you respond with the insults and adhominems

That tells me that your position is intellectually void and morally bankrupt.

Go reread your history, since you and your fellow Hillary supporters are trying to re-write it in order to absolve Hillary of any wrong doing.

Geez, and I remember a time around here when holding politicians accountable for their actions was considered a good thing. No more eh, at least not when it comes to "your girl".

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

140. I Did Respond With Facts.

The fact is, that your melodrama is nothing short of absolutely ridiculous. It cracks me up!

Such exaggerated malarkey. But keep it up ok? Don't wanna stop ya from your drama or nothin!

:crazy:

[MadHound]

144. No, you have responded with insults and opinions

"Blah, blah, blah" "Melodrama", and "malarkey" are all judgment calls, opinions, not facts. Geez, have you gone so far around the bend that you know longer know the difference between fact and opinion?

[democrattotheend]

52. That is ridiculous

I wish fellow Obama supporters would stop blaming Clinton for the Iraq War. Her vote was a big mistake and is absolutely fair grounds for judging her as a presidential candidate. But the resolution would have passed with or without her support, and I am tired of people acting like she is single-handedly responsible for every casualty in Iraq. Thousands would have been killed and maimed whether or not she had voted for it.

[BigDDem]

55. Wow, I'm impressed

thank you

[Rosa Luxemburg]

67. but she acts as though she had nothing to do with it and she is running for President

that is the problem

[democrattotheend]

70. Fair enough, but to say it is "her war" is dishonest

And it politicizes tragedy, which in my view is never acceptable.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

72. she has to bear responsibility for her former actions if she is to be President

Politics caused the tragedy. She barely admits that she was wrong, but I have a feeling it was her intent and will be intent to carry on the Bush agenda. People have to realize this now before it is too late.

That's why it is her war.

[Political Heretic]

91. I don't "blame her" for the war. But she is accountable for her vote.

I don't blame her as in its her fault and hers alone. You're right the IWR would have passed without her vote. I get that. But in a candidate for president, I'm looking for a candidate with better judgment when it really counts.

[democrattotheend]

93. I agree 100%

I just think calling it "her war" is unfair

[Rosa Luxemburg]

102. it's her war because she brings her experience into the limelight

Many many times she says she has great experience. The war is part of her experience so it is her war. She can't have it both ways.

[greguganus]

64. She has no conscience. n/t

[Beacool]

75. Oh, yeah it's ALL Hillary's fault!!

My, you people have become tiresome with this mantra!!!! Want to blame someone? Place the blame at the feet of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. Stop this constant bashing of fellow Democrats.

Same old tired song.....

[Rosa Luxemburg]

79. the focus is on her only because she could be the president

she cannot be trusted as she is not willing to listen.

[Beacool]

110. She listened, she listened to her constituents.

She's the senator from NY and there was vast approval for the war in 2002.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

111. but they wanted to wait

[UALRBSofL]

82. Yes Kerry has blood on his hands after the 5th anniversary of Iraq

A person which the OP voted for in 2004.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

89. but he's not running for president now

Clinton is

[Texas Hill Country]

88. thank you. i like knowing who to ignore.

[SeaLyons]

101. 5th Anniversary of BUSH'S WAR

got that???? BUSH's WAR!!! How dare you call it Hillary's war.

[cali]

103. It is bush's war. Hillary is just an enabler of that war

there's no excuse for her voting for a blank check. how dare YOU defend that disgusting vote?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

104. the war is part of 'her experience' which she always claims

she claims N Ireland peace, Kosovo peace and forgets about her Iraq war vote. She can't have it both ways - it is her war as well as bush's.

[Bake]

112. Yeah, the whole damn thing is exclusively Hillary's fault!

Bush didn't have anything to do with it, of course.

It's not Hillary's War, dumbass, it's BUSH'S WAR. And Obama may not have voted for the resolution (oh wait, he was a state legislator then!), but he's sure as hell voted to continue funding of it, as has HRC. Sounds to me like there's not too much difference there. Shall we call it Obama's War?

Bake

[Rosa Luxemburg]

121. it is part of Hillary's "vast experience!!!!!"

it's so her war as well as Bush's war.

[skater314159]

165. They ALL have blood on their hands.

All of them - Hillary and everyone else who supported and went along with Bush.

If you are still supporting her, you should wash your hands before you talk too much.

[MethuenProgressive]

118. Hillary admits she voted for War! And Here's the Quote:

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=233783
"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." -HRC

Sorry haters, but you knew it was coming.
You're entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.

[Ravy]

123. These threads are really interesting in finding all the misconceptions

that people had. They are as misled just as much as those that think Saddam attacked us on 9/11, just being misled by other people with their own opposite agenda.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

119. and yours too kerry and edwards.

[stillcool]

120. Hillary Clinton on this 5th Anniversary...

claims no responsibility for the vote she cast that sent 3,990 soldiers to their death, and ruined the lives of tens of thousands of others. Senator Clinton on this 5th Anniversary of the war she shares responsibility for, is more concerned with claiming votes that are not hers to claim. Senator Clinton agreed to The Democratic National Party rules, but now has decided that the rules only apply to others, and not to her. The only thing that 'matters' to Senator Clinton is Senator Clinton.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

126. yes it's ironic she is in Michigan scraping for votes when she should be taking on Bush

typical!

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

122. she has $54 Million reasons that she sleeps well at night

on a very fluffly pillow.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

127. I didn't know that

[Stephanie]

136. The only thing she miscalculated was whether it would help or hurt her career.

At the time she was convinced opposing the war would hurt her chances in 2008. She was dead wrong, of course.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

137. That's a major problem with her

millions of people around the world then were protesting and saying wait. They knew it was wrong but her view was shallow only for herself interest. I guess she has no shame?

[Stephanie]

139. A million New Yorkers marched against the war on Feb 15 2003

But Hillary wouldn't listen to US, her constituents, who she was supposed to represent.

[Ravy]

146. Yes, only a FEW MONTHS after the IWR vote.

Really, check out the dates.

[Stephanie]

157. SO the FUCK what? Jesus fucking christ i am sick of you people.

HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR AGAINST THE WISHES OF HER CONSTITUENTS. SHE DID IT TO HELP HER FUCKING CAREER. SHE THOUGHT IT WOULD HELP HER IN THE GENERAL. SHE WAS WRONG. FUCKING BITE ME. I HOPE YOU READ THIS BEFORE IT GETS DELETED. SHAME ON YOU.

[Ravy]

158. Then post a link. I posted mine that shows you are clearly wrong.

And don't try that 3 months after the vote bullshit.

[Stephanie]

159. YOU FUCKING THINK WE WEREN'T BOMBARDING HER WITH PLEAS BEFORE THE FUCKING VOTE?

WERE YOU EVEN AT DU DURING THE VOTE? DO YOU HAVE ANY RECOLLECTION OF HOW OUTRAGED WE WERE AT WHAT SHE DID? OR DID YOU EVEN OPPOSE THE FUCKING WAR AT THE TIME? I DOUBT YOU DID.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4352365

[Ravy]

163. I absolutely opposed the war, but I did support the IWR,

which I view as a threat of force to make Saddam comply.

But as you and I know, DU is not the general population. Every poll I have been able to find says that the public supported the IWR or even direct invasion of Iraq, at the time of the IWR vote.

[theredpen]

169. That doesn't make a bit of sense

If you "absolutely oppose" something you don't put it on the table as a threat.

Secondly, the public was lied to (or didn't you hear about that?). I took the time to read different news sources and dig around past the Bush lies. Clinton was a fucking Senator with access to stuff we didn't have. If I could figure out that Bush was lying just by reading articles on the Internet, why couldn't a fucking Senator?!!!!

[Ravy]

171. I don't favor nuclear war, but I like that we have nukes as a

threat deterrent to prevent others from wiping us off of the face of the planet.

I like that responsible police carry guns. I like that the threat of force helped Libya decide to stop its nuclear weapon program.

You like JFK? Wasn't his threat of force responsible for the fact that we don't have nuclear silos a few miles off of our coast? Wasn't his work to diffuse that situation a bright point in his presidency?

Bush couldn't hold JFK's jock strap. What Bush did is the would be analogous of JFK getting the missiles out of Cuba, then nuking the Soviet Union for even trying to put them there.

[theredpen]

175. There's a difference between "don't favor" and "absolutely oppose"

It's perfectly reasonable to say you "didn't favor" war in Iraq but believed that the deterrent was necessary. It's not reasonable to claim that you "absolutely opposed it."

I'm sorry to mince words, but that's all I've got to go on here. :)

The bottom line is that we didn't need the deterrent. The weapons inspections were proceeding with very few incidents — saber rattling was utterly unnecessary and all the IWR did was give Bush the approval he needed for a war that lasted more than 90-120 days.

Your analogy is poor. There were missiles in Cuba. There was no threat from Iraq and they were not impeding the inspections.

Thank's Congress!

[Ravy]

177. Great point. but not impeding the inspections of who?

There were no weapons inspectors there when the IWR was passed.

But, your point is correct and well made, I didn't favor the use of force in Iraq at the time, but if the weapons inspectors (that were put in as a result of the threat of force) had found some, and Saddam would not have let them destroy them, or killed them, or something of that nature... I would have favored immediate invasion.

I absolutely opposed Bush invading without cause.

[theredpen]

178. Ooops... you're right about the inspections... I had my dates wrong.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

183. she was looking after her own self interest - 20008 presidential election

she thought it was all worked out.

[skater314159]

170. So?

Every poll I have been able to find says that the public supported the IWR or even direct invasion of Iraq, at the time of the IWR vote.

I can think of several historical populations that supported invasions... but that doesn't mean that they were correct in doing so.

You need to learn what the "appeal to popularity" logical fallacy is and then brush up on the concept that ethics aren't subject to popular vote.

You supported an unjust war.

[Ravy]

172. I didn't say that, in itself, was justification...

I was just correcting the posters that said that the public was against the IWR at the time.

And, I didn't support the war. I also didn't support the Iraq sanctions that Obama supported. They killed hundreds of thousands of children. I supported the threat of force to make Saddam comply with the UN resolutions and ceasefire agreement he was ignoring.

The war was illegal and unjust, as you noted.

[Catherina]

138. Craven opportunism n/t

[skater314159]

164. 3990 and counting.

Casualties in Iraq
The Human Cost of Occupation
Edited by Margaret Griffis :: Contact American Military Casualties in Iraq

Date Total In Combat

American Deaths:
Since war began (3/19/03): 3990 3263
Since "Mission Accomplished" (5/1/03) (the list) 3851 3155
Since Capture of Saddam (12/13/03): 3529 2957
Since Handover (6/29/04): 3131 2630
Since Election (1/31/05): 2553 2367
American Wounded: Official Estimated
Total Wounded: 29395 23000 - 100000
Latest Fatality Mar. 17, 2008
Page last updated 03/17/08 8:56 pm EDT
Iraqi Casualties
US Military Deaths by Month from Icasualties.org
Visit to Put a Casualty Counter on Your Website

[Rosa Luxemburg]

195. 100,000 Americans wounded in Iraq?

is that right?

[OzarkDem]

147. Its not a "fairy tale" about Clinton's record

its just blatant dishonesty and historical "revisionism".

Fairy tale is too kind a word.

BTW, what did calling Obama's record on Iraq a "fairy tale" have to do with racism? I'm still trying to figure that one out.

[suston96]

155. Clinton's vote was the deciding vote for the IWR? Really? What did she say before she voted?

"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. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed."

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

And I guess she was the only Democrat voting for that resolution.

[Stephanie]

185. Is that like a signing statement? She can say whatever she wants, but it's meaningless

It has absolutely no effect on the actual authorization, except to provide CYA quotes for later.

[theredpen]

160. Here's my card for Hillary

[PoliticalAmazon]

168. How many tours of duty did Chelsea serve?

Too bad the Clintons weren't willing to put their daughter where Hillary's neocon-vote for the Iraq War is.

It's okay for other people's children to get slaughtered in Iraq, but not Chelsea.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

181. these people are happy to send other people to war

the privileged few

[Catherine Vincent]

173. This thread ain't nothing but SHIT!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

179. factual truth

[KingFlorez]

176. It's Bush's war

His idea and he would have went into Iraq regardless of any vote.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

180. but she didn't have to support him

[jconner27]

182. Did I miss something

Was she the only Democrat that voted for the war?

[Stephanie]

187. Nope. But she did not have the courage to join the 23 who opposed it.

And that is good reason not to support her now.

[jconner27]

188. Neither did John Kerry

Funny he and his zombie like supporters used that against her but Mr.I voted for it before I was against is on your team.

[Stephanie]

189. Kerry admitted he was wrong.

As did Edwards.

[apocalypsehow]

190. Yep - agree 100%. K & R.

:thumbsup:

[goodgd_yall]

192. She didn't vote for war

Put your anger where it belongs---On George W. Bush and his cabal.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

194. we know about Bush but we are unclear about a possible future president's motives?

[Horse with no Name]

196. So you say that everyday we should be reminded

Well then by that token...y'all can shut the fuck up about it for the next 20 years because it is ALREADY said daily here 200-300 times.

[metalluk]

197. It is OUR war.

Significantly more than half of people in the U.S. supported Bush's decision to go to war. All too many congressmen and senators on both sides of the aisle went along.

Although I protested in every way that I knew how, in Washington, New York City, and in my home state of Rhode Island, wrote letters and posted essays, and participated in a panel discussion on my campus, I know in my heart that I and my fellow protesters were just not able to do enough to turn the tide of public opinion. I accept a part of the blame myself, as a citizen of a country that engaged in a wrong-minded war, just as all of you should accept that you either went along or didn't do enough to prevent the war from beginning.

The Iraq War is no more Hillary Clinton's war than it is yours and mine.

As citizens of this country, we all share the blame for either doing too much or doing too little.

The latter category also includes Barack Obama, who never took any concrete action in opposition to the war until after he decided to run for the presidency. His blame, however, is no more than yours or mine.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

198. no I don't agree, Democratic Party politicians should have spoken out against the war

The majority of Democrats were spineless. People like Hillary Clinton failed us. No it was never 'our' war

[metalluk]

199. What exactly did Obama do

in 2002 and 2003 to actively oppose the war? He was an Illinois state legislator and law professor at the time? Did he organize any rallies, sit-ins, speak out on the issue, organize a teach-in?

Did he truly believe that opposing the war was an obvious decision for Democratic legislators? "Asked by National Public Radio about the pro-war votes of the Democratic presidential and vice presidential nominees, Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and John Edwards, D-N.C., Obama said, "I don't consider that to have been an easy decision, and certainly, I wasn't in the position to actually cast a vote on it. I think that there is room for disagreement in that initial decision." Now, conveniently, he believes that there was no room for disagreement.

Obama's opposition consisted of a single speech given to a group of anti-war demonstrators while he was still a State Senator. Big deal. I did far more than he did, as an ordinary American citizen.

In that speech, he stated, "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," he said.

Where is his outrage for the immorality of the war, for the unprecedented step of America undertaking a unilateral and unprovoked war? The Iraq War was not wrong merely because it interfered with domestic priorities. It was wrong because it was unnecessary, strategically unsound, and caused hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths, in addition to the roughly 4000 American lives.

And this statement by Obama takes on new meaning in light of his current political campaign: "A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics."

He has based his entire campaign around exciting passion, rather than encouraging the public to exercise their reason. As a law school professor, he should know better. An educator's job is to teach the young to use their critical thinking skills instead of giving into fear and hysteria. Obamania is exactly the kind of blind follower-ship that invites new wrong choices, like that fateful decision to go to war in Iraq, in 2003.

The man gives himself way to much credit for far too little.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

203. I think you are missing the point

[metalluk]

208. What I see quite clearly is

that Obama's anti-war stance consisted of a rather tepid speech delivered in 2002 in which he had more to say about not opposing war in general than he had to say about opposing invasion of Iraq.

I see that Obama's speech clearly reveals that he did not understand, at the time, the most compelling arguments against initiating the war: that it was being done without consultation with allies, that it was strategically unsound, and that it was unprovoked.

After his election to the U.S. Senate, Obama took no anti-war initiative: no stirring speeches against the war, no bills introduced to end the war.

I understand from closely reading his most recent "Iraq Speech" (not the cost one, but the preceding one) that he anticipates expanding the war into the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan and increasing the troop commitment to Afghanistan.

I understand that one of his campaign aides told the British press that Obama would not necessarily keep his pledge to begin withdrawing troops within 4 months of taking office.

I understand that Obama characterizes the problems in the Middle East as "emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam," which is the kind of incendiary language befitting Bush and the neoconservatives -- the kind of language Obama may have learned from twenty years under the tutelage of Rev. Wright.

I understand that Obama has stated that the vote of Senator Kerry to authorize the war was a decision that could be legitimately argued either way, but that he now unequivocally faults Hillary Clinton for making the same decision as Senator Kerry.

You are missing the point. If Obama is elected to the presidency, many of those who will have supported him will not be actually getting what they thought they were voting for.

[tekisui]

201. She hinted at staying in Iraq for 50 YEARS!!!!!

Clinton told a group of young veterans in Lancaster, Pa., on Tuesday that one lesson of the war is to not commit troops “unless you are prepared to go all the way and are prepared to be successful.”

Questioned about her plans to begin withdrawing troops within 60 days after taking office, Clinton said U.S. forces already have fulfilled the mission they were assigned.

She said the Iraqi government has failed to create a stable political system despite the U.S. effort. “Does that mean we stay for 10 years, 30 years, 50 years? And if at the end of it the Iraqis still haven’t gotten their act together, we’re going to be facing the same tough questions.”

http://www.fayobserver.com/article?id=289124

[Rosa Luxemburg]

204. only slightly better than McCain's 100 years!

we have to start leaving NOW!

[workinclasszero]

205. Hillary as president will never leave Iraq

She is a dem neocon war hawk. Her actions speak louder than her bullshit words.

We have one chance to leave Bush and Clinton's Iraq war and his name is Obama.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

207. People should know this before they vote for her

I don't how comfortable she is in Republican-lite clothing. I guess war is not even lite?

[grantcart]

210. kick

[BringBigDogBack]

211. kickeroo