Why did Hillary back up the Iraq War Lies?

[redqueen]

Can anyone explain this?

This was in December of 2003...

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe that Iraq is more or less a terrorist threat to the United States now than it was nine months ago?

SEN. CLINTON: I don’t think we know that. I think that Saddam Hussein was certainly a potential threat. I mean, he had, after all, not only invaded his neighbors and gassed the Kurds and Iranians but had tried to kill former President Bush, was seeking weapons of mass destruction, whether or not it ever turns out he actually had them. He had not made any direct attacks on our homeland, but we don’t know what the future would have held. It is, however, fair to say that now we have a very unstable situation with not only the former regime loyalists but terrorists and foreign fighters coming in to try to use Iraq as a basing point against us.




Couldn't find the video, but the transcript should suffice.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3660558/

[blm]

1. Because Bill advised her and DC Dems with his privileged access just as he advised Blair.

It just could be that Bill exaggerated the danger from his point of view, too.

[redqueen]

3. So... why would Bill back up those lies?

Did Bill tell her to dodge the question? I think the answer was clear from before the war even started, how that aspect would change.

[blm]

71. I think we can only look to the extended relationship of the Bushes and Clintons that predates

the 1992 campaign when he seemed so fresh and new to most Dems around the country.

I would also guess that Gary Webb's 1996 investigation into Poppy Bush's CIA drugrunning was stonewalled and downplayed for a reason.

[redqueen]

73. Bleh... one reason I like Obama

is he's relatively unafraid to be straightforward. Dodging a question about whether terrorism was worse since the start of the war... that just makes me shake my head with utter disappointment.

[Apollo11]

2. Why did John Kerry? Why did John Edwards?

Maybe because they were mislead by Bush-Cheney-Rice-Powell-Blair? :eyes:

In fact, it would be fair to say that Senator Kerry played a leading role in encouraging his fellow Democrats to vote for the IWR. Back in October 2002, Kerry had served almost 18 years in the US Senate. Senator Clinton had served less than 2 years.

Here are a couple of complete paragraphs from an incredibly (and some might say, typically) long and rambling speech that Kerry made to the Senate on October 9, 2002 (one day before Senator Clinton made her speech on the same resolution):

"I believe the record of Saddam Hussein's ruthless, reckless breach of international values and standards of behavior which is at the core of the cease-fire agreement, with no reach, no stretch, is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force, if necessary. The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons." (...)

"When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein."

Link to full speech: www.c-span.org/vote2004/kerryspeech.asp

[redqueen]

5. Did they say these things too? In December of '03?

I can (sort of, I guess) accept the "Oops! Sorry! We trusted Bush." (fingerpointing) defense BEFORE the war started...

But nine months after? And what about the actual question that was raised? Did they also dodge it?

"Do you believe that Iraq is more or less a terrorist threat to the United States now than it was nine months ago?"

[karynnj]

38. Kerry didn't -

Edwards was still pro-war at least in Oct 2003 in a Hardball interview.

[redqueen]

39. Thanks...

at least you gave me a clue as to where to find such information.

:hi:

[Pawel K]

6. Because they are cowards. The fact so many democrats played along isn't an excuse

it has nothing to do with misleading, it has to do with being political cowards. They had the 7- page NIE tell them exactly what they needed to know, none of them actually read it. There is no excuse for that even if they have a (D) after their name. And in the case of the DNC it had nothing to do with political fear, they actually wanted this war.

Obama is the only person with no blood on his hands in regards to this original issue, simple as that.

[Apollo11]

7. In that case, maybe Obama should reject and denounce Kerry's support?

Either that or stop saying that Senator Clinton "voted for the War" and using that as a stick to beat her with.

[Pawel K]

11. Not talking about it won't change the fact that it happened

I respect Kerry, I respect Edwards, and I used to respect Hillary. But I know they did what they did for political reasons and nothing more. You can ignore that if you want just like you can ignore that half a million Iraqi children died during Clinton's administration, but then you are no better than your average freeper.

I will keep beating Hillary and any other democrat that voted for this idiotic war with this "stick" until the Iraqi people stand up and thank us for bringing them democracy (which as you know will never happen).

You on the other hand can pretend all you want if it helps you sleep at night, but in my opinon that kind of logic is part of the problem.

[speedoo]

13. Why are you equating the historical and current positions re, Iraq...

of Kerry and Hillary?

Aside from the actual IWR votes, there is a world of differenece.

[redqueen]

14. Is anyone saying that peple need to reject and denounce

anyone who said these things?

And again... DID THEY say these things, this long after the war had started, and after the failure to find WMDs had become impossible to ignore?

[blm]

18. Clinton STOOD by Bush's DECISION to go to war - Kerry didn't and stood against it

because weapon inspections were WORKING to prove force was not needed. Can you find Hillary or any other senator who voted for IWR who sided with Kerry AGAINST Bush's DECISION to go to war?

From Jan 2003 throughout the 2004 campaign Kerry said the decision to go to war was wrong BECAUSE weapon inspections PROVED force was not needed, and proved it BEFORE the invasion.

What senators were siding with Kerry on that?

Shouldn't those who voted for IWR be especially concerned that the decision be based on an honest determination of evidence after weapon inspections?

[Apollo11]

30. Are you sure about that?

"From Jan 2003 throughout the 2004 campaign Kerry said the decision to go to war was wrong BECAUSE weapon inspections PROVED force was not needed, and proved it BEFORE the invasion."


Prove it. Show me a link to where Kerry said that in 2003 or in 2004.

[redqueen]

34. You wouldn't back up your assertions with quotes.

I find it ironic that you demand from others what you, yourself choose not to provide.

[blm]

37. He said so the ENTIRE CAMPAIGN - wrong war at the wrong time REPEATEDLY.

That YOU can't even recall it is a huge failure as a DEMOCRATIC VOTER on YOUR PART so you must have been a pretty rotten Dem activist to not even know the Dem nominee's constant message on Iraq.

[Apollo11]

42. Well he did not say it was a mistake on his part to authorize the War

At least, not back in 2004.

So it's not surprising that some of us were confused about where he stood back in 2004, and now find it hard to remember exactly what he said about Iraq during the 2004 campaign.

[blm]

44. Here's an excerpt from a subscript. Chicago Trib article from January2003 -

Kerry urges Bush not to rush to war with Iraq.

From:
Chicago Tribune (Chicago, IL)
Date:
January 23, 2003
.

Byline: Jeff Zeleny

WASHINGTON _ Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, a Democratic presidential candidate, urged the Bush administration on Thursday to tread slowly and gain support from allies before launching a military strike on Iraq.

"Show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger and show the world some appropriate patience to building a genuine coalition," Kerry said. "Mr. President, do not rush to war."

As the White House sought to downplay dissent from European allies who are questioning the urgency of going to war, Kerry delivered a blistering critique of the Bush foreign policy.
>>>>>>



And the REASON it was made MORE DIFFICULT for Kerry in 2004 was BECAUSE other Senate Dems were mostly still siding with Bush and FEARED sticking their necks out on Iraq to further Kerry's position, even though they knew damn well Kerry was right.

Bush had NO SHORTAGES of defenders and promoters of his position, including the biggest name Dems like both Clintons and Lieberman and Biden at the time, and most of Bill's security team.

[redqueen]

49. Thank you.

It's nice to see that SOME PEOPLE back up their assertions. Ugh.

[karynnj]

70. No, that is true only of those who rather than listening to what he said

every day, stuck their fingers in their ears and said "Kerry voted for the IWR, Kerry voted for the IWR ....." to avoid hearing what he was saying.

Part of the problem was that there was a major effort - fair in politics - to make things black and white on Iraq. Somewhere around the middle of 2003, Kerry, who in many early 2003 articles was labeled anti-war - was suddenly labeled pro-war with Dean referred to as the "only anti-war candidate" (even though that also ignores Kuchinich). In reality, it was not so black/white in 2002 and early 2003.

Dean spoke of supporting Biden/Lugar - the SFRC bill that Kerry (a member of the SFRC) also preferred. There is no definitive Oct 2002 comment by Dean when the IWR was the bill voted on. From his comments then, it is not clear how he would have voted - and he didn't have to. Kerry's September 2002 NYT op-ed was at least as anti-war and was seen as such. The fact is that had Biden/Lugar been the bill - Bush would have likely had the same signing statement and still gone to war. It would have been more obvious that he overstepped the authorization.

Then in early 2003, both gave speeches saying that Bush should not invade. Kerry gave a speech on January 23. Dean gave a spectacular speech that was very anti-war at the DNC on February 24, 2003 against the war - Kerry did not attend that forum because he had cancer surgery on February 12. This is likely when Dean was first seen as the preeminent anti-war candidate.

[karynnj]

58. Here are some quotes

"They are really breaking a bond with the American people by proceeding so hell-bent-for-leather, we've-got-to-go, no matter what," he said, "rather than doing the proper kind of diplomatic background of education that gives them legitimacy." … Kerry argued that the Bush administration must try harder to build a consensus among world leaders before trying to topple the Iraqi regime. He said Bush also should bolster any case for war by telling Americans why the threat from Hussein is urgent. "I believe Saddam Hussein is a threat," the senator said. "I do not want to tolerate this man, unfettered, unrestricted, developing weapons of mass destruction. But I do not believe the threat is so imminent today that we have to rush to war."

While calling for the United Nations to intensify pressure on Iraq to disarm, Kerry urged Bush to give more time to the U.N. inspections process that the administration has increasingly condemned as inadequate. "The United States should never go to war because it wants to; the United States should go to war because we have to," Kerry said at Georgetown University. "And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action."

These were all from interviews that were from the day he gave his speech at Georgetown that ended with "Mr President, don't rush to war" Though it used to easy to get links to this speech - I can't find one - though I can find links to articles referencing it. It's strange as it was easy to get links to the full transcript back in 2006 when this came up all the time.) I guess many things older than 5 years are no longer there ?

Here is a William Rivers Pitt Dec 2003 article:
�This was the hardest vote I have ever had to cast in my entire career,� Kerry said. �I voted for the resolution to get the inspectors in there, period. Remember, for seven and a half years we were destroying weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In fact, we found more stuff there than we thought we would. After that came those four years when there was no intelligence available about what was happening over there. I believed we needed to get the weapons inspectors back in. I believed Bush needed this resolution in order to get the U.N. to put the inspectors back in there. The only way to get the inspectors back in was to present Bush with the ability to threaten force legitimately. That�s what I voted for.�

�The way Powell, Eagleberger, Scowcroft, and the others were talking at the time,� continued Kerry, �I felt confident that Bush would work with the international community. I took the President at his word. We were told that any course would lead through the United Nations, and that war would be an absolute last resort. Many people I am close with, both Democrats and Republicans, who are also close to Bush told me unequivocally that no decisions had been made about the course of action. Bush hadn�t yet been hijacked by Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney and that whole crew. Did I think Bush was going to charge unilaterally into war? No. Did I think he would make such an incredible mess of the situation? No. Am I angry about it? You�re God damned right I am. I chose to believe the President of the United States. That was a terrible mistake.�

History defends this explanation. The Bush administration brought Resolution 1441 to the United Nations in early November of 2002 regarding Iraq, less than a month after the Senate vote. The words �weapons inspectors� were prominent in the resolution, and were almost certainly the reason the resolution was approved unanimously by the Security Council. Hindsight reveals that Bush�s people likely believed the Hussein regime would reject the resolution because of those inspectors. When Iraq opened itself to the inspectors, accepting the terms of 1441 completely, the administration was caught flat-footed, and immediately began denigrating the inspectors while simultaneously piling combat troops up on the Iraq border. The promises made to Kerry and the Senate that the administration would work with the U.N., would give the inspectors time to complete their work, that war would be an action of last resort, were broken.

Kerry completed his answer by leaning in close to Alterman, eyes blazing, and said, �Eric, if you truly believe that if I had been President, we would be at war in Iraq right now, then you shouldn�t vote for me.�

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/121003A.shtml

[karynnj]

43. Kerry is not equivilent to HRC

1) He spoke against invading before it happened
2) He has said hundreds of time that the vote was wrong - going as far as saying the war was immoral.
3) He led on Kerry/Feingold - at a point where Obama was less focused in getting out than Kerry was. (Edwards was not for a deadline at that point either). HRC was one of the people who was behind the effort to vilify Kerry for that bill.

Not to mention the overriding reason, if a person had to live up to every thing you believe in to accept their endorsement - no one would have any endorsements. The fact is that both Obama and HRC strongly wanted Kerry's endorsement - because it meant something.

[Benhurst]

8. All of them have blood on their hands for continuing to fund the illegal and immoral occupation.

[Pawel K]

9. I never said they didn't. But Obama has no blood on his hands in regards to going in

in the first place.

That's the most important thing.

[Benhurst]

21. Nothing can be done about that now. We don't have to continue

the bloodshed, however. I had thought Obama would be different when he ran for the Senate; but his first vote, for war criminal Condoleezza Rice's confirmation as Secretary of State, pretty well dispelled that Hope.

[Pawel K]

23. Welcome to america, you have a douche and turd left

both almost the same but one is a bit better than the other.

You can cut off your nose to spite your face and not vote for either or you can hold your nose and vote for the better of the 2. Your choice.

In my personal opinion if Obama had the political courage and foresight to be against this war from the start I must vote for him over someone that continues to say, to this day, that her original vote wasn't a mistake, there is no excuse for that.

[Benhurst]

31. Neither of them score highly. Given the nature of his Illinois State Senate district,

it didn't take much, if any, courage to speak out against the war. He downplayed his opposition when running for the U.S. Senate, and has gone on to support the funding of the brutal and immoral occupation. We're down to two poor choices, neither of whom is that much better than the other. But both are better than McCain.

[Pawel K]

47. You can try to spin why he was against this war all you want

the fact remains, while a huge majority of this country wanted war people like Obama stood up against it while Hillary was voting for it. It turned out to be one the biggest foreign policy blunders this country has ever made. One cadidate was for it while the other was against it. If that's not a big difference in policy for you I don't know what is. Are they exactly the same on everything else? Well, those half million Iraqi children that died in the 90s during Clinton's administration because of our bombing of water treatment plants didn't die because of Obama, I do also know that.

So you can pretend there really is no difference if you want, the truth is that on this major issue there are plenty of differences.

[Benhurst]

56. I'd prefer to have some one who stands by his convictions. If the war and occupation

are wrong, then don't vote for the continued funding.

He took better stands before he got into the U.S. Senate; but admittedly such stands were not politically risky. One can only Hope he won't take even worse positions if he manages to get into the White House.

As he has said, he doesn't know how he would have voted on the war if he had been in the U.S. Senate at the time. If he doesn't know, I certainly don't and I doubt if you do either. And since getting into the U.S. Senate, he has voted to fund the brutal occupation.

Not good enough.

But the better candidates have already dropped out. We're left with has floated to the top.

[redqueen]

61. Are you supporting Hillary?

She's said the war was wrong, hasn't she? And also voted to continue to fund it?

:shrug:

[Benhurst]

62. No. I will have to hold my nose when I vote in November unless

the party comes to its senses and finds a compromise candidate. We have a virtual tie between the two biggest losers, and I fear we may actually lose in the general election, without the Republican having to steal it for the third time running.

[redqueen]

63. I see...

thanks.

And I hope as time goes on you find your fears to be unfounded... though truly there are so many dirty tricks they could try, that we shouldn't take anything for granted.

[Pawel K]

66. I would prefer that too

For the most part we are on the same page.

But you have 2 choices left in this primary. Would you agree with me that one is slightly better than the other or not? If anything you have to at least admit that politically obama is in a better place to beat McCain because of this issue, no?

[Benhurst]

72. No, I think they are both weak. Obama's statement that he wasn't sure how he would have voted if he

had been in the U.S. Senate and his subsequent votes to fund the occupation undermine his earlier position before entering the U.S. Senate.

Beyond that, I think they both have unique vulnerabilities which will be brought in play by Rove and Company. And if the election is close, our corporate media is poised and ready to intone after our third stolen election that "when it came time to select the next president of the United States in the voting booth, America wasn't ready for an African American" or "wasn't ready for a woman," as the case may be.

And just why hasn't our leadership, including Clinton and Obama, done a damn thing to address the last two stolen elections?

[Pawel K]

74. i'll have to respectfully disagree

Obama will in no way fix the problems that need to be fixed, I totally agree with you. But the fact he was marching against this war originally and the simple fact he has distanced himself from the DLC is enough for me to know that he is better than Hillary. We need to start somewhere, and getting rid off DLC whores is a good, but slow, start.

[Benhurst]

76. Did you see the DLC's Harold Ford, jr. on Charlie Rose a week or so ago?

He couldn't have been more pleased with both Clinton and Obama. I hope you are right if Obama gets it; but I fear we are screwed either way.

And I would put the chance of the election being stolen at better than 50% if McCain appears to be in trouble. We've controlled the House and Senate for two years and not a damn thing was done to prevent the third presidential election from being stolen.

[redqueen]

77. I don't trust the DLC *at all*... they have been trying to claim Obama as one of their own...

he had to force them to remove his name from their "one of us" list... I wouldn't put it past those slimy creatures to lie about Obama in order to create confusion and distrust...

But even with all that aside... she's the poster girl for the DLC... he's disavowed them publicly more than a few times. That's good enough for me.

[SammyWinstonJack]

75. Which is EXACTLY what the coprat media will say.

That American wasn't ready for an African American or wasn't ready for a woman. No wonder they picked our two front runners for us. Perfect set up.

[blm]

12. The last Dem president was concerned based on HIS privileged access and advised DC Dems

and BTW - You FAILED TO NOTICE that Kerry stood AGAINST THE DECISION to go to war once the weapon inspections were proving force was not needed. EXACTLY as he PROMISED to do in his IWR speech.

He stood against using force because the proof came in that it wasn't necessary - and he did so BEFORE, during and after the invasion.

Where were the other IWR voters then who based their IWR vote on weapon inspections? Did THEY stand with Kerry and against Bush's decision to go to war?

[Pawel K]

15. I didn't know that about Kerry for some reason

it still doesn't excuse the fact he originally voted for the IWR but it certainly helps put it in context. Thanks.

:toast:

[karynnj]

59. Here's a 2003 William Pitt article that addresses Kerry's comments in 2003

"�This was the hardest vote I have ever had to cast in my entire career,� Kerry said. �I voted for the resolution to get the inspectors in there, period. Remember, for seven and a half years we were destroying weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In fact, we found more stuff there than we thought we would. After that came those four years when there was no intelligence available about what was happening over there. I believed we needed to get the weapons inspectors back in. I believed Bush needed this resolution in order to get the U.N. to put the inspectors back in there. The only way to get the inspectors back in was to present Bush with the ability to threaten force legitimately. That�s what I voted for.�

�The way Powell, Eagleberger, Scowcroft, and the others were talking at the time,� continued Kerry, �I felt confident that Bush would work with the international community. I took the President at his word. We were told that any course would lead through the United Nations, and that war would be an absolute last resort. Many people I am close with, both Democrats and Republicans, who are also close to Bush told me unequivocally that no decisions had been made about the course of action. Bush hadn�t yet been hijacked by Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney and that whole crew. Did I think Bush was going to charge unilaterally into war? No. Did I think he would make such an incredible mess of the situation? No. Am I angry about it? You�re God damned right I am. I chose to believe the President of the United States. That was a terrible mistake.�

History defends this explanation. The Bush administration brought Resolution 1441 to the United Nations in early November of 2002 regarding Iraq, less than a month after the Senate vote. The words �weapons inspectors� were prominent in the resolution, and were almost certainly the reason the resolution was approved unanimously by the Security Council. Hindsight reveals that Bush�s people likely believed the Hussein regime would reject the resolution because of those inspectors. When Iraq opened itself to the inspectors, accepting the terms of 1441 completely, the administration was caught flat-footed, and immediately began denigrating the inspectors while simultaneously piling combat troops up on the Iraq border. The promises made to Kerry and the Senate that the administration would work with the U.N., would give the inspectors time to complete their work, that war would be an action of last resort, were broken.

Kerry completed his answer by leaning in close to Alterman, eyes blazing, and said, �Eric, if you truly believe that if I had been President, we would be at war in Iraq right now, then you shouldn�t vote for me.� "


http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/121003A.shtml

[Apollo11]

33. Kerry endorsed the decision to invade Iraq and supported the war

He did not change his position until sometime in 2005, as far as I know.

Unless you can show me a link that proves otherwise?

[blm]

45. I posted above - and it is a pretty sad day that a Dem would NEVER LISTEN to the candidate

and the nominee. All you had to do was LISTEN. All you had to do was a READ a transcript.

[karynnj]

67. No he didn't - where were you in 2004

when he said "wrong war ..." at least a million times (Links: "wrong war..." http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/090804Z.shtml ) and that "Bush misled the country to war, without exhausting the diplomacy, without letting the inspectors complete their work ....." and that "it was not a war of last resort". Maybe you were didn't get it, but I actually know Bush voters mad till this day that Kerry questioned whether a war we were fighting was not only the right thing to do, but whether it was a just war (when a war is not a war of last resort it is not just).

Kerry said on January 2003, "Don't rush to war" at Georgetown University. This is January 23 2003 - "the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people…We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult…I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.’ http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=248761 That link makes the case that Bush mislead us to war.

Kerry spoke of needing regime change at home in the wake of the invasion when the war had the approval of 70% of the country.


Here is a link to Kerry speaking in Dec 2003 - http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/121003A.shtml - where he says he wouldn't have gone to war.

The only thing that changed in 2005 - was that he was willing then to state that not only was the war wrong - a position he had before the war started, but that voting for the IWR was wrong. Kerry - unlike much of DU - did not conflate the too and before that he defended his reasons for voting as he did.


How many times do you need to be get links to these things.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

16. Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, McCain, -they ALL had to know about PNAC...

...and the neo-cons' plan for world domination through aggression. NO one talks about PNAC or the Bilderberg Group. I wish Obama would say something. What scares me most is that maybe we have some democrats cashing in on destroying our nation.

Our country is slipping between our fingers, we're losing it.

[karynnj]

36. Kerry's speech was not rambling and you cherry picked it in a way that Bush would be proud of

Every IWR speech I looked at - including Feingold's had a few paragraphs that made it clear that they thought Saddam was a threat. That is what your first excerpt was. He later says there is no imminent threat yet. No inspectors had been in Iraq for 4 years since Clinton bombed Baghdad. You also leave out everything Kerry says of how critics had held Bush back - making him go to the UN and Congress. More importantly, you ignore where he states what Bush publicly stated as the process he would follow and this:

"Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

If we do wind up going to war with Iraq , it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize ``imminent''--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs. "

You ignore that Kerry kept this promise, he did speak out - most notably at Georgetown University on January 23, 2003. He also spoke out in various other speeches and in interviews. Despite Bill Clinton's rewrite of history, he did not speak out in those months in early 2003, nor did HRC. Kerry was routinely labeled anti-war in fall 2002 and early 2003 - in spite of his vote. He has also said the vote was wrong and the war immoral - you can't go much further than that. Additionally, the war and that vote played a part in his not running this year - he instead worked as hard as anyone to get the Democrats behind what in July 2006 was a minority positions that ony 13 Democrats voted for - Kerry/Feingold.

[redqueen]

50. Thank you.

Again! :)

[WinkyDink]

4. Well, let's bomb everyone! "...we don’t know what the future would" hold!

[redqueen]

10. In the same interview, she also said...

“Whether you agreed or not that we should be in Iraq, you know, failure is not an option.”

*sigh*

[speedoo]

17. Right ,Hillary. Failure was not an option in Vietnam either.

Hillary, far all her alleged intelligence has failed to learn from history.

[Justitia]

19. She wanted her "tough girl bona fides", she was politically afraid of being labeled "unpatriotic"

and frankly, some people just really have no problem starting and being involved in perpetual wars - they see it as inevitable.

All these things led to the unmitigated disaster that is the quagmire of Iraq.

[redqueen]

20. I think that's the popular take...

that she did all this for purely political reasons.

[Justitia]

22. Of course. If she actually believed the trumped up BS from the administration she's intellectually

inferior.

If she suppressed her skepticism, then she's ideologically aligned with the concept of pre-emptive war (war monger).

I'm going w/the last & most obvious conclusion - it was politically expedient, although I do believe it is paired with her pre-disposition for tolerance of armed conflict (i.e., she really doesn't mind war so much).

She STILL has not disavowed the use of torture and she endorsed Kyl-Lieberman, saber-rattling for war w/Iran. These are disturbing confluences.

[redqueen]

24. She still hasn't disavowed the use of torture?

That CAN'T be true!

:wtf:

[Pawel K]

25. I agree, even as an Obama supporter I would like to see a source for that.

[Justitia]

28. Didn't you watch the debates? They went around and around this. -eom

[redqueen]

29. It's not true. Here she is speaking against it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iGEyh8n0Jo

[Justitia]

41. Here's her interview where she references the "ticking time bomb" scenario bullshit

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2006/10/16/2006-10-16_mccain_team_mocks_hil_torture_loophole.html

That clip you linked to is older than this interview and before she was running for president.

[Justitia]

26. No, she certainly has not. She dances all around Bush's use of torture and refuses to disavow it.

You cannot nail Hillary Clinton down on torture.

She dissembles, saying things like "Well, we don't know what the Bush administration is doing, so I can't say I wouldn't do those things because I don't know what they are"

Can you believe that bullshit?

How about: I am against the use of torture - simple, huh?

[redqueen]

32. It looks like she reversed earlier statements...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/6050.html

Clinton backs off support for torture

By: Ben Smith
Sep 27, 2007 01:05 AM EST



http://patterico.com/2007/09/27/hillary-clinton-on-torture-iran-and-baseball/

Hillary Clinton on Torture, Iran, and Baseball
Filed under: Politics — DRJ @ 10:01 am


Hillary Clinton’s statement against torture is a big story from last night’s Democratic debate, especially since it conflicts with a statement by her husband, former President Bill Clinton, and her earlier statement on the use of torture in exigent circumstances:

[Justitia]

46. I find her default position most troubling & it took her being under the gun to force this out.

It reminds me of how many contortions she has gone through is not denouncing her Iraq war vote.

Her supporters will have to decide if these positions and careful avoidances are tenable to them, if they can embrace them.

The quivering on these issues is something I can't accept.

[redqueen]

48. Yeah... I can't help but agree... that's just NOT a subject you vacillate on.

I mean... it's frickin TORTURE.

:wtf:

[Justitia]

51. And another interview, just in October, it shows her ducking the question explicitly

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/09/AR2007100902284.html

see paragraph seven:

Clinton was similarly vague about how she would handle special interrogation methods used by the CIA. She said that while she does not condone torture, so much has been kept secret that she would not know unlesselected what other extreme measures interrogators are using, and therefore could not say whether she would change or continue existing policies.

"It is not clear yet exactly what this administration is or isn't doing. We're getting all kinds of mixed messages," Clinton said. "I don't think we'll know the truth until we have a new president. I think you can get in there and actually bore into what's been going on, you're not going to know."

That was exactly what I was talking about and I watched her say this live, in one of the debates also.

[redqueen]

52. Wow... pretending that we don't know. That's indefensible IMO.

:puke:


Thanks... x(

[SOS]

82. Outsourced torture was approved by Bill Clinton

She's in a tough spot here.

"CIA renditions began under Clinton"

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200512/s1539284.htm

[redqueen]

83. I've seen that claim before...

I'll read the piece you linked tomorrow... but I wanted to say tonight that I've seen that claim defended by saying that when he did it it was different. Thanks for the link...

[Justitia]

53. Note my post further down, 12 days later she flips back - Oct 10th. -eom

[redqueen]

54. *sigh* Yeah...

Ugh...

I can get over her nasty campaign tactics easily... but this kind of stuff... just ugh.

[Justitia]

55. I'm with you - it really, really disturbs me, just like the Iraq vote and Kyl-Lieberman. -eom

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. Flag waving is always popular for political candidates. Too bad about the slaughter.

She is much better at reading polls than she is casualty lists.

[redqueen]

35. Actually this flag waving helped doom her campaign, IMO.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

40. "Practical Politics" has been trumped by reality.

The chickens, in the form of bodies and a crumbling economy, have come home to roost and that "smart" vote is costing her.

[IndianaJones]

57. pbbt. nt.

[redqueen]

60. Oh come on!

This is a legitimate gripe I have with her, I think!

[IndianaJones]

64. keep it real girlfriend. nt.

[redqueen]

65. Huh?

:shrug:

[IndianaJones]

68. we're cool de la. nt.

[redqueen]

69. Cool.

:)

[crankychatter]

78. $$$$$$$$

ka-ching

[redqueen]

79. I wish she'd release those earmarks.

x(

[Capn Sunshine]

80. STRATEGERY

It was the boneheads running her campaigns belief that apologizing would make her look weak to the Hawks which they think you need ( despite all polling to the contrary) to win an election.

If she had stopped listening to her idiot advisors and started listening to her heart she would have made a hell of a candidate.

[redqueen]

81. Heart my ass... head!

They weren't a threat to the US... either before or after. Why not just tell the truth?

[MrSlayer]

84. Political Expedience.

And nothing more. If the wave of public opinion was anti-war you can be sure that is what she would have been.

[redqueen]

85. Yeah...

I guess that explanation is better than any other. Still...