"I Deeply Regret My Vote Authorizing the War in Iraq"

[Yavin4]

That one sentence uttered by Hillary at any time prior to the primary and caucus season of 2008 would have guaranteed the Dem nomination for Hillary Clinton.

It wasn't the media.

It wasn't sexism.

It wasn't that Obama is an African American.

It's because Hillary Clinton lost touch with the Democratic base that became embittered and enraged by the Bush admin from the debacle in the Florida 2000 presidential election through the debacle in Iraq through the debacle with Katrina through the worst economy of our life times.

Hillary was given a pass by the voters of NY to be their senator EVEN THOUGH SHE DIDN'T EVEN LIVE IN OUR STATE, and what did she do with this pass. She voted for the Iraq war even though a majority of her constiutents were bitterly against the war EVEN BEFORE WE KNEW THAT THE WMDs WERE A COMPLETE HOAX.

Her campaign failed because she never stated that she regretted her vote on Iraq.

END OF STORY.

[Warren DeMontague]

1. Agreed. The vote for the IWR and subsequent refusal to apologize/admit it was a mistake

are huge.

Shit, even Scott McClellan can admit it was a bad idea; she still can't.

[jasmine621]

40. Not true. It's a red herring that is more comfortable to use than just

saying that "I hate Hillary Clinton and don't really know why." Maybe because she is tough and smart? Maybe because she refused to leave Bill after Monica? Maybe because she even married Bill in the first place? Or maybe just because it was so easy to believe the RW propaganda spewed against the Clintons from the beginning? Whatever... it really was not about the IWR because too many of our favorite people voted for it and still have not apologized or said they regretted it. The one's that did say they regretted it only did so after the anti-war wing of the Dem party made it so that if they wanted to run for Pres. they had to say the words.

[papapi]

48. I hate Hillary Clinton for all of the above.

[Catherina]

53. It is not a red herring. I loathe Hillary Clinton for that reason compounded

by her Iran vote, Walmart exploitation and voting to drop cluster bombs on children.

She's an immoral politician I don't even want in the party.

My kind of favorite people voted quite differently. Good God you have no morals.

[Canuckistanian]

74. Hillary voted FOR cluster bombs?

I never heard that.

Good thing she's on her way out. Any truly compassionate person would voted NO.

[Warren DeMontague]

56. Oh, BULLSHIT. Take your penny ante psychoanalysis elsewhere.

She was tough and smart in the 90s, and NO ONE supported and defended her and her husband more than I did, Genius.

IT WAS ABOUT THE IWR. DON'T YOU DARE EVEN TRY TO TELL ME WHAT I THINK, OR WHAT MOTIVATES ME POLITICALLY.

[Colobo]

76. You make it sound that we didn't vote for Obama, but against Hillary.

You're wrong.

[WinkyDink]

88. Yes, it's true. There is only one viable candidate standing. GUESS his views.

[JackORoses]

92. I hate her because she is a Liar. Is that good enough?

She is more concerned with the good of Hillary than the good of Humanity.

She is going to get just what she deserves... nothing.

[Cosmocat]

70. I have come to agree with those who note ...

My position a month or so ago was that she just lost to a better candidate, but I have come to believe that there IS one moment that sunk her candidacy, and it was the Iraq Resolutoin ...

She KNEW it was BS, but based on political calculations at the time, she voted for it (not wanting to chance that we would kick Saddams butt and have a "victory" there, then get pained now as "weak') ...

Had she simply done what was right at the time, BO never would have had that fundamental high ground on her, and she WOULD have had him and everyone else beat by Super Tuesday ...

[Taxmyth]

2. Then you must not have voted for John Kerry in 2004

Didn't vote or voted for someone besides Kerry that year?

[babylonsister]

5. Have you ever heard his apology? nt

[LSK]

6. Kerry was constantly plagued by that vote during the election

Edwards learned from it and came right out and said he was wrong.

Kerry was running only 1 year after the war, its been 5 years now, what has Hillary learned?

[karynnj]

86. Kerry was saying the WAR itself was wrong even in 2004

He said the vote was wrong in 2005 before Edwards did.

Kerry was not "constantly plagued by the vote". He won the primaries easily where it could have been as issue. This is because many of us knew he spoke against the invasion before it happened. He was regularly referred to as "antiwar" for the first half of 2003. It was then that Dean became the "anti-war" candidate and the vote became a litmus test.

In the general election - he got those against the war, but there were not a sufficient number of people who were anti-war. He needed to win sufficient people who thought the war winnable and thought he could do a better job.

[Orangepeel]

7. I worked/voted for Kerry in the general, but he was my last choice in the primary

I'm sure many DUers did the same.

[otohara]

17. Doesn't It Seem LIke There Were More

DU'ers that were for Dean or Kucinich because of IWR?

[Orangepeel]

66. of course, in the primary.

Kerry was not the favorite here until he won the nomination (although he did have support here).

After the primary, DUers supported him (or kept quiet about it). For all his faults, and nobody is perfect (and certainly not politicians), he's a good man and infinitely better than bush.

[Carolina]

68. Dean should have been the nominee

[karynnj]

82. If the issue was IWR, that is pretty strange as Kerry was nowhere near the worst

Kerry was one of those fighting against going to war in summer 2002. In September 2002, he wrote a NYT op-ed that was labeled anti-war. His vote was wrong, as he has said, but it was not a vote to go to war as we did. Bush said on the eve of the vote that it was not a vote to go to war and Kerry in his speech listed the promises Bush publicly made of under what conditions he would go to war. He also said that if Bush backed away from those commitments he would speak out - which he did.

In fact, by the time Bush was moving to go to war, Kerry was among the most prominent speaking against invading. His comments at Georgetown University were consistent both with his IWR speech and his September 2002 op-ed and he was attacked for that speech by those wanting war. Here is one example - thanks to BLM -

Publication: National Review
Publication Date: 24-FEB-03
Delivery: Immediate Online Access
Author: Frum, David
Full Article:
The 'Rush' to War, and The Day After Never

How often do we hear it said that America is "rushing toward war"? Presidential candidate John F. Kerry warned against the "rush to war" in a major speech at Georgetown University on January 23. The day before, the leaders of France and Germany delivered a similar warning. So did the editors of the New York Times.

Well, everything is relative. Compared to the movement of the tectonic plates or the cooling of the earth's core, the United States is indeed hurtling headlong to war. But by the normal standards of political life, the "rush to war" is a rush only in the sense that 5 o'clock on the Santa Monica Freeway is the "rush hour." The truth is that we have been inching toward war for the past ten years-and there are still quite a number of inches left to traverse.

In the summer of 1993, Iraqi agents attempted to murder former President Bush during a visit to Kuwait. Assassinations of top political leaders are pretty notoriously grounds for war-in fact, Saddam Hussein cited the mysterious deaths of a number of his top officials as his justification for invading Iran in 1980. If the United States had been eager for war with Iraq, the Bush plot was a perfect excuse. Instead, President Clinton fired a couple of dozen cruise missiles into downtown Baghdad.

A little over a year later, Saddam Hussein abruptly massed 80,000 troops on Iraq's border with Kuwait. The U.N. Security Council passed yet another resolution condemning Iraq (Number 949 this time). American and British units rushed into the emirate to deter a second invasion of Kuwait-and then rushed back out again.

In 1995, Saddam's son-in-law defected to Jordan, delivering proof positive that Saddam had successfully concealed a biological-weapons program from the U.N. inspectors then operating in Iraq-but there was again no rush.

In September 1996, Saddam Hussein invaded the Kurdish safe haven in northern Iraq. The United States had promised to protect the Kurds. An unnamed high official was quoted in news accounts at the time predicting that a military response was "very likely"; Bill Clinton himself told the White House press corps that "reckless acts have consequences." Now the rush seemed to be on for sure-only it turned out that the consequences Clinton meant were another flurry of cruise- missile strikes.

In 1998, the U.N. inspections regime in Iraq finally and definitively collapsed. The U.N. passed another passel of resolutions; at year's end, Clinton ordered up another flurry of air strikes to coincide with the impeachment vote. When Clinton's trial ended, so did the air strikes. No rush there.

Nor was there any rushing after George W. Bush took over in January 2001. The new president seemed more than content to wait for later- maybe a second term-before taking action against the dictator who had outlasted two hostile U.S. presidents. After 9/11, it's true that some people around President Bush began to question the Clinton policy of leaving Saddam in power more or less indefinitely. And in January 2002, President Bush's "axis of evil" speech warned that more decisive action against Iraq would come soon.

There was a time when a year was considered a long time in warfare. But although in every other aspect of life things seem to be speeding up, apparently when it comes to fighting, time is slowing down, and what was once considered merely a brisk speed now feels like a dizzying whirl.

Eighteen months after Pearl Harbor, and the United States was already in Sicily; 18 months since 9/11, and every one of the world's terror regimes except Afghanistan is exactly where it was a year and a half ago. Well, not exactly where it was: Libya has been promoted from mere membership of the U.N. Human Rights Commission to actual chairmanship of it. Otherwise, no signs of motion.

If ever any administration has moved with deliberate speed, it is this one. But no matter how slowly it moves, it is never slow enough. No matter how often it makes its case, it has never made the case enough. And no matter how much evidence of Saddam's dangerousness it adduces, the evidence is never convincing enough. When, do you suppose, would John Kerry and President Chirac and the editors of the New York Times think it a good time to overthrow Saddam? After another three months? Or six? Isn't it really the day after never?

It is not the speed of war that disturbs them. It is the fact of war. But this time, the fact of war is inescapable. War was made on the United States, and it has no choice but to reply. But there is good news: If the preparations for the Iraq round of the war on terror have gone very, very slowly, the Iraq fight itself is probably going to go very, very fast. The shooting should be over within just a very few days from when it starts. The sooner the fighting begins in Iraq, the nearer we are to its imminent end. Which means, in other words, that this "rush to war" should really be seen as the ultimate "rush to peace."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There was also outrage when Kerry spoke of the need for regime change here in April 2003, when the war was still favored by over 70% of the population.

At minimum, Gephardt and Edwards (still pro-war in late 2003) should have been lower.

[Orangepeel]

87. I supported Dean

when he dropped out, I supported Edwards for a week until he dropped out. I considered Edwards and Kerry to be similar enough on their war votes that other issues came into play (like who I believed would be most electable).

But when Kerry won the nomination, he became my candidate.

[karynnj]

93. Similar on their "war" votes?

Kerry was far closer to Dean in where they both were in fall 2002. Dean said he was in favor of Biden/Lugar - the bill Kerry also preferred. Edwards was gung ho behind the war in 2003, having been a co-sponsor of the IWR (not the Biden/Lugar alternative) in 2002. Kerry was prominent in those speaking against invading. Kerry was also against the Gulf War I which created this mess in the first place.

Kerry was also substantially better on the issues.
- He was the one with the record back to 1970 of being an environmentalist and had a 96% rating from the League of Conservation Voters while Edwards was in the 60s.

- Edwards voted for the bankrupcy bill that Kerry voted against.

- Kerry wrote and sponsored the pre-cursor bill to S-Chip with Kennedy and was a co-sponsor (as was Dodd) to the S-CHIP bill.

- Kerry wrote a bill that nearly passed to create a Housing Fund to help with affordable housing - this bill was introduced last month and passed the committee 19-2, so it may pass now that there is a crisis.

- Kerry called for the type of change in foreign policy that Obama is calling for now. Edwards was weak on foreign policy. Kerry had major accomplishments - the POW/MIA committee, drafting the reconciliation treaty with Vietnam, brokering the method for how to hold the Pol Pot era war crimes tribunal, and his investigation of the Contras.

- Kerry was the author of the Clean Money/Clean elections bill. It served as the model for Maine and Arizona when their bills were written. Kerry also fought corruption most notably in fighting to close BCCI. Edwards ran on these type of issues in 2008, but there was nothing he did in the Senate on it.

I seriously doubt that Edwards would have been more electable. There is no way he would have come close to Kerry's debate performance, because Kerry had both more skill as a debater and had a depth of knowledge that Edwards couldn't match. The attack by the SBVT was to attack what Kerry's record as a war hero, protester and as a scandal free 30 year public servant. In the end, it was obvious to anyone looking for the truth that they were liars.

What I suspect is that you were angry that Kerry beat Dean.

[Orangepeel]

96. Suspect whatever you want.

:shrug:

[WatchWhatISay]

8. I voted for him in the GE

But given a choice of a candidate who didnt support it, that was my number one reason for choosing Obama. But if she had won the nomination I would have voted for her too.

[cbc5g]

9. Kerry and Edwards apologized n/t

[Yavin4]

12. Kerry Was The "Safe" Choice Over Dean

The base of the party wanted Dean, but they switched to Kerry because they felt that he was the safer choice. That decision resulted in a loss because Kerry fumbled his opposition to the war.

In 2006, the Dems came out in mass to wrest control of the Congress away from Republicans in order to end the war in Iraq. The result was that EVEN MORE troops were sent to Iraq.

By the 2008, the base of the Dem party WANTED A CANDIDATE WITH A CLEAR, UNAMBIGUOUS OPPOSITION TO THE WAR, and they found him with Obama.

[crickets]

50. It's obvious,

but apparently some people - in the general pop. and in Congress - still don't get it.

[Stevepol]

55. I voted for Kerry because I sincerely thought he would defend the vote

and wouldn't concede when the evidence showed (as I knew it wd) widespread discrepancies between the exit polls and the machine count. That vote theft happened just as I thought it would, the exit polls showing that Kerry had won until the polls were "re-calibrated" to match the alleged real vote count, and all of this happening in the dead of night so that in the morning everything had magically changed.

He had claimed he had battalions lawyers ready to fill the courts with law suits and he was told repeatedly by people, including Mark Crispin Miller, that he was being or had been ripped off. Kerry would have made a good president, certainly a thousand times better than Bush, but his lack of common sense and his inability to trust those who had given so much effort to make clear what was happening, including a ton of PhDs and experts in all phases of the election, was extemely disappointing to me.

I'm afraid Obama is on the same oblivious course. Maybe enough people will vote for him by the time the election rolls around that the vote tilt that's sure to happen won't be enough to make a difference. Maybe there won't be as many dirty tricks this time. I'm going to vote but without much faith in the process. Unless there's more awareness shown by leaders of what's been happening with the voting machines and with other areas where cheating and criminal disenfranchisement have taken place I don't think he'll win. I hope I'm wrong. If I am, it will be because many rank and file Dems raise a hue and cry that is so loud that even the absolutely deaf and dumb leaders can't avoid hearing it.

[glitch]

99. That's where I am at. I hope I am wrong too. Still gonna vote, if only to make them steal it. :( nt

[blonndee]

13. DUH! At least Kerry is man enough to admit a mistake.

One of many things Georgie and Hilly have in common is the inability/unwillingness to do this. Or did you get the point of the OP, and you're just being deliberately obtuse?

[sandnsea]

28. "Mr. President Do Not Rush To War"

John Kerry vigorously opposed the invasion.

Hillary Clinton parroted Bush talking points.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYATbsu2cP8

[PassingFair]

30. Not in a PRIMARY where I had a CHOICE, I didn't.

But don't let that stop you with your
strawman statements.

I held my nose and voted for Kerry, I
even CAMPAIGNED my ass off for him, but
only AFTER he was my only option.

Given a CHOICE, I would NEVER have voted
for a Democratic IWR YEA voter.

[rhett o rick]

32. How does that apply to Sen Clinton? She sided with George Bush. Other people did to, but that

doesn't reduce her responsibility. She voted to give George Bush authority to kill a million Iraqi's.

[babylonsister]

3. One sentence, but never an apology. Too *-like for me. nt

[BlooInBloo]

4. Yup. She's a greek tragic hero - constitutionally unable to stop herself...

from doing the things that everyone knows will be her undoing.

[Faygo Kid]

10. She's no "tragic hero." That was LBJ. She's a marginal figure.

She is a triangulator who could have stood for so much.

But she chose another path, and her career may be over now. Unless she fights like hell to elect Obama, and then becomes a senator like Ted Kennedy.

But who are we kidding. She has chosen to be marginal.

Goodbye, Hillary.

[BlooInBloo]

21. Sigh. It's a term classical greek theater.

[Faygo Kid]

26. It's also the state slogan of Virginia. Sigh.

You don't want to take me on regarding this subject.

Believe me.

You lose.

[99th_Monkey]

11. At least she has been honest in not pretending to have any regrets.

I'll give her that.

[rhett o rick]

33. You are giving her credit for being honest about her support for the tyrannt Bush and his war?

She is responsible for authorizing the war that has killed over a million people.

[99th_Monkey]

97. Hillary's just showing her true colors, by not regreting her pro-war vote

You can call my "giving her credit" my little way of offering an olive branch to the loser of the primary.

:sarcasm:

[rhett o rick]

100. I understand. Takes me a little while. I am blinded by my distaste for her supplication to our

fuhrer.

[Cha]

14. And yet, hilary's campaign manager is talkin' trash about Scotty McClellan

because he dares to write the truth about the bush misadmin..What a tool for the dlc and hilary.

votesomemore (1000+ posts) Sat May-31-08 09:48 PM
Original message
Terry McAuliffe slams Scott McClellan
Terry McAuliffe, the former head of the Democratic National Committee who now is chairman of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign committee, said Mr. McClellan was "wrong” to write the book.

"I find it abhorrent the way these people come out and write books about their boss. It made 'em money, it made 'em prestige, it gave them all this power and then they turn around and slap 'em,” Mr. McAuliffe said in an interview this week with National Journal.

"I don't care who it is — Democrat, Republican — it's wrong,” he said.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/may/31/the-liberal... /

I don't agree with him. He is excusing lying and continuing to lie, never speaking up, NEVER blowing the whistle, just because someone gave 'them' power, prestige and money?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6205673

btw, this was his interview to the national review.

[housewolf]

15. "Regret" means never having to say you're sorry...

"Regret" isn't an apology. Any more than her saying last week "I regret that anyone may have been offended by my remarks." There's nothing in there that says "I made a mistake and I'm sorry for it."

"Regret" = weasel word

[jazzjunkysue]

16. Agreed. Her arrogance was her downfall.

[Nite Owl]

18. She isn't out of touch with the dem base

she knows very well what we expect. She just doesn't give a damn. She has wanted to win without the base, to show that the left is not needed to win. She learned the hard way that we are needed, it's more than corporate money and right of center talk.

[Yavin4]

22. She Spent More Time Charming Conservatives Like Rupert Murdoch

than she did her own base.

[Nite Owl]

25. She didn't want or need us

where else would good dems go? I'm sure she is totally shocked that this has happened, it was all supposed to be so easy.

[Catherina]

54. She actually laughed at us and told us to vote for other candidates if we didn't like it

Well we took her at her word and did :woohoo:

[Political Heretic]

19. I agree that this was a big part of it. I also feel that her old style politik didn't match up well

with her particular rival's style. And there were way too many campaign blunders that allowed the public to see the inner workings of her campaign that are supposed to be invisible. Stuff like Bosnia-gate, some of her off the wall surrogates, internal campaign fighting and a less-than-subtle Bill Clinton turned more people off.

The thing about it is, she COULD have been and probably would have been the nominee were it not for these string of blunders.

But the greatest of them all was this: failing to accept that her challenger was a serious threat to her assumed coronation as the nominee. If she and her campaign had been a little less arrogant, they would be on their way to the White House right now.

[curious one]

20. Agreed on Iraq vote. But what about her comment on Iran O?

She play hard but dirty and did harm women causes and set them back.

[Median Democrat]

23. It Was A Pandering Vote All Around By Edwards, Kerry and Hillary

The fact of the matter is that we were let down by all of the Democrats who voted in support of that resolution. Yes, the political reality was that they were fighting for their political lives. However, before committing our nation to war, we are not well-served by leaders who make stupid choices for political expediency. We have spent close to 8 years of Bush running his government like a political campaign, full of slogans, but with little analysis or policy.

John McCain is even worse given his initial opposition to such Bush policies like the open ended tax cuts, and his subsquent reversal on these positions. This is what worried me about Hillary. She mustknow, for example, that the gas tax cut was a bs stunt. However, she did that in order to triangulate between McCain and Obama.

So, I would have voted for her if she was the nominee, but I was never crazy about her. I was actually split between Edwards and Obama to begin the primary season.

[sandnsea]

29. Who led the party those years?

The Clintons, that's who. Edwards said himself that he based his vote on the word of Clinton advisors.

Kerry very specifically said if Bush didn't engage in diplomacy, he would speak out, and he did. Jan 2003. He also spoke out on the eve of the invasion expressing his belief that we should continue inspections and his digust at Bush. Compare that to Hillary. She backed Bush every step of the way. Compare the Clintons and Kerry on the yellowcake. Compare her "stay the course" rhetoric in Nov 2003, and his saying he'd have never started this war and anybody who believed he would have, shouldn't vote for him. And then compare them after 2004. Way too many people think if it's okay to support the "establishment" Kerry, it's okay to support Hillary. But they're just completely different. Every single day she proves it, if people would look at more than the sloganeering.

[Median Democrat]

45. Agree, Hillary and Bill Were Outspoken In Supporting Bush...

My thought is that the Clintons did not want to be blamed for 9/11, so they made a deal with the devil. Bush received the support of the Clinton's for the war. In return, Rove and company toned down their blame of 9/11 on the Clintons. If the Clintons opposed the war, then Rove spin machine would have gone full speed in blaming the 9/11 attack on Bill Clinton.

Hillary made a deal with the devil.

[karynnj]

83. The three were not the same

I think that Edwards genuinely believed in the need to invade Iraq - he was a co-sponsor of the resolution, spoke positively of the invasion and was for the war until at least late 2003. This is likely not pandering, but being - as he said - "wrong".

Kerry was one of those fighting against going to war in summer 2002. In September 2002, he wrote a NYT op-ed that was labeled anti-war. His vote was wrong, but as he has said, but it was not a vote to go to war as we did. Bush said on the eve of the vote that it was not a vote to go to war and Kerry in his speech listed the promises Bush publicly made of under what conditions he would go to war. He also said that if Bush backed away from those commitments he would speak out - which he did.

In fact, by the time Bush was moving to go to war, Kerry was among the most prominent speaking against invading. His comments at Georgetown University were consistent both with his IWR speech and his September 2002 op-ed and he was attacked for that speech by those wanting war. Here is one example - thanks to BLM -

Publication: National Review
Publication Date: 24-FEB-03
Delivery: Immediate Online Access
Author: Frum, David
Full Article:
The 'Rush' to War, and The Day After Never

How often do we hear it said that America is "rushing toward war"? Presidential candidate John F. Kerry warned against the "rush to war" in a major speech at Georgetown University on January 23. The day before, the leaders of France and Germany delivered a similar warning. So did the editors of the New York Times.

Well, everything is relative. Compared to the movement of the tectonic plates or the cooling of the earth's core, the United States is indeed hurtling headlong to war. But by the normal standards of political life, the "rush to war" is a rush only in the sense that 5 o'clock on the Santa Monica Freeway is the "rush hour." The truth is that we have been inching toward war for the past ten years-and there are still quite a number of inches left to traverse.

In the summer of 1993, Iraqi agents attempted to murder former President Bush during a visit to Kuwait. Assassinations of top political leaders are pretty notoriously grounds for war-in fact, Saddam Hussein cited the mysterious deaths of a number of his top officials as his justification for invading Iran in 1980. If the United States had been eager for war with Iraq, the Bush plot was a perfect excuse. Instead, President Clinton fired a couple of dozen cruise missiles into downtown Baghdad.

A little over a year later, Saddam Hussein abruptly massed 80,000 troops on Iraq's border with Kuwait. The U.N. Security Council passed yet another resolution condemning Iraq (Number 949 this time). American and British units rushed into the emirate to deter a second invasion of Kuwait-and then rushed back out again.

In 1995, Saddam's son-in-law defected to Jordan, delivering proof positive that Saddam had successfully concealed a biological-weapons program from the U.N. inspectors then operating in Iraq-but there was again no rush.

In September 1996, Saddam Hussein invaded the Kurdish safe haven in northern Iraq. The United States had promised to protect the Kurds. An unnamed high official was quoted in news accounts at the time predicting that a military response was "very likely"; Bill Clinton himself told the White House press corps that "reckless acts have consequences." Now the rush seemed to be on for sure-only it turned out that the consequences Clinton meant were another flurry of cruise- missile strikes.

In 1998, the U.N. inspections regime in Iraq finally and definitively collapsed. The U.N. passed another passel of resolutions; at year's end, Clinton ordered up another flurry of air strikes to coincide with the impeachment vote. When Clinton's trial ended, so did the air strikes. No rush there.

Nor was there any rushing after George W. Bush took over in January 2001. The new president seemed more than content to wait for later- maybe a second term-before taking action against the dictator who had outlasted two hostile U.S. presidents. After 9/11, it's true that some people around President Bush began to question the Clinton policy of leaving Saddam in power more or less indefinitely. And in January 2002, President Bush's "axis of evil" speech warned that more decisive action against Iraq would come soon.

There was a time when a year was considered a long time in warfare. But although in every other aspect of life things seem to be speeding up, apparently when it comes to fighting, time is slowing down, and what was once considered merely a brisk speed now feels like a dizzying whirl.

Eighteen months after Pearl Harbor, and the United States was already in Sicily; 18 months since 9/11, and every one of the world's terror regimes except Afghanistan is exactly where it was a year and a half ago. Well, not exactly where it was: Libya has been promoted from mere membership of the U.N. Human Rights Commission to actual chairmanship of it. Otherwise, no signs of motion.

If ever any administration has moved with deliberate speed, it is this one. But no matter how slowly it moves, it is never slow enough. No matter how often it makes its case, it has never made the case enough. And no matter how much evidence of Saddam's dangerousness it adduces, the evidence is never convincing enough. When, do you suppose, would John Kerry and President Chirac and the editors of the New York Times think it a good time to overthrow Saddam? After another three months? Or six? Isn't it really the day after never?

It is not the speed of war that disturbs them. It is the fact of war. But this time, the fact of war is inescapable. War was made on the United States, and it has no choice but to reply. But there is good news: If the preparations for the Iraq round of the war on terror have gone very, very slowly, the Iraq fight itself is probably going to go very, very fast. The shooting should be over within just a very few days from when it starts. The sooner the fighting begins in Iraq, the nearer we are to its imminent end. Which means, in other words, that this "rush to war" should really be seen as the ultimate "rush to peace."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There was also outrage when Kerry spoke of the need for regime change here in April 2003, when the war was still favored by over 70% of the population. Starting in 2003, Kerry was saying it was not a war of last resort, that we were misled into war as Bush did not do what he said he would and that it diverted attention from Iraq.

It is hard to argue that his vote was pandering when he publicly spoke out as he did. The vote was wrong as it gave authority conditionally (where Bush was the one who got to say the conditions were met) that he would never have voted for in February
because it is clear from his speech he did NOT think that diplomacy was exhausted or that it was a war of last resort.

HRC is harder to assess because she was pretty quiet in 2003 - 2006 and the comments people can find are all over the map. It is clear that she likely had WJC's advise and that neither of them spoke out as Bush prepared to go to war. It was only in 2006 that she started to use words similar to Kerry's in 2003 and 2004. The difference is that if she voted for those reasons, why didn't she add her voice to Kerry's in early 2003? As she didn't, I suspect that she was triangulating - a Clinton norm.

[Yotun]

24. In other words if Hillary Clinton was not Hillary Clinton but a differenre person

If she did that it would have meant she had principals and wasn't just saying the politically correct thing at the time. In other words if Hillary Clinton was not Hillary Clinton but a differenre person, a principled, moral one, she would have won. I agree. That kind of person, is, partly, Barack Obama. And he is winning.

[guruoo]

27. I think you're wrong on every count, and...

this line is total bullshit, IMO...

"...a majority of her constiutents were bitterly against the
war EVEN BEFORE WE KNEW THAT THE WMDs WERE A COMPLETE HOAX."

Absolutely laughable. No basis in fact.
I don't even have to refer to the polls for backup on this one!

[rhett o rick]

34. So your point is that she is justified for supporting our fascist leader because

polls showed her constituents wanted her to? A representative government is intended to have the representatives do the right thing and not be swayed by knee-jerk pubic opinion. She knew it was wrong. She gave her support to a war criminal and has no regrets. Over a million people have died, and it is on her shoulders. I expect Bush and Cheney to do horrible things but I count on Democrats to keep them in check. She failed us.

[guruoo]

36. You claimed a majority of her constituants opposed her vote even before they knew there were no WMD

And I called BS on that.

[Yavin4]

39. AND YOU ARE FUCKING WRONG

THE MAJORITY OF NYers OPPOSED THE WAR. DO YOU FUCKING EVEN LIVE HERE? I DO. SO, GET SOME FACTS.

[guruoo]

42. Before the WMD lies were exposed?

You sure about that?

[Median Democrat]

44. Joe Wilson? Perhaps you heard of him? Inspectors?

I recall that he was calling BS pretty early on. Also, what about the UN Weapon inspectors? They weren't finding squat. Remember that Bush hit job on the inspectors? Here's a reminder:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2980332.stm

Hillary was in the freakin Senate! We were about to go to war!

Do you mean to tell me that Hillary was so pollyanish that she did not recognize a political hit job on critics of the war who should know about Iraq's alleged WMD such as the UN weapon inspectors and Joe Wilson?

[guruoo]

46. The IWR was passed in October of '02. The war began on March 19, '03.

[Median Democrat]

49. And Bill and Hillary Clinton Were Supporting The War Before It Started . . .

Hillary and Bill supported the war and the invasion. Again, here's a reminder:

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/69420/

"But Clinton's public support for the war is a matter of record. Just before George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair invaded Iraq, Clinton published an op-ed in the London Guardian (3/18/03) urging Britons to "Trust Tony's Judgment":

As Blair has said, in war there will be civilian was well as military casualties. ... But if we leave Iraq with chemical and biological weapons, after 12 years of defiance, there is a considerable risk that one day these weapons will fall into the wrong hands and put many more lives at risk than will be lost in overthrowing Saddam.

Clinton's column included the less-than-prescient prediction that "military action probably will require only a few days."

* * *

Here's another discussion in the Nation of Bill's support for the invasion:

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?pid=254946

It is...illogical to believe that stocks would not get into the wrong hands," Clinton said just days after the war began. "It's easier to deal with the production and spread of this stuff than deal with the aftermath."

Clinton also downplayed the potential costs of waging war. On September 3, 2002, a month before Hillary authorized the war, he told CNN: "I don't think it will be a big military problem if we do it."

That statement begs the question: Instead of opposing the war, did Clinton actually urge his wife to vote in favor of it?

[guruoo]

79. That wasn't the point I was disputing...

I believe roughly 50% of Democrats (including Hillary)voted to allow Bush to
make the call on going to war with Iraq. That point is record, and so not in dispute.

This is the point I called BS on:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6207784&mesg_id=6208847

[Carolina]

71. yes, many of us knew the WMD threat was a hoax

it was common sense really.

How does a nation that we decimated in 1991 and kept under sanctions thereafter, morph into an imminent threat with WMDs in 2002?

And if Iraq had WMDs, it got them from the USA during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war. That's why Cheney could say that we know what Iraq has and we know they are.

DUH! Some of us read. Some of us study history. Ergo we knew BushCo was lying about eveything including WMDs

[rhett o rick]

78. It is easy to critize a post but much harder to make a point. What's your point?

For the record I didn't say that majority of her constituents opposed her vote. It doesn't make any difference. You see, we live in a democratic republic. We elect Congress to represent us and to save us from propaganda driven knee-jerk public opinion swings. The point is she failed our country by kissing the fuhrer's ass. She has done it more than once.

Do you think she made the right decision? Do you think she regrets that decision? Those are the important questions. Not what someone's stupid poll said.

[Yavin4]

35. HER NY CONSTITUENTS MARCHED IN THE DAMN SNOW

in FEB. 2003 TO PROTEST THAT WAR. NYC HAD ONE OF THE LARGEST ANTI-WAR PROTEST IN THE COUNTRY. I KNOW. I WAS THERE, AND I GOT A NASTY COLD SHORTLY THERE AFTER.

IN EARLY 2003, MOST OF THE ANTI-WAR PEOPLE EVEN CONCEDED THAT SADDAM MAY HAVE SOME WMDs, BUT THAT DID NOT JUSTIFY AN INVASION. VERY FEW OF US KNEW THAT THE ENTIRE WMDs WAS PURE PROPAGANDA.


YOUR POST IS BULLSHIT.

[guruoo]

37. So, this group of protestors comprised a 'majority of her constituants'?

I think not. And THAT is the point I was making.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[guruoo]

41. With all due respect, doubt had been raised reg the WMDs by the time the war started

You WERE refering to a protest that happened before the vote, right?

:shrug:

[Edgewater_Joe]

31. That, and Acting Like We Insulted Her If We Didn't Vote For Her

Especially as embodied by her cadre of jackass men -- and by and large they were MEN -- the Jabba-the-Hutt-esque Mark Penn, Howard "I'd Like A Pair Of Lips If You've Got 'Em!" Wolfson, the whiny-ass-titty-baby Harold Ickes, Lanny "And That Goes Double For You Joe Lieberman-Haters, My Pretties!" Davis, James Carville (who may very well prove you can't sleep with a Republican without something rubbing off on you), and perhaps even the Big Dawg himself.

And isn't it ironic that the men who really did Hillary wrong were, to a person, men?

The books on this campaign are going to be wild.

[AtomicKitten]

43. It would have mattered.

But having chosen not to, she revealed her true stand on the war.

Finally. A tiny bit of justice rendered for the egregious IWR in the nomination of Barack Obama. I am very pleased about that.

[papapi]

47. Agreed. And her popularity before the primaries was media hype.

[Enrique]

51. she's not as dreamy as John Edwards

his apology was accepted, hers no freaking way.

They'd tear her skin off for flip-flopping.

They'd post pictures of dead Iraqi children and say, your apology won't bring THEM back, you warmonger.

[crickets]

52. Your post won't bring dead Iraqi children back either. Why are you doing this?

You're talking about the dead, not a demographic. Why are you being so disrespectful of the dead? Nothing can bring them back.

There's no way of knowing how her apology would have been received. She didn't bother to make one.

Opposing Obama and agitating for a McCain win (or anyone else's) won't bring dead Iraqi children back. It won't bring dead American soldiers back, either. If John '100 years' McCain is elected and you voted for him, take a good long look at those pictures of dead Iraqi children. Their will be many more of them, and many more deaths of our soldiers too than if you voted for someone who will end the Iraq war. And you will have knowingly and willingly voted for their deaths.

Are you carrying some strange misguided grudge from 2004? Or are you going to vote for a pro-war candidate just because your first choice didn't get the nomination in 2008? Or...

I don't think it matters. Your casual dismissal of pictures of dead Iraqi children makes it clear you've never seen any, much less the pictures of both Iraqi AND American babies ravaged by birth defects caused by depleted Uranium.

Think for just a moment about people who see the real thing rather than pictures. Think about the people who live that reality rather than just paying a long distance visit by photo, especially our soldiers who get sent back for one tour of duty after another.

I think everyone can see exactly what you just said for exactly what it was: twisting a 'moral' example in a cold, callous political miscalculation.


It's not about the candidate. It's about the country.

[Enrique]

58. lol, I'm being disrespectful of the dead

that's a good one.

The news organizations that publish those photos have professional standards about how and whether to publish them, so that they're not being exploitative. The captions have facts in them, places, events, names when possible.

But then they are posted here at DU in a totally thoughtless way, for no other purpose than making some narrow partisan point.

And now you are trying to bully ME with the photos, trying to suggest that I am disrespectful of them, for criticizing the tactic. What a laugh.

[crickets]

59. Yes, you are.

lol: No one else is casually laughing about death but you.

narrow partisan point: Death isn't a partisan point. Death doesn't keep score.

exploitative: War is exploitative by its very nature. This one is a prime example. If you care so much about exploitation, you wouldn't talk about when and where photographs are published. You'd talk about how the reasons for the photos should not have occurred.


No one is bullying you. Given the context, your arrogance is breathtaking. You're still alive.


It's not about the candidate. It's about the country.

[Enrique]

62. pure sophistry and ad hominem

I know exploitation when I see it. When I see someone post a thread titled "Fuck you Hillary" and consisting only of photos of dead Iraqis, that's exploitation.

Regarding your personal comments, I'm no better or worse than you as far as I know or you know. We probably both care about dead Iraqis, and we both should probably care more than we do.

[crickets]

63. You've made yourself clear, far clearer than you know.

I know exploitation when I see it: When it suits you politically. Apparently, you own no mirror.

Fuck you Hillary: I've never posted anything like that, nor do I approve. You have no reason to suppose I would - quite the opposite. I'm not responsible for others who have done this. But you knew that.

We probably both care about dead Iraqis: Probably? I've made it clear that I do care about Iraqis as well as our soldiers. You have not, other than to use them as props to say I am somehow injuring *you*.


And now it's time for that famous quote: I won't be your monkey.

PLONK.

[Enrique]

65. I haven't made any such ad hominems

I haven't said anything about you, except that I believe you probably care about dead Iraqis. I give that benefit of the doubt to most people, including the hated republicans and even including most people that support the war.

[Carolina]

73. yes, you are

all you care about is how Hillary would have appeared. FUCK HER. She surely didn't, and still doesn't, give a shit about the dead, the wounded, the permanently disabled, the orphaned...

Her enabling vote, nasty campaign and narcissism are her true legacy.

[Major Hogwash]

98. And of their living relatives!! Our entire family has suffered from this war!!

Don't expect an apology from a warmonger like Hillary.

Ever.

The one striking similarity that Hillary and Bush share the most is the inability to apologize.

[Warren DeMontague]

57. Right, far better to flatly refuse to apologize- or admit it was a mistake.

Er, well, come to think of it, now that she's lost... maybe not, huh?

[polichick]

60. And then she proved that she'd learned nothing by her vote on Iran.

[BklynChick]

61. I don't think it was just that; if she voted differently on the war but ran the campaign just like

she did, she still would have lost.

[LiberaI]

64. The Clintons lost the primary season due to their own incompetence

[Carolina]

67. K&R K&R K&R K&R K&R!!!

She used you, NY.

Now vote her out ASAP!

[tabasco]

69. She lacks the leadership ability to be a good Senator or President.

She is not a leader. That is why she lost.

It is not a single issue.

[DogPoundPup]

72. Her war vote, just like NAFTA 'rethinking'

goes back to the Clinton Presidency years...every talking head brings up the "previous administration" believed Saddam had WMD yik-yak...so how would she successfully flip that monkey off her back when Bill is campaigning for her?

[moondust]

75. But that would show "weakness."

You know the (Republican) rules...

:sarcasm:

[Colobo]

77. That's what she thought.

[Stephanie]

80. Exactly right. I would be campaigning for her today if she had voted against the IWR.

As I campaigned for her in 2000. But by 2006 I felt I had to oppose her, I was so enraged by that vote.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

81. Apologize for that AND for voting AGAINST the Levin-Reed amendment

It wasn't just her support for the IWR; it's also voting AGAINST the Levin-Reed amendment. No one discusses Levin and I don't understand why!

[JerseygirlCT]

84. She seems to have a pathological inability to apologize

or admit when she's made a mistake.

I agree with you; that would have helped. What would have been even better is less political calculation (if I vote against this, the GOP will cream me in the presidential election) and more integrity to begin with.

It didn't take a foreign relations expert to know that this war was a stupid, pointless exercise to begin with - regardless of the motives used to justify it. It didn't take a genius to know that if Bush's mouth was moving, he was lying. Why would anyone buy anything he said or his people claimed? Most of us here surely didn't.

So she made a calculated move. And it turns out, a monumentally stupid one. That's when the smart thing (forget the ethical thing) is to apologize.

I wish Kerry had done so more forcefully, too. I think it would have made a huge difference if he'd said: "I was stupid to believe what George Bush told me then, and you'd be stupid to believe anything he tells you now".

[Milo_Bloom]

85. An apology would have meant nothing.. she was done the moment she voted that way.

And lied in her floor speech.

[David Zephyr]

89. And she never could say it either. In that sense, she Hillary McClinton.

Iraq.

[Swamp Rat]

90. She did not utter those words because the DLC supports the military industrial complex.

And Hillary is a DLC team leader.

[samsingh]

91. agreed

[YDogg]

94. and maybe she ran a pathetic campaign until mark penn was booted

[KaryninMiami]

95. That's correct- she never once said those words and what a difference it would have made.

At least for a while since she later (much more recently), gave Bush the go ahead for military action against Iran which for me, added insult to injury. (Obama did not support this bill). But you are correct- simply stating she was sorry or that she regretted the Iraq vote would have catapulted her to the finish line.

[Guaranteed]

101. Absolutely correct. nt

[Radical Activist]

102. That didn't work so well for Edwards.

She might have won if she had taken the right vote in the first place. But, she didn't and it speaks to her lack of conviction, which is why many don't like her. Conviction politics works.

[WA98070]

103. That and three letters: DLC