Cut Hillary a break! How much do YOU know about 2002 war authorization vote?

[TwentyFive]

I'm no Hillary apologist, but I think a certain pack mentality has taken over this board in regards to attacking her. So, in the interest of fairness to ALL democrats, let's take a walk down memory lane and revisit some facts, shall we?

OCTOBER 2002
-Bush's popularity was in the +70% range.
-Fear/anger over 9/11 still high.
-Most people believed Saddam had WMD.
-The Senate voted 77-23 in favor of giving the popular president authority.
-A majority of DEMOCRATS supported this war powers authorization.
-John Edwards voted for war.
-John Kerry voted for war.
-Chuck Schumer voted for war.
-Tom Harkin voted for war.
-Tom Daschle voted for war.
-Joe Biden voted for war.
-Harry Reid voted for war.

So, how come I never hear the 2 Johns, Chuck, Tom, Joe and Harry getting bashed on this board? Why is Hillary singled out from all these men for her supporting this authorization? I encourage people to read up on this and decide for themselves if Hillary is some kind of 'neocon shill' as others on this board have described her. Here is a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Resolution_to_Authorize_the_Use_of_United_States_Armed_Forces_Against_Iraq


Hillary Clinton won 67% of the vote in the last election. She appeals to many demographics. And even the most ardent Hillary hater on this board must admit, they'll get 75% of what they want in a Clinton administration. So before people expend so much effort attacking her, maybe we should consider how we can benefit from having her in the WH come 2008.

Just my two cents...

[WildEyedLiberal]

1. You never hear any of the others bashed on this board?

Where the HELL have you been?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Oh God, that's a good one.... :rofl:

[Skittles]

4. THANK YOU

I F***ING AGREE

[leftstreet]

2. Hillary is totally UNELECTABLE

http://news.aol.com/elections/president/story/_a/clinton-dogged-by-electability-questions/20061204054409990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

[Skittles]

3. I DON'T GIVE A F***

I TRASH EVERY PIECE OF SHIT WHO VOTED FOR IWR - IT WAS WRONG, WRONG, WRONG - THEY EITHER DIDN'T KNOW WHAT I KNEW OR KNEW IT AND VOTED FOR IT ANYWAYS AND EITHER WAY THAT SUCKS.

[karash]

7. .

What an atrocious argument to make. Basically, "Twentyfive," you are suggesting that "Because lots of other people did something stupid, it's not so bad that Hillary did, too."

Personally, when I saw Dubya in the 2000 Presidential debates saying that "Math was fuzzy," I knew that it was a bad idea to give him authorization to make unlimited use of the most powerful military on the planet, halted only by his discretion in deciding "who dunnit."

Actually, I take that back. I knew that back in my 2nd grade social studies class when the teacher told us what the "separation of powers" was.

Nuremberg may serve as a reminder here that general complicity and public approval of brutality and aggression are probably not adequate justifications.

[Skittles]

9. THANK YOU KARASH

WELCOME TO THE DU :hi:

[lvx35]

16. Thanks for piping up!

Welcome to DU! :)

[nolabels]

17. Yea, that is like one of them major points isn't it?

* claimed others where wrong because they used Fuzzy math that he could not comprehend.

No need to just blame * though, there is plenty of blame to go around. The corporate controlled news media sold the invasion/occupation to anyone that was stupid enough to listen to it. The problem is systemic and does not lead to any quick fix per say. And just like you say these are lessons we all had to learn in our second year at grade school but some have since conveniently forgot. It really is so simplistically stupid that telling people not be outraged about it is also just outrageous

[xchrom]

26. welcome!

:hi:

[LynnTheDem]

19. Amen.

We almost always see eye to eye, Skittles.

We do on this, too.

[Skittles]

28. I CAN'T TAKE IT, LYNN

those IWR voters, and the media that should have asked more g.d. questions, have blood on their hands no matter what their damn explanations are - I guess it's the constant ## TROOPS KILLED TODAY and ## TORTURED BODIES FOUND TODAY, *EVERY* f***ing day - it's killing me

[LynnTheDem]

44. Small comfort, but you're not alone.

Don't let it wear you down (much easier said than done, I know!) You're needed on this battlefield of common sense & human decency versus vicious stupid cronyistic rightwingnut bullshit.

{{{HUGS}}}

:hug:

[last1standing]

5. You're using the "well....the others did it too" argument?

I'm not against Senator Clinton at all, but if the best you can do to support her is to say that everyone else was doing it, then I might have to rethink my opinion of her. A leader doesn't send kids to their deaths because all the popular senators are doing it. A good senator doesn't vote for war just because the president at the time has a good approval rating. These are reasons NOT to vote for her.

I'm not excusing any of the others, in fact there's not a one on your list I'd like to see win the white house over a Democrat who didn't support the war. But I'll vote for any of the candidates you mentioned over a repub, and that includes Hillary.

Anyway, I'd suggest rethinking your argument here. Its not likely to help your cause.

[jgraz]

12. Also the "Bush was really popular" argument

I'm sure that's quite a comfort to all the Gold Star Mothers out there.

[Bluebear]

6. "I'm no Hillary apologist" might not be the best thread starter..

..and then you go on to apologize for her vote. just sayin'.

[Skittles]

29. THERE'S MY SWEET PT

YOU KNOW IT

[WilliamPitt]

8. Heh.

Funny you should mention this, given Pincus' article today:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/03/AR2006120301108.html

Oh, and...



So.

[Skittles]

10. DAMN, WILLIAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THANK YOU FOR THE REMINDER OF YOUR BOOK - tangible evidence NOT EVERYONE WAS F***ING FOOLED :hi:

[AtomicKitten]

I thought it was an interesting piece too.

Of course, when I posted it in GD-P earlier today, apparently nobody else did.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3001441&mesg_id=3001441

[Warren Stupidity]

39. Yeah who could have known that the war hubbub was all bullshit?

Certainly not a Senator married to a former president. No, just us blogbarians and some pathetic "iraqi weapons inspector" and (right) "ex marine", and some idiot named 'riverspit' or something, and some stoner ex surfer 'ambassador' who happened to be married to a real wmd expert and millions of other assorted idiots all over the planet.

No the smart people trusted our president. They knew better than us idiots. Or they knew what we knew but we FUCKING COWARDS.

Not that I am pissed off or anything.

[Porcupine]

11. I wouldn't vote for THEM in the primaries either.....

and I had to hold my nose and take a large dose of Pepto Bismol to vote for Kerry/Edwards. The DLC types in office lay down and played dead after 9-11. During 9-11 one "on the street" interview after another had US citizens emphatically stating that they were ONLY interested in finding and punishing those people directly responsible.

Not a single person in the group listed above called bullshit upon Bush's claims of Iraqi involvement. Dean, Kucinich and several others had all the evicence that Bush was faking up reasons for the war and they sat on their hands. Hell, Lieberman did everything but lick Bush's boots on national tv.

Meanwhile MILLIONS of US citizens took to the streets again and again to protest the upcoming war and we were ignored.

HILLARY IS A FUCKING TRAITOR AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED. I'm not holding my nose this time.

[Raine]

13. The war is not the reason for me

she's a DLCer and I won't pick a DLCer as my candidate. x(

[Warren DeMontague]

14. I'm just a regular shmoe, and I knew that the war was a terrible idea.

I knew that the arguments being floated were bullshit.

I knew that the vote was Karl Rove trying to put the Democrats in a tough spot- but you know what? Senators are Supposed to be tough. What you fail to mention is, many senators (Boxer, Feingold, etc.) DIDN'T fall for it.

Hillary would make a terrible candidate, and not just for her IWR vote (which came around to bite Kerry on the ass, too).

Far better, in my mind, to run someone with the credentials, the brains, the understanding of the MOST important SECURITY ISSUES facing US ALL... (meaning the inhabitants of Planet Earth)



...someone who, coincidentally enough, has been a clear and CONSISTENT moral voice on the Iraq war from the get-go.

[John Q. Citizen]

15. Read this to find out more about what that vote meant

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1203-21.htm

Actually a majority of Democrats voted against the War powers. A large majority voted against it. Or did you forget the House?

Both Johns have repudiated their vote.

I don't know many on this board who are excited about a Biden run.

Harry isn't running for Prez, nor is Shummer, Harkin, Daschle

I'm opposed to dynasties on general principles. We need to look forwards, not back wards, and we need more input into our political culture, not just recycle the old input into our politics.

Starting in 1992, Hillary Clinton studied Health Care reform to death, for 3 years, and I think that was the plan. Bill was primarily elected on universal heath care. Her plan wasn't even very good. It was expensive, complicated, and preserved the insurance companies status quo grip on our heath care choices.

Hillary Clinton is a fine Senator, but she can't win the Presidency. You read it here first.

What is your #1 reason that you want Hillary Clinton to be President? What does she bring that no other candidate does that you want? Will she make nice with the bushes like her husband does?

Will she pass legislation that allows consolidation of the media like her husband did? Will she support IMF and World bank raping of weaker countries like her husband did? Will she further weaken unions and undermine local control in other countries and increase corporate power by pushing more so called free trade, like her husband did?

Or will she set out to undue what were the worst aspects of her husbands administration?

What do you think?

[Mythsaje]

18. Well, I know that I knew they were full of shit...

How come they were able to fool all these highly educated, well-placed, politically savvy folks yet there were tons of us down here at the bottom who looked at their evidence and said "What the fuck?"

That's pretty much all I need to know about the vote.

[karash]

20. .

To "fool"? Surely, you jest. Hillary is cunning, just like Biden and the others; she knew exactly what she was voting for and exactly how it would help her chances in 08'.

[Mythsaje]

23. Are you suggesting

she agreed to the sacrifice of thousands in order to have something to hold against the Republicans when the time came to put her hat in the ring?

Wow--I thought I was cynical.

[dmosh42]

21. Has she said her vote was wrong?

I don't think she has said she made a mistake on that vote yet. As far as I know, she has only said the way the war has been handled was wrong.

[cali]

22. Revisit this:

This resolution, like others before it, does not declare anything. It tells the President "you decide." This resolution, when you get through the pages of whereas clauses, is nothing more than a blank check. The President can decide when to use military force, how to use it, and for how long.


We have heard a lot of bellicose rhetoric, but what are the facts? I am not asking for 100 percent proof. But the Administration is asking Congress to make a decision to go to war based on conflicting statements, angry assertions, and assumptions based on speculation

Proponents of this resolution argue that it does put diplomacy first. They point to section 3, which requires the President to determine that further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone will not adequately protect the national security, before he resorts to military force. They say that this ensures that we will act only in a deliberative way, in concert with our allies.

But they fail to point out that the resolution permits the President to use unilateral military force if he determines that reliance on diplomacy alone "is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq . . .."

And what of the critical issue of rebuilding a post-Saddam Iraq, about which the Administration has said virtually nothing? As I have said over and over again, it is one thing to topple a regime, but it is equally important, and sometimes far more difficult, to rebuild a country to prevent it from becoming engulfed by factional fighting
Unfortunately, we have learned that the phrase "not likely" can be used to justify just about anything. So let us not pretend we are doing something we are not. This resolution permits the President to take whatever military action he wants, whenever he wants, for as long as he wants. It is a blank check.


Patrick Leahy.

[6000eliot]

24. I know a bunch of spineless Democrats voted for it out of political expediency

And the blood of countless thousands is on their hands along with that asshat Bush.

[Greyhound]

25. I am opposed to Hillary, but her IWR vote is only one relatively minor

reason for that opposition.

You claim that I have to admit that I'll get 75% of what I want from her, should she become President, that's just BS. I know from her past performance and current alliances and rhetoric, that she will deliver nothing that I want, nor what this country needs to reverse the disastrous course it is on.

She is a corporate shill and has been such for her entire adult life, I see no reason to expect that that will change, and therefore I will not vote for her. As for the other useful idiots that voted for this abomination, I would not vote for them for President either.

If the people of NY think she is doing a good job and chose to send her back, that's fine with me, same goes for Kerry, but neither is likely to win the big one.

As for arbusto's popularity and the sheeple's fear and ignorance, doing what is right in spite of these things is leadership, going along because everybody else did is pandering.

[ngant17]

32. I agree, it's about consistency

While voting only one time for a war is bad enough, the continuing problem I see with Hillary is her consistent hawkish attitude in the Senate. She has deliberately taken a war-hawk's position wrt Iraq, Afghanistan and many other related issues involving the phony war on terrorism. She continues to project this image. That's unacceptable to me.

What America needs is a pro-peace candidate, not 'eternal war' candidates.

[AtomicKitten]

27. I oppose all 28 Senators that voted yes on the IWR .

And I do agree that HRC gets the brunt of it by others here at DU unfairly.

Spread the love.

Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)

[xchrom]

30. no more bushes and no more clintons.

[Skidmore]

31. There were people in Congress who also voted against that war.

Those people will always have my undying support because they had true courage to call it as it was. Many of us out here on DU could see it plain as day. We saw it for what it was at the time and we spoke out too. People who spoke out then took heat, but if more people had chosen to speak truth to power then, perhaps the whole bill would never have made it through. Instead we have people who did what was politically expedient at the time--in both houses of Congress. Gephardt and Daschle were wanting to run for president and tried to sweep this pesky litte problem under the rug where it would disappear. I would never vote for either one of these two people for that reason alone. No, none of those Dems who voted for that bill should be proud of that vote. They handed a blank check to do mayhem to an insane man and his cabal. They sold their constitutional powers for a bowl of pottage. They sold their nation out.

My problem with Hillary is basically that I believe the nation needs a break from Clintons and Bushes. We have millions of people out there besides these two families and among the people there is someone else capable of sitting in that White House and doing a good job--maybe even an excellent job. I will not participate in a coronation. This is not the War of the Roses Reduxe. We do not have a monarchy.

[quickesst]

33. Excellent Post!!

And it serves to identify those playing in the shallow end of the pool. I have gone from "use your head" to "no hope for the brainless" over the course of the Clinton Hate-Fest. If people fail to see themselves in your statement, then I have put more faith in the intelligence of many DUers than I should have. Thanks.
quickesst

[tpsbmam]

34. 156 legislators got it right....I got it right.....MANY Americans got it...HC didn't

The inspectors were telling us that there were no WMD and they were begging to be able to continue their work. We were told by the inspectors not only that there weren't WMD but that Iraq was cooperating. Many experts (including military chiefs of staff) were telling us that there were no WMD and Iraq was not a threat to us. Many experts & countries warned us that we'd "open the gates of hell" if we invaded Iraq. 150 cities and towns across the country got it -- they passed resolutions against attacking Iraq. We knew of the PNAC plan before the war. I know that I was far from alone in understanding Bush's and Cheney's characters before the war (though I have to admit I've been taken aback by the level of their evilness). And MANY experts were telling us that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.


9/11 is no excuse. If I was capable of stepping back and listening to BOTH sides (and I did listen to both -- I don't want to get incinerated, you know), including the wealth of good advice we were getting from experts and other countries, why weren't our legislators? If I knew, why didn't they?

Their job isn't to kowtow to fear-mongering and polls. They are our LEADERS. Their job is to do what is best for our country, and they didn't. Of course they're just people and, ideally, they make their votes based on their best instincts and information at hand. Of course they were thrown by 9/11 -- most people were. But you then have to step back and start asking the hard questions and LISTEN to everyone, including the chorus of voices who told them that it was a tragic mistake to go into Iraq. Too many didn't listen.

I damn well can blame ALL of the legislators who helped get us into this mess. They were wrong -- I knew it then and so should they have.

[PassingFair]

47. Who, what, where? You mean THESE guys?

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

Wonder what THEY had going for them?

On Edit:

The MAJORITY of dems in the House voted AGAINST IWR

Note: List includes SIX REPUBLICANS and 1 INDEPENDENT
Abercrombie
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett
Becerra
Blumenauer
Bonior
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank
Gonzalez
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Houghton
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Maloney (CT)
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Woolsey
Wu

Oh yeah, the PATRIOTS! Who VOTED their CONSCIENCE, not their SAFE SEATS!

[GumboYaYa]

35. Nonsense, there were hundreds of threads bashing Kerry

and Edwards for voting for the war when they were running for President. It almost caused a meltdown of DU. Hillary is singled out now because she is the front runner for the nomination. It has zero to do with gender and to imply that it does is to completely miss the boat. The fact that the focus is on Hillary now is purely a product of the fact that she has been pushed to the forefront as the DLC candidate.

As for me, I never supported Bush (even though your number of 70% at the start of the war is wildly off the mark; it was actually closer to 50%) and knew that Sadam was no threat, I will not vote for any Democrtat in a primary if that dem voted to authorize Bush to invade Iraq.

[MadHound]

36. Speaking of pack mentality, I think that is exactly what took over in 2002

All of these Democrats were afraid of the Bush juggernaut, and panicked. And in their panic, they put their own political career ahead of the collective will of their constituents(the vast majority of which didn't want any action to take place until the inspectors did their job). Thus, they failed to do their job, and tens of thousands of innocents have died as a result. And sadly, Hillary has continued to compound this mistake by voting for funding bill after funding bill, even when it became obvious that this war was a mistake.

Sorry, no forgiveness for Hillary. She should have listened to her constituents, not put her career first. Her hands have blood on them, and there is no forgiving her cold-hearted political calculations.

[H2O Man]

37. I'm far more concerned

with her position on the war today.

[bklyncowgirl]

38. It's about judgement.

If I believed that Hillary Clinton's vote was a matter of concience and that she truly believed that Saddam Husssein was a real threat to the safety and stability of our nation and the world, I might cut her some slack.

I do not, however, believe that for a minute. She was in a better position than most to know the truth about Saddam Hussein--Bill Clinton knew damn well that Hussein was a toothless hound--he helped turn him into one.

Hillary Clinton voted for the war because she made a political calculation that to oppose the war would signal that Democrats, and more importantly that she, a woman with presidential ambitions, lacked the necessary "toughness" to lead the country. She ignored the warning signs and helped lead this country to what may surpass Vietnam as the greatest forein policy debacle in our history.

I do not want her running our country.

[LWolf]

40. NO. No breaks here. FOR ANY OF THEM. n/t

[sendero]

41. It wasn't just the vote..

... hillary was one of the last high-profile Dems to come around to criticising the war.

Is there some unfair trashing of HRC here? Probably. There is SOME unfair trashing of just about everyone.

The general perception that HRC is weak in areas where she needs to be strong, i.e. LEADERSHIP, is perfectly fair. She never gets out in front of anything unless is it pointless pandering bullshit like video games or flags.

HRC's lackluster reputation around here is WELL EARNED.

[Stardust]

46. & she still insists the war was justified, we shouldn't pull out, etc.

[Malikshah]

42. It's called principle.

Fear not the path of truth for the lack of travelers upon it.

Hilary caved as did all the others.

As for her not being viable in 08...

NO one likes a candidate shoved down their throat. They've been jamming this down our throats since 2002-03 time frame.

Give it a rest folks... overselling always turns the buyer off.

[GeorgeGist]

43. Your 2 cents doesn't ...

buy wisdom.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

45. And a point that really needs examining is

why the hell did she jump on Kerry for his botched joke? She lent credence to the GOP feigned shock that Kerry was "indeed" insulting the troops. She is spineless and she is owned by corporate concerns! I'll be damned if she deserves our support. :grr: :grr: :mad:

[Clarkie1]

48. No Democrat who voted for the IWR passed by Congress is fit to be President.

It is critical that the President of the United States understand the magnitude of going to war. The Democrats who gave a blank check to go to war clearly had their priorities in the wrong place, and therefore none of them would be a good choice to serve as Commander in Chief of the U.S. armed forces.

We need to hold ALL our leaders accountable, not just #43.

[Warren DeMontague]

49. I agree. Good thing my top choice doesn't have that albatross around his neck.

ps. I like Wes, too. :thumbsup:

[Clarkie1]

50. I could enthusiastically support Gore.

In fact, I did the first time he ran for the nomination (it was when "Earth in the Balance," came out).

I happen to believe Clark would be as strong an environmental advocate because like Gore he understands the science and urgency of global warming as a national security issue. In addition to that, I believe Clark could achieve a greater mandate for Democrats. However, if Gore is the nominee I would very enthusiastically support him.

[eridani]

51. What we are looking at is cowardice--appeasment of sociopathic citizens

--of which there are a solid core of 30%. Also, all of us are fully capable of being situational sociopaths.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/eridani/87