Hillary and Teddie sit down to talk about Iraq

[welshTerrier2]

Here, in their own words, taken from two speeches about Iraq, are the views and visions held on the issue by Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton. Kennedy voted against the war; Clinton voted for it. I've taken the liberty of interlacing some of the key points from speeches they've made on the subject to highlight some of the differences in how they saw the issue at a critical time. Undoubtedly, the Hillary campaign clowns will criticize both me and this technique of showing exactly what was said and how the views of these two Senators were very, very different. The one thing they won't do successfully, is make a case that the points below don't represent the Senators' actual positions. That's the bottom line.

So, here we go. An "interlaced conversation". No, they did not actually say these things to each other; yes, they really did say these things. Every excerpt is verbatim. You can decide for yourself which Senator's views are closer to your own.

Two key points are highlighted below.

One point is on the quality of the evidence leading up to the war in Iraq. Much has been made that Congress was "lied to." That point is not in dispute. What is very much in dispute is how each Senator assessed those lies and assessed the quality of the evidence. Kennedy said it was insufficient; Hillary said the evidence was "not in dispute".

The second point, and in my view this was the ultimate flawed logic of those who voted for the IWR, was on the issue of whether bush should have been "trusted" to use war as a last resort. Kennedy didn't trust bush; Hillary took bush "at his word".

With that introduction, here, in their own words, is an interlaced conversation between Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton on the war in Iraq:

SOURCES -
Hillary: http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html
Kennedy: http://votesmart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=14569

Hillary: Hi Ted. I've been looking over the evidence we've been given on Iraq. Here's my take on it:

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed.

Teddie: Undisputed? I disputed it!

The administration promises the release of new information and all of us hope that it will be more convincing than what has been made available so far. <skip>

For some time, the administration engaged in a complicated spin job to convince the American people that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are co-conspirators. According to this view, waging war on Iraq is part of the war against terrorism. Last September, our Secretary of Defense went so far as to claim publicly that he had “bulletproof confirmation” of links between Iraq and al-Qaida.

But the administration has never presented any of this “bulletproof” evidence. Most regional experts believe it is highly unlikely that fundamentalist al-Qaida leaders would ever find much common cause with the secular dictator Saddam Hussein.

Hillary: But Ted, it's about more than just the evidence. We've obtained bush's promise.

I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

Teddie: And you trust him?

The administration has totally failed to make the case that Saddam Hussein is an imminent threat to our security. No evidence, no proof, no “smoking gun,” no intelligence has ever been released to suggest we must launch a pre-emptive strike in order to defend America from an unprovoked attack. Instead of making its case, the administration simply says, “Trust us. We know more than you do.”

[AtomicKitten]

1. nice conversational barb

the Hillary campaign clowns

Common courtesy. Look into it.

[Tellurian]

5. A pretend conversation between Sen Kennedy & Clinton?

:tinfoilhat:

[Stinky The Clown]

2. In very broad terms, I can still see me voting in 08 for a person who voted for the IWR ......

..... to be sure, such a person is not my first choice, but I can go there.

That said, there's quite simply no way on God's Green Earth these people did NOT know about PNAC. There is quite simply no way on God's Green Earth these people did not know that Bush and his administration's luminaries and gltterati were hellbent to get into war with Saddam.

The more these IWR 'yes-voters' try to shade meanings and shave the truth just a touch here and a tad there, the more they stand to lose me and my current ability to vote for them in 08.

The above statements, by *this* clown, were suggested by your post, but are not in any way limited to just Hillary Clinton. We have many in the same boat as she.

So please, 08 candidates (and supporters), don't insult my intelligence. We **all** knew he was going to go to war. Talk to me about why you thought that was right at the time. I can tolerate the truth and even now forgive you that vote.

But don't fucking lie.

[welshTerrier2]

3. i, too, would not automatically rule out an IWR "yes" voter

i think we need to look at exactly what people said and exactly what their process was. for me, far more important than just the IWR vote itself is what they have said and done since the invasion.

real leadership is needed to end the war. those who oppose the war NOW that they see political benefit to it should not be considered the real leaders. i'm glad to have them on board but they should be seen as "followers". followers who exercised horrible judgment when it really counted.

[Ninga]

4. Let's just add to the mix "no-re-do's" to the "would not automatically rule out an IWR "yes" voter.

Listen people here at DU....we need to take to the streets and save our country....we need to do it like someones life depended on it.....we need to do it because there are no heros, no one willing to step up to the plate and risk all to save one more soldier......let's stop all this dithering and finger pointing and blaming and etc. etc etc. that goes on.

Question of the day.

Are DU'ers no better than the in-side-the-belt-way DC'ers??????????????