Hillary Started The Iraq War!!!!

[SPKrazy]

or was it Shrub

geez people

fight about substantive issues and stop this insane "my meme beats your meme"

people are dying

anyone have a plan to bring them home?

People are losing their homes

anyone have a plan to help them for real?

People are losing their jobs

anyone have a plan to create more jobs or stop the bleed?

that's what will win the election

not the IWR IWR IWR

get serious here

[Justyce]

1. Amen.

:applause:

[HeraldSquare212]

2. She didn't try to stop it - and is more likely to start another one, in my opinion.

Bringing them home is important; I'm just hoping to get a Pres who won't start another war.

[SPKrazy]

9. And Obama's plan to bring them home is....

crickets...

[HeraldSquare212]

12. Pretty much the same as hers, to my mind. But I think he's more likely to follow-through.

[SPKrazy]

15. neither has a plan

that I'm aware of

that's part of the problem with the primary system squeezing out people with real ideas before we can vote on them

[zabet]

3. No...

I confess...
it was me. :blush:

Sorry guys. :silly:

[SPKrazy]

10. damn you!!!!

[SoFlaJet]

4. and what happens if Bush and the Neo-cons

start a war with Iran before the election to try and get McCain elected? What if they cite the Kyl/LIEberman amendment as authorization-which Hillary Clinton voted YES to...that one won't be her fault either right-because she NEVER THOUGHT they'd actually do it? Even John Edwards in his last debate called that thinking very naive-knowing Bush's past history with the Iraq War Resolution-that she ALSO voted for...

[SPKrazy]

13. Well what if what if what if

what if the fucking Yellowstone volcano erupts and all elections are suspended?

give me a break

[SoFlaJet]

28. that's not an answer

to what I think is a legitimate question

[SPKrazy]

30. I think you have to ask

what army are we going to attack Iran with?

and then yes

it is about as likely as the yellowstone volcano erupting

[SoFlaJet]

41. so wait

you think the Bush cabal actually CARES how strung out the military is? They have talked about using tactical nukes on selected targets. How would your conscience as a Clinton supporter be then my left-handed friend?

[SPKrazy]

44. I'M NOT A CLINTON SUPPORTER

I'm a Gore supporter

an Edwards supporter

and a whoever wins the nomination supporter

I'm just tired of all the insinuations that Hillary started the war basically when we all know shrub was going to do what he did regardless

tactical nukes,

if they do that, then we might as well all just dig a hole

no they don't care how strung out the military is obviously

i just don't think it is gonna happen

[SoFlaJet]

58. NOBODY...NO....B-O-D-Y

is suggesting HRC "started this war"...how much manpower is needed to throw some tactical nukes at suspected nuclear targets?

[SPKrazy]

60. let's say more political clout

and even more stupidity than is evident in this administration would be needed to do that.

[lligrd]

5. She Voted To Allow Him To Do It

And there is a connection to the state of our economy.

[SPKrazy]

7. So you say

apparently the American people allowed it by voting for all the people who voted for the IWR 2 weeks afterwards in the fucking election!

[lligrd]

26. That Is True Too

Americans don't get a free pass in my book and we are paying the price for our ignorance.

[SPKrazy]

32. and my main beef about this

is why blame Hillary for a war she didn't start anymore than any other member of congress or the American people (except the morans who voted shrub in)

and yes, all of the democratic congress seems to have been stymied by shrub and fearful of being labeled weak or worse, and I won't leave Mr. Obama out of that criticism.

[lligrd]

I Don't Leave Obama Out Either

but Hillary is one of those we trusted to do the right thing and she let us (at least me) down. Obama didn't get to vote though he has voted (or abstained from voting) poorly in other cases. Still, I will take the one who has sucker punched me the least often.

[JVS]

6. Do you not understand the idea of cooperation? They worked together.

[SPKrazy]

8. pssssshit

what a discourse on insanity

Hillary and * worked together

:rofl:

[JVS]

16. Here, maybe this will be easier for you to understand

Bush to congress: please authorize my use of force in Iraq

Majority of Congress including Hillary: sure thing boss

[SPKrazy]

21. overly simplistic JVS and you are smarter than that

[RaleighNCDUer]

29. Are you saying, then, that the majority of congress did NOT vote

for IWR. Or for K/L?

[SPKrazy]

35. I'm saying that 2 weeks before an election

less than a year after 9/11

and the common belief amongst idiots in America that Sadaam was behind 9/11 and we needed to eradicate Iraq of al queda led a lot of legislators to act in an idiotic way, including Ms. Clinton, however, the IWR did not give shrub the right to do what he did

and Mr. Obama has not voted to cut off money for the "war"

[JVS]

33. I don't understand how cooperating with giving Bush the green light is an action free from guilt.

While I don't believe that she is as responsible for the war as Bush is, I do think that she carries a level of responsibility for this war that is unacceptable for a democratic nominee (I hated Kerry for this too, so don't start going that route). Edwards and Kerry have both had the decency to at least apologize for their error in judgment; from Clinton has come not only no apology but defense of the vote and insulting those who did or would have voted more wisely as "clairvoyant". We all knew damned well that the IWR was a bad idea, and for her to have voted for it shows either a disturbing lack of judgment or an even more disturbing, revolting, and horrifying cynicism that is willing to unleash huge levels of destruction in order for political viability.

[SPKrazy]

36. Well our primary system

has effectively eliminated any other candidates from consideration

so fight away about the IWR if you want

it can be Obama this

Hillary that

all the way to the convention

or we could try to find solutions to how to get out of Iraq etc.

[JVS]

40. I can't trust Hillary on the issue of war because she has demonstrated poor judgement at best...

or ruthless use of others' blood for political expediency at worst. That's why I support Obama. I have no faith that she is willing to oppose the war in a difficult political situation, because she has so remarkably failed to do so in the past.

[SPKrazy]

45. well you are a step ahead of me friend

'cause I don't especially know that I am certain of either of them on the war issue or any other issue

I'll wait until there's a candidate

then I'll vote for them, campaign for them, whatever it takes to win

but

this Hillary IWR is nonsense

shrub was gonna do what he was gonna do

[RaleighNCDUer]

42. And maybe the one to trust to find a solution is the one who was

NOT fooled by the president's PR campaign.

[SPKrazy]

46. who would that be?

Kucinich is out

[JVS]

63. Obama wasn't tricked.

[laconicsax]

92. Yet he has supported the war whole-heartedly since taking office

Every time someone votes to fund the war, they are voting to continue it. A vote to fund the war isn't a vote to make sure that troops in Iraq get the equipment they need, it's a vote to keep troops in Iraq. It's a vote to condemn more to death.

You either support the war and vote to continue it, or you are against the war and vote against continuing it. You can't have it both ways.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

11. K And Fucking R!!!!!

:applause:

[SPKrazy]

14. thanks!

[CTLawGuy]

17. she certainly helped start it

congress has the power to start wars.

[SPKrazy]

19. oh and congress said start a war

right

have you read the IWR?

were you alive during this time?

Shrub acted on his own, took advantage of lies


used absence of finding WMD's as an excuse to go in and attack because if you can't find them they must be really well hidden!!!!!

and it's Hillary's fault

:rofl:

[RaleighNCDUer]

31. There were plenty of people who DID read it and said, very

plainly, that he would use it to attack Iraq.

AND THEY WERE RIGHT

Isn't getting it right the first time what we are to be shooting for?

[SPKrazy]

37. well got anyone in mind who can/will do that?

I mean you can't really compare apples to oranges with Obama and Clinton here, he wasn't in the Senate at the time

[RaleighNCDUer]

50. It's not apples to oranges.

He made a speech at the time opposing the rush to war, which could have EASILY jeapordized his political future - if his opposition was rejected by the people he would not have been the up and coming politician invited to make the keynote speech at the convention in 04, which got him national attention, he would not have been able to run for senate, and then run for president.

You CANNOT claim that his opposition held no political risk for him. And as ambitious as he obviously is (or he wouldn't be in the race to begin with) he certainly knew that opposing the general will of the public DID entail risk to his career. Yet he made his stand and lived with it.

And now the country knows he was right, the first time.

Even his equivocation at not knowing how he might have voted shows honesty - it allows that there might have been information that argued for war available to the senate that was not available to the public - but subsequently we have seen that if anything the other information argued against, not for, the war. I think he would have joined those happy few who did not support the IWR.

[SPKrazy]

54. Well his risk and hers were apples and oranges to me

and there is no real way to measure that risk

I don't live in Illinois, and he apparently had a fairly easy campaign there.

Hillary on the other hand was looking at the Giuliani's and others that would have skewered her with the label of "weak" on terror had she voted against it.

You obviously know more about Obama than I do

I just don't see how comparing her vote on IWR, a piece of paper as worthless as anything else on paper important enough to make such an issue of

[CTLawGuy]

98. Congress gave the president its power

to start the war. and just like you can't get away with murder by having someone else do it for you, Congress is responsible when it delegates the war making powers to the president.

[Saturday]

22. And Barack continues to fund it. n/t

[CTLawGuy]

99. he knows and I know that

defunding the war will not end it, it will just endnager those kids stuck in the field. ONLY the president can remove the troops.

[Honeycombe8]

18. Spoken like someone whose candidate voted for the war. She can't escape it.

She, and others, are part of the problem. Part of the reason for the state of affairs.

And did she learn from it? I guess not, since she ALSO recently voted for the resolution against Iran, while Cheney's war drums were beating in the background.

[SPKrazy]

20. she's not my candidate

I just won't stand for stupidity any longer

[msongs]

23. obama consistently votes to support & fund the murder of Iraqis in the name of the US nt

[GarbagemanLB]

27. There is no perfect solution, but at least he had the foresight to be against it from the start.

It shows good judgement....something Hillary lacks.

[SPKrazy]

49. he wasn't trying to remain an elected official

in an environment of lies, untruths, and total confusion that existed when IWR was voted on

[RaleighNCDUer]

57. Of course he was. He was an elected official who was responsible

for his constituency in Illinois, MOST of whom supported an attack on Iraq. He spoke out against it, in opposition to the mood of the nation at the time, and he was RIGHT. He could have ended his career right then and there.

But once the war started, and there were no WMDs, and there were not 'drones', and even the troops in the field did not face chemical weapons, people saw he was RIGHT, and subsequently elected him senator.

If he had been wrong, if Saddam had launched chemical weapons against the troops and Saudi Arabia and Israel, he would be a Cook County Supervisor now, not a contender for the presidency. He had a LOT to lose for taking a principled position, when the easy thing to do would be to join the cheering squad and then, four years later, apologise for supporting the war.

[SPKrazy]

61. he wasn't in the senate at that time

[RaleighNCDUer]

69. OK, I get it. You just don't like Obama, for whatever personal reasons

you have.

You are obviously not interested in the reality of the situation - Hillary supported the war, and Obama opposed it.

You dismiss, without rationale, the fact that Hillary - as astute a politician an any on the Hill - knew exactly what Bush wanted with that bill. You dismiss, without rationale, the fact that politically ambitious Obama took a very unpopular stand at a point that could break his career.

She refused the risk.
He took the risk.

She chose political expediency.
He rejected political expediency.

It's as simple as that.

[SPKrazy]

90. Hillary supported the war?

no she supported using force if necessary to find WMD in Iraq. Something that was not necessary was done instead.

She supported the UN Inspectors continued work in Iraq

we found no WMD, there were none, but there was reason to send inspectors in and if they were rebuffed (they weren't) force was to be used.

Instead shrub took the inspectors out because Saddam couldn't prove a negative. Moran thinking :P

He didn't reject anything he had little to lose and she had it all to lose

no I don't like Obama

in fact I don't like Hillary

whichever of them is the candidate I will support

but I won't stand by and see Hillary attacked by people with no clue about what actually happened apparently.

[RaleighNCDUer]

100. If Hillary didn't support the war, if * went off the reservation, overstepped

the authority given him by congress, why wasn't she screaming bloody murder the day "Shock and Awe" was launched? Why did it take 3 fucking years for her to even go so far as to say that the enterprise was handled badly - not 'wrong' but only 'done wrong'?

If Bush lied, why wasn't she saying "BUSH LIED!"?

She DID support the war. She knew EXACTLY what her vote meant, and her refusal to take Bush to task over the war for THREE YEARS shows it.

So forget the crap about 'backing up UN sanctions' and 'getting inspectors back in'. That was already in the works BEFORE the vote - just hammering out details, as is necessary when dealing with a sovereign nation.

Only one thing to remember --

SHE DID NOT OBJECT TO THE WAR.

That gives the lie to her being fooled, to Bush overreaching, to "nobody could have expected..."

SHE DID NOT OBJECT.

[GarbagemanLB]

24. She is a hawk in sheep's clothing. I don't know how that would look, but you get my point.

[Cameron27]

56. You have no point,

produce the facts that back up your assertion. Compare her voting record with Barack's or any other Democrat's before you start accusing.

[Cameron27]

25. As if George W. needed the IWR

votes to invade. It's amazing that some are as eager as Karl Rove to throw the blame for the war onto the Democrats. Let's blame them all then, including Kerry and Edwards because apologies don't mean sh*t when it comes to all the lives lost.

[SPKrazy]

38. A very good point

he was doing this whether congress voted or not

[MannyGoldstein]

34. Most Congressional Democrats Voted Against The War

Clinton voted to attack Iraq.

And she still claims that she voted correctly - I guess that means those who voted against war were wrong?

[SPKrazy]

39. she voted to support the last resort measure of attacking

if the weapons inspectors were not allowed access etc.

they were and they were making good progress

shrub ordered them out

not Hillary

[MannyGoldstein]

48. No

A poll taken at the time found that almost two-thirds of Americans believed that Bush had already made up his mind to go to war. In addition, most Democrats in Congress voted against the Act, knowing what it really was about.

It's very difficult to believe that Clinton was too dumb to know the true consequence of voting for the Act. She knew.

[SPKrazy]

51. she, like any other politician who had political aspirations

voted for it

you were for freedom

or against it back then, remember that meme?

crushing Dixie chicks CD's

calling the Georgia Senator who was a Vietnam vet weak on terror and worse

lots of bad stuff

a time to be ashamed of for a lot of people

Hillary just played her political card to stay afloat in a sea of insane nationalistic fervor

I don't fault her for that

and you admit shrub was attacking anyway

so

what difference does it make really?

[SOS]

85. No last resort, no inspectors.

These terms are not even contained in the law.

The official title is "Authorization for the use of Military Force against Iraq 2002".

The law authorized Bush to use force against Iraq as "he determined".

No conditions, no inspectors, no last resort.

[Cameron27]

53. No she didn't Manny,

she voted yes to more UN weapons inspections, and she also clearly warned Bush against invasion. John Edwards' speech was hawkish not Clinton's.

[SPKrazy]

59. and the UN inspectors were removed by who? Not Clinton

but the shrub

because he was gonna do what he was gonna do regardless

all these people in the way of him doing it

well

just got irritating to him i guess :shrug:

:sarcasm: in case you were wondering

[SOS]

86. No

The US Congress "supported the efforts of the President" to enforce relevant UNSC resolutions.
What efforts, exactly, were those?

The words "weapons inspectors" does not even appear in the text of the law.

[BuelahWitch]

43. All "D" Congresspeople with Presidential aspirations

voted for IWR. This includes Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman, Biden, Dodd, Gephardt and Clinton. The only exception was Dennis Kucinich. Obama was not a US Senator in 2002 so there's no real way to know what he would have done.

I agree with SPK, release the past, look to the future. How are we going to bring them home?

edited to change "political" to "Presidential"

[SPKrazy]

47. xactly

bring them home

[dailykoff]

52. Hilly was in a unique position to lead the opposition and she FAILED.

Just like she failed to oppose the Patriot Act, failed to speak out against torture, failed to lead impeachment charges, and on and on. She's basically failed every test of leadership including the primary elections.

:shrug:

[SPKrazy]

55. She wanted to lead her constituents at the time

and they were btw citizens of the state that was attacked by al queda

made them a little more leary of anyone who was not gung ho to fight terror and Hillary was looking at Giuliani or someone else in the future coming back and plastering that in her face that she was "weak" on terror.

I remember this vote, it came at a time of shrub using it like a weapon to scare dems into voting for it or face political suicide.

[dailykoff]

62. Iraq did not attack New York

and Hilly of all people knew it. But instead of explaining that to her constituents she tossed them more red meat like she's done for the last seven years. And that is a failure of leadership.

[SPKrazy]

65. oh please

do you remember that election year?

oh, Iraq didn't attack New York?

the devil you say

maybe that is why Hillary said let the UN inspections continue

:eyes:

[dailykoff]

68. Hilly was the popular wife of a popular Dem president. Did she use

her position to oppose the senseless rush to war? No she went along for the ride for the most cynical, self-serving and deceitful reasons. Well the gig is up and now she's experiencing humiliating defeats against a rookie. She should have taken the hint after she tanked in Iowa.

[Moochy]

104. So she caved into fear

Great Leadership!

[Cameron27]

66. She wasn't in a unique position to lead

anyone. First, Clinton was still a Jr. Senator from a state that had suffered the worst casualties from foreign agents since the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and second, she still had to earn her reputation and stature as a member of Congress.

[dailykoff]

70. She was freakin Bill Clinton's wife. The "junior senator" gag is a cop out.

She failed to lead and now she's paying the price, and that's the sanitized version of the story.

[Cameron27]

72. Being a former first lady

didn't provide her with any clout as a senator, and being the wife of an impeached president didn't give her magical powers for leading the Democrats in the senate.

[dailykoff]

75. Wrong. She was the only one in Congress with that status

including Cheney for crying out loud. Why she played innocent Amy I can only guess but it was an absolute failure of leadership. When the tough votes came she folded like she was payola Joe from Waco.

[Cameron27]

76. There's absolutely no evidence

that proves that assertion. She and Bill didn't have many friends in the Democratic party after his impeachment, which is why Al Gore chose not to associate himself with the Clinton's, and went with Joe Lieberman's so-called family values platform instead. I doubt that Hillary Clinton had many who looked to her for any leadership on any issue when she got to the senate.

[dailykoff]

78. Hint, look at her name. (n/t)

[Cameron27]

80. Hint,

how many times did Gore use that name when he ran for president? Just how valuable do you think that name was to the Democrats in Congress in 2002?

[dailykoff]

83. Hilly had the whole party behind her. The only reason

she's played possum on every important legislative decision in her short Senate career is because she was "saving her powder" for her presidential pipe dream.

Well that powder just went kaboom.

[SPKrazy]

93. what a revision of history

Jr. Senator runs the Senate.

:shrug:

[dailykoff]

94. The DNC Chairman from 2001-2005 is currently Hillary's campaign chairman.

Terence Richard "Terry" McAuliffe (b. 1957) is an American business and political leader. He served as Chairman of the Democratic National Committee from 2001-05. He currently serves as Chairman of the Hillary Clinton for President committee.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_McAuliffe

She LITERALLY had the entire party behind her,and yet she did nothing to stop the ruinous Bush-Cheney war agenda. That is a complete and shameful failure of leadership.

[SPKrazy]

64. Okay...

tried to make a point here

need to go take a shower

detox my brain

this is insane

:hi:

fight it out

I'm sure it will bring the troops home when each candidate devours the other and we end up with a McCain (who wants to leave them there 100 years if necessary) presidency.

~peace out~

carry on

[Cameron27]

67. A for effort!

[Mik T]

71. Well, the weapons industry supports Hillary

and has left Obama totally alone. Obama is selective about who he takes money from.

It's still sort of the difference between whore and call-girl in my opinion but- for this reason alone Obama has my support. Clinton is the establishment candidate and we can pretty definitly say that the money behind her is up to no good.

found THIS in the Independent archives (well respected British newspaper)It's a bit out of date but still, I think, VERY relevant.

US: Clinton Bucks The Trend and Rakes in Cash From The US Weapons Industry

by Leonard Doyle, The Independent (UK)
October 19th, 2007




The US arms industry is backing Hillary Clinton for President and has all but abandoned its traditional allies in the Republican party. Mrs Clinton has also emerged as Wall Street's favourite. Investment bankers have opened their wallets in unprecedented numbers for the New York senator over the past three months and, in the process, dumped their earlier favourite, Barack Obama.1019 02

Mrs Clinton's wooing of the defence industry is all the more remarkable given the frosty relations between Bill Clinton and the military during his presidency. An analysis of campaign contributions shows senior defence industry employees are pouring money into her war chest in the belief that their generosity will be repaid many times over with future defence contracts.

Employees of the top five US arms manufacturers - Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, General Dynamics and Raytheon - gave Democratic presidential candidates $103,900, with only $86,800 going to the Republicans. "The contributions clearly suggest the arms industry has reached the conclusion that Democratic prospects for 2008 are very good indeed," said Thomas Edsall, an academic at Columbia University in New York.

Republican administrations are by tradition much stronger supporters of US armaments programmes and Pentagon spending plans than Democratic governments. Relations between the arms industry and Bill Clinton soured when he slimmed down the military after the end of the Cold War. His wife, however, has been careful not to make the same mistake.

After her election to the Senate, she became the first New York senator on the armed services committee, where she revealed her hawkish tendencies by supporting the invasion of Iraq. Although she now favours a withdrawal of US troops, her position on Iran is among the most warlike of all the candidates - Democrat or Republican.

This week, she said that, if elected president, she would not rule out military strikes to destroy Tehran's nuclear weapons facilities. While on the armed services committee, Mrs Clinton has befriended key generals and has won the endorsement of General Wesley Clarke, who ran Nato's war in Kosovo. A former presidential candidate himself, he is spoken of as a potential vice-presidential running mate.

Mrs Clinton has been a regular visitor to Iraq and Afghanistan and is careful to focus her criticisms of the Iraq war on President Bush, rather than the military. The arms industry has duly taken note.

So far, Mrs Clinton has received $52,600 in contributions from individual arms industry employees. That is more than half the sum given to all Democrats and 60 per cent of the total going to Republican candidates. Election fundraising laws ban individuals from donating more than $4,600 but contributions are often "bundled" to obtain influence over a candidate.

The arms industry has even deserted the biggest supporter of the Iraq war, Senator John McCain, who is also a member of the armed services committee and a decorated Vietnam War veteran. He has been only $19,200. Weapons-makers are equally unimpressed by the former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani. Despite a campaign built largely around the need for an aggressive US military and a determination to stay the course in Iraq, he is behind Mrs Clinton in the affections of arms executives. Mr Giuliani may be suffering because of his strong association with the failed policies of President Bush and the fact he is he is known as a social liberal.

Mrs Clinton's closest competitor in raising cash from the arms industry is the former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who raised just $32,000.

"Arms industry profits are so heavily dependent on government contracts that companies in this field want to be sure they do not have hostile relations with the White House," added Mr Edsall.

The industry's strong support for Mrs Clinton indicates that she is their firm favourite to win the Democratic nomination in the spring and the presidential election in November 2008. In the last presidential race, George Bush raised more than $800,000 - twice the sum collected by his Democratic rival John Kerry.

Mr Edsall's analysis of the figures reveals that, over the past 10 years, the defence industry has favoured Republicans over Democrats by a 3-2 margin, making Mrs Clinton's position even more remarkable.

[terrya]

73. No, it's all about destroying Hillary at all costs around here.

And destroying her family as well.

And sometimes wondering if the hate of some of the rabid Obama supporters here extends to physical harm on her as well.

[Barack_America]

74. *sigh* Who cares about Iraq? Indeed.

It's only the greatest mistake of this generation.

It's only the thing that is bleeding our economy dry, hindering the government's ability to address the economic issues you mentioned.

So, by all means, lets support the candidate who authorized the war without even having read the intelligence reports. Let's support the candidate who in one breath called for diplomacy and in the next breath shot down the one measure that would have required it.

By all means, let's support the candidate who is not even willing to admit these actions were mistakes.

You may be willing to overlook these issues (whatever your reason may be), but you have no right to criticize those who won't. Iraq is going to affect all of us for the rest of our lives.

[SPKrazy]

82. Kristi, surely you don't believe what you just wrote

that the Iraq war was supported by Hillary

[Barack_America]

97. I absolutely do.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

That says it all.

[AtomicKitten]

77. Hillary abdicated her collective war-declaring powers to an idiot.

Yes, she is responsible.

[rodeodance]

79. AMEN--THANK YOU.

[Seabiscuit]

81. Sadly, most of the people responding to your OP are using this thread as just another place

to carry on their inane bickering.

[SPKrazy]

88. true enough

[otohara]

84. Billions, Trillions Spent In Iraq

we continue to spend money trying to rebuild the monumental destruction we made in Iraq, when that money could be spent here, thus creating jobs.

get serious here.

[SPKrazy]

87. exactly!!!!

so what does Hillary and the IWR have to do with that fact???


explain please when we ALL KNOW that shrub was going to attack Iraq whether he got the IWR which isn't worth the paper it is printed on really.

get serious is what I said!

thanks for agreeing :D

[MethuenProgressive]

89. I did a poll on this - "Who Is Responsible For Bush's War in Iraq" - and most voted Clinton.

It's amazing how successful the Obama Propaganda SwiftBoat has been.

[SPKrazy]

91. LOL

the Obama swiftboat

good name for it

it's exactly what it is

and it is Democrats doing it to Democrats

hell there will be nothing left by the time one of them has to run against the real enemy

McCain, who will have coffers and coffers of money

and nothing but time to sit back and watch all this asinine bickering about bullshit

as if Obama were in fact the person who would have stopped the Iraq war. If so, then why didn't he?

He wasn't even a Senator then but the fact that he spoke out against war makes him right? Clinton didn't vote for war.

No one did.

That's a Karl Rove meme that Obamanation has picked up, shame on them.

[slipslidingaway]

95. Clinton voted for the blank check...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4632338#4634924

156 Democrats did not.


http://authforce.liberatedtext.org/021010/cr10oc02-70_01.html#sarbanes01

Mr. Sarbanes: This, of course, is a decision with far-sweeping consequences, certainly as it deals with Iraq and all of its implication. But the precedent is being established in terms of the future, it seems to me, and that constitutes a major erosion of the role of the Congress with respect to the Nation going to war.

Mr. Byrd: It does. And it is easy enough, I suppose, to pass this resolution. But should we try to negate it, should we try to repeal it, should we try to change the law, a President can veto any change that Congress might bring along later, any change it might enact, in order to overturn this law it is now about to adopt.

Mr. Sarbanes: I am glad the distinguished Senator made that point because that is the next item I wanted to go to. People could say: If the circumstances changed and the Congress wants to pull it back, why not come in, pass a law, and pull it back? But the fact is that a President who wanted to keep that authority and may well want to use it, as long as he could keep the support of one-third--not of each House of the Congress but only one-third of one House, either a third of the Senators, plus one, or a third of the Members of the House of Representatives--he could negate congressional action that tried to pull back this war-making authority, could he not?

Mr. Byrd: The distinguished Senator from Maryland is absolutely correct. It only takes a majority of both Houses to pass this resolution, but it would take two-thirds in the future if the President should attempt to veto a substitute piece of legislation by this Congress to abort what we are doing here today, to appeal it, to amend it. One-third plus one in either body could uphold the President's veto, and that legislation would not become law..."


http://authforce.liberatedtext.org/021010/cr10oc02-69_03.html#byrdresvagueoverbroad

"...The Bush administration has announced a new security doctrine that advocates acting preemptively to head off threats to U.S. national security. Much has been said about the diplomatic problem with this doctrine. But we should also recognize that the administration's new approach to war may also pose serious problems for our own constitutional system.

In the proposed use-of-force resolution, the White House lawyers claim "the President has authority under the Constitution to use force in order to defend the national security interests of the United States."

It says no such thing. I dare them to go to the Constitution and point out where that Constitution says what they say it said. They cannot do it. I know the job of any good lawyer--I have never been a practicing lawyer, but I know the job of a good lawyer is to craft legal interpretations that are most beneficial to the client. But for the life of me, I cannot find any basis for such a broad, expansive interpretation in the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. Find it. Show it to me. You can't do it.

Where in the Constitution is it written that the title of Commander in Chief carries with it the power to decide unilaterally whether to commit the resources of the United States to war? Show it to me, lawyers, lawyers of the White House, or lawyers in this body. Show it.

There is a dangerous agenda, believe me, underlying these broad claims by this White House. The President is hoping to secure power under the Constitution that no President has ever claimed before. Never. He wants the power--the Bush administration wants that President to have power to launch this Nation into war without provocation and without clear evidence of an imminent attack on the United States. And we are going to be foolish enough to give it to him...


And make no mistake, the resolution we are considering will allow the President to go it alone at every stage of the process. It will be President Bush, by himself, who defines the national security interests of the United States. It will be President Bush, by himself, who identifies threats to our national security. It will be President Bush, by himself, who decides when those threats justify a bloody and costly war. And it will be President Bush, by himself, who determines what the objectives of such a war should be, and when it should begin and when it should end.

The most dangerous part of this modernized approach to war is the wide latitude the President will have to identify which threats present a "high risk" to national security. The administration's National Security Strategy briefly outlines a few common attributes shared by dangerous "rogue states," but the administration is careful not to confine its doctrine to any fixed set of objective criteria for determining when the threat posed by any one of these states is sufficient to warrant preemptive action.

The President's doctrine--and we are about to put our stamp on it, the stamp of this Senate. The President's doctrine, get this, gives him--Him? Who is he? He puts his britches on just the same way I do. He is a man. I respect his office. But look what we are turning over to this man, one man.

The President's doctrine gives him a free hand to justify almost any military action with unsubstantiated allegations and arbitrary risk assessments.

Even if Senators accept the argument that the United States does not have to wait until it has been attacked before acting to protect its citizens, the President does not have the power to decide when and where such action is justified, especially when his decision is supported only by fear and speculation. The power to make that decision belongs here in Congress. That is where it belongs. That is where this Constitution vests it. The power to make this decision belongs to Congress and Congress alone.

Ultimately, Congress must decide whether the threat posed by Iraq is compelling enough to mobilize this Nation to war. Deciding questions of war is a heavy burden for every Member of Congress. It is the most serious responsibility imposed on us by the Constitution. We should not shrink from our duty to provide authority to the President where action is needed. But just as importantly, we should not shrink from our constitutional duty to decide for ourselves whether launching this Nation into war is an appropriate response to the threats facing our people--those people looking, watching this debate through that electronic lens there. They are the ones who will have to suffer. It is their sons and daughters whose blood will be spilled. Our ultimate duty is not to the President. They say: Give the President the benefit of the doubt. Why, how sickening that idea is. Our ultimate duty is not to the President of the United States. I don't give a darn whether he is a Democrat or Republican or an Independent--whatever. It makes no difference. I don't believe that our ultimate duty is to him. Our ultimate duty is to the people out there who elected us..."

[pathansen]

96. Hillary has been sponsoring bills to end the war.

[Mik T]

102. Those bills aren't bills to end the war

One was a vets benifit package

One was a bill calling into question the presidents use of power in starting it

And the other one called for a deadline. Someday. In the fullness of time. When the cows come home. etc. And she knew the pres would veto it anyway

[Danger Mouse]

101. You don't support Hillary...

but you came here to bash Obama and his supporters.
Psh.
I don't think the IWR is a HUGE deal, but I think it's important.
As I said before, 22 senators, one of them a republican, knew it was wrong.
Yet Hillary did not read the NIE.
Soooo...
it shows a lack of judgement on a critical national security issue.
i knew, from what little i knew about bush's psychology, that he was dead set on attacking iraq.
(remember 'fuck saddam! we're gonna git him!' and 'the man who...tried to kill my dad' etc?)
so yeah. it matters.

[Moochy]

103. What If I loved the War

Who should I vote for?