It was a vote for fucking war. Period.

[cali]

And it's a filthy revisionist lie to claim differently. I've posted exerpts from Senator Leahy's pre IWR speech before, and none of those claiming in Orwellian fashion that it wasn't really a vote for war have ever been able to address what he said contemperaneously. And I'll post it again- not that I expect anyone to actually address it, but because it's important not to let the truth- the facts- be buried by stinking, foul lies. Please note that in the first paragraph, Leahy speaks of bush's plan to go to war in Iraq. They all KNEW this was a vote for war. Every last one of them. And pay attention to the Constitutional argument. If you profess to care about upholding the Constitution and you try and justify the IWR, you're a hypocrite; you're willing to jettison it when it's politically convenient. I'm not saying that a vote for the IWR is unforgivable. I voted for Kerry in the general election, but I am saying that pretending it was something it's not, is not excusable. It's bullshit.

<snip>

The opportunity and responsibility to have this debate is one of the cornerstones on which this institution, and indeed this country is built. Some have suggested that expressing misgivings or asking questions about the President's plan to attack Iraq is somehow unpatriotic. Others have tried to make it an election year issue on bumper stickers or in TV advertisements.

These attempts are misguided. They are beneath the people who make these attempts and they are beneath the issue. This is an issue of war. An issue of war should be openly debated. That is a great freedom of this Nation. We fought a revolution to have such debates.

As I and others have said over and over, declaring war is the single most important responsibility given to Congress. Unfortunately, at times like this, it is a responsibility Congress has often shirked. Too often, Congress has abdicated its responsibility and deferred to the executive branch on such matters. It should not. It should pause and read the Constitution.

In the Senate, we have a duty to the Constitution, to our consciences, and to the American people, especially our men and women in uniform, to ask questions, to discuss the benefits, the risks, the costs, to have a thorough debate and then vote to declare war or not. This body, the Senate, is supposed to be the conscience of the Nation. We should fulfill this great responsibility.

In my 28 years in the Senate, I can think of many instances when we asked questions and took the time to study the facts. It led to significant improvements in what we have done here.

I can also remember times when Senators in both parties wished they had taken more time to carefully consider the issues before them, to ask the hard questions, or make changes to the legislation, despite the sometimes overwhelming public pressure to pass the first bill that came along.

I know following the Constitution is not always politically expedient or popular. The Constitution was not designed to be politically expedient, but following the Constitution is the right course to take. It is what we are sworn to do, and there is no question that having this debate, which really began some months ago, has helped move the administration in the right direction.

Today, we are considering a resolution offered by Senator Lieberman to authorize the use of force. Article I of the Constitution gives the Congress the sole power to declare war. But instead of exercising this responsibility and voting up or down on a declaration of war, what have we done? We have chosen to delegate this authority and this burden to the executive branch.

This resolution, like others before it, does not declare anything. It tells the President: Why don't you decide; we are not going to.

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. This Vermonter does not sign blank checks.

<snip>

[gerrilea]

1. Who cares now? Only you do because its the only weapon you have

desperate are we?


Bush could have gone into Iraq without the vote, under the UN resolutions...period...he already had the power...that IWR was just a political tool to beat the democrats over the head with, Great job supporting the Repukes and their "talking points"...

The vote meant nothing, as per our constitution, as you so graciously point out! Treaties are the law of the land...

PLEASE STOP WITH THE TWISTING BECAUSE YOU NOW HATE HILLARY...AND YOUR FEEBLE ATTEMPTS AT TURNING THIS INTO SOMETHING IT ISN'T...

[cali]

6. I care. I care about history. I care about facing facts. It has fuck all to do

with Hillary. I've been writing the same post for years here, dearie. YOU know jackshit, obviously. And you certainly aren't able to respond to what I posted in any manner.

[gerrilea]

11. I just did and "your history" is the twist here!

[Usrename]

27. What are you mumbling about?

This is an unjust war, whether or not you think it is legal. There is no denying that.

[gerrilea]

54. That's not what I'm "mumbling" about...read first!

[gerrilea]

58. "Dearie" I just did respond, your clueless, check out international law

and the UN then get back to me...keep up your twisting!

[Usrename]

93. I don't see anything under existing international law that makes this war legal.

Even though it may be legal under US law, thanks to the implementation of the IWR.

The Constitution of the United States
Article VI. - The United States

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

...

Charter of the United Nations

Chapter VII
Action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression

Article 46
Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.

...

( some selected text of the final UN resolution on Iraq)
{Adopted as Resolution 1441 at Security Council meeting 4644, 8 November 2002}
The Security Council,
>
Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions
>
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
>
14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

...

It's clear that Bush just thumbed his nose at international law, exactly the same way that he has done with domestic law.

He could not maintain an occupying force in Iraq, either politically or legally, without the consent Hillary granted him in the IWR.

[niceypoo]

131. So, of course, you didn't vote for John Kerry, right?

And of course you chastise Obama for voting to keep the war going by funding it....correct?

[JAbuchan08]

164. I sure didn't vote for John Kerry....

in the fucking primaries!!

[jgraz]

7. Actually, a lot of people care. I'm guessing about 65% of Texas and 60% of Ohio care.

And no, it's not the only thing Obama supporters have. It's just the only one where Hillary helped kill over a million people.

So you'll pardon us if we give this a bit more attention than how many donuts she's fed to Mark Penn.

[babylonsister]

9. You sound like John McCain. And that's no compliment. nt

[Hepburn]

10. Sooooooo....how exactly could Bush go to WAR without that vote?

Care to explain how that works???

[samrock]

19. Easy!!

Without that vote.. No inspectors go in.. He claims UN right.. lies about reports of WMD's and goes in!! He made up his mind to go in within 2 days on getting into office!!!

[Hepburn]

30. Let's start with the basics, OK?

Which branch of government in the US Const was given the power to declare war?

[samrock]

56. LOLOL

He would not declare war... Did congress declare war on Korea!! Vietnam!!, Bosnia, Grenada.. Congress has not declared a war since WW II .. and how many Non-wars have we been in?????

P.S. I like scottie dogs as well ....

[gerrilea]

66. THANK YOU SAMROCK...MY POINT AS WELL...

these guys and gals don't understand shit...and then they attack us for pointing out they are completely wrong and then they get personal...they can't handle the truth...I told you...

[Hepburn]

128. I would venture you could not pass a HS government test....

...and that is nothing personal. Just an observation as to your lack of understanding of what took place.

[0007]

241. I'll second that!

[Forrest Greene]

160. The First Person In This Conversation To "Get Personal"

...was you.

[0007]

194. Your point in NOT well taken. YOU don't know jack-shit about

what your blabbing about.

To tell indiscreet and often groundless tales is nothing but conjecture on your part. YOU offer no proof, no links and not even an intelligence argument. Your only defense is to call names and inculpate others of being a freeper.

Excuse me now while I duck.

[Exilednight]

218. Without a use of force resolution, he could only keep troops in Iraq for 60 days -PERIOD.

[gerrilea]

61. This isn't about declaring war you idiots!

IWR was not and is not and never has been a War Resolution...wake up we aren't at war, as per the constitution! The IWR gave bush power to use our forces for as long as necessary...not the 90 days as so previously required!

THE IWR vote, AGAIN, was not A WAR RESOLUTION....PERIOD!

[cali]

70. Stupid is as stupid does

What part of "blank check" do you find so difficult to comprehend, genius?

[gerrilea]

73. COME NOW, can you spell R-E-A-L-I-T-Y!

You start your post with, "IT WAS A WAR VOTE", which I've proven wasn't and then ramble on about not given *ush a blank check...well WHICH POINT DO YOU WANT TO MAKE...

You can't have it both ways...

[cali]

75. Can you spell D-E-L-U-S-I-O-N-A-L? You haven't proven jackshit, jack

It was both a vote for war and a blank check for war. Duh. You're no different from a holocaust denier. Just a matter of degree. Congrats on belonging to such a club.

[gerrilea]

80. I'm now a holocust denier...WOW...GREAT COMEBACK!

1st it wasn't a vote for war, the use of force...big difference...
2nd now, you blame anyone who voted for it as voting for a blank check...having faith that the president would use the powers just granted him might have been "wishful" thinking, but not wrong...supporting a new president in their 1st term and giving them the "benefit of the doubt" isn't wrong either...

The results however are a different story...

And I thought you were a decent human being...the personal insults are way out of line...

"You're no different from a holocaust denier"...is beyond reality...you've just lost your mind...

[D23MIURG23]

110. A war is defined by the use of millitary force. End of story.

[mattclearing]

165. Read the resolution.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

[sampsonblk]

132. Yelling doesn't get you any closer to being right

The IWR gave Bush the political leverage he needed. He used the IWR debate to gain seats for the GOP in the midterm election. Having the IWR pass accomplihsed something important for Bush - it silenced many of his critics who said he needed permission from Congress for a war of choice. The IWR was his permission. The choice then belonged to Bush.

What you are arguing is a technicality.

[SOS]

136. No kidding?

Every moron on earth knows it was not a declaration of war.

It was called "Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq 2002"

Use the term AuMF, not IWR, if it makes you happy.

[intaglio]

179. an Authorization for the use of force

Use of Force - somehow I don't think USE OF FORCE that it means inspections. It might mean waterboarding once you have won a war but it does not mean inspections.

Others recognised that USE OF FORCE meant war; but Hillary, in your twisted world, thought it meant inspections.

The UN denied that prior resolutions allowed the US to pursue military action and others in the "coalition" asked the US to seek a resolution authorising military action.

Unless Hillary was stupid - which I do not believe - she knew what was being asked.

USE OF FORCE meant USE OF FORCE

[jgraz]

210. Sorry, did you just say the Iraq WAR RESOLUTION was not a WAR RESOLUTION???

It's, like, right there in the name. :crazy:

[Usrename]

32. The UN didn't invade Iraq.

Are you nuts too?

[Hepburn]

45. Just a wild guess here....

...to say the least....I am betting that HS government class was not a PASS with the poster who did the OP.

JMHO

[gerrilea]

68. is that what they now call history...government classes?

YOU ARE A PRODUCT OF "OBE"...this is...Outcome Based Education...EVERYONE passes, eventually even if you don't know shit, you pass...

[Hepburn]

98. I have no clue on what they are doing now.

I have not taught HS government classes since the early 1970s. Don't think, tho, that Article One, Section Eight has changed any since then!

[Peace Patriot]

96. The UN refused to authorize the invasion of Iraq. Bush didn't have a leg to stand on

there. And IF Congress had WAITED--had not authorized the invasion with the IWR--THEN, when the UN and MAJOR ALLIES refused to go along, there WOULD have been a full-scale debate in the country, and in Congress, about the wisdom of doing so. Instead, they gave Bush PRE-authorization to invade. It was a 'fait accompli' BEFORE Colin Powell told his pack of lies to the UN. The NeoCons had decided this long, long BEFORE the IWR, in their "Project for a New American Century" (PNAC) document, which all members of Congress were free to read and learn from. I agree with you there. They were intent on war. But they COULD NOT have done it with NO UN mandate and NO authorization from Congress. There was no emergency. There was no threat. There was no excuse. Congress GAVE Bush the authority to make shit up and do whatever he wanted to. They gravely violated their oath of office in doing so, and unleashed the dogs of war.

I fail to understand how you can excuse this in a candidate for president who has NOT acknowledged that vote as a grave error, and apologized for it--not just to us, who have lost over 3,000 young soldiers' lives, and THREE TRILLION DOLLARS of our non-existent tax money, but to the people of Iraq, who lost 1.2 MILLION innocent lives, and are now suffering extreme civil disruption with millions of refugees, and millions injured and sick, with no help from the Bushite looters of our aid money.

Well, I guess I can understand it. It's a political campaign, and I know people get hot in these circumstances, perhaps thinking that, despite that vote, their candidate is better. But, on the other hand, Obama voters perceive that he took the risk--a very great risk at the time--of opposing the invasion, and therefore has the better wisdom, courage and insight to prevent such a thing from happening again, and for solving the IMMENSE problems that that Congressional vote has created. I frankly don't know if I believe him, or if he will be permitted, by our war profiteers and global corporate predators, to do what's right, if that is his intention. His votes for FUNDING the war further, and ESCALATING it, in obedience to the Democratic Party leadership in Congress, do not bode well, in my opinion. But then I have the bitter memory of my first vote for President in 1964. I voted for the "peace candidate"--LBJ--who then began the slaughter of 2 MILLION people in Southeast Asia, for less reason even than Saddam Hussein and his non-existent WMDs.

Lesson: Beware of Democrats bearing peace.

I have no "horse in this race," so to speak. I don't like or trust either candidate very much. But I do like Obama's SUPPORTERS--their activism, their demand for change--because I think they represent, first of all, the 56% of the American people who opposed this war from the beginning (Feb 03, NYT; other polls 54-55%), to whom Congress and the Bushites were deaf--and the whopping SEVENTY PERCENT of the American people who now oppose this war and want it ended, to whom a DEMOCRATIC Congress has been deaf. His SUPPORTERS are going to reform this country, even if he does not intend to, or cannot. THAT, to me, is a significant development. And, unfortunately, for Hillary Clinton, she has not been able to the inspire this huge antiwar MAJORITY. Warmonger herself, or dupe of the Bushites, she simply does not seem to understand what that vote meant, and what is happening in the country as the result of it. The people are taking their country back--or are beginning to--and, when she ridicules their rallies, she is ridiculing DEMOCRACY. People want PEACE. Get it? They reject unjust war. And the Obama campaign--flawed as Obama is, on policy--is the only vehicle they have to express that overwhelming desire.

In 2004, all they had was Kerry. Now all they have is Obama, who opposed the war vote early and publicly. It's possible that Clinton is more honest about her true beliefs and intentions on war issues, in NOT disavowing her war vote. And maybe--if that is true--honesty is better than the "Democrats bearing peace" that we should beware of. We can't really know. The news media creates such a cloud of obfuscation that it is nearly impossible to read politicians and predict what they will do. It's a judgment call. It's a gut call. I understand that. But it is no good to distort history and to try to deny that Hillary Clinton fully supported the war, not just with the IWR, but with every subsequent vote, and that policy is now opposed by SEVENTY PERCENT of the American people. It's her albatross. It is the truth. And this has meaning to Obama supporters that goes beyond war issues. Permitting the oil corporations to hijack our military for a corporate resource war epitomizes the corruption in Washington DC that the People are revolting against. YOU may think she's better than Obama on other issues, but his SUPPORTERS are saying: This IS the issue, around which all other issues fall into place. I think that is your problem, here, in trying to distort the record, and say she was duped or cornered into voting for the IWR. The war IS the issue. The American people have MADE it the issue.

[samrock]

100. hehejehe

Like THAT was going to stop him...

[eridani]

116. Yes. The energized base. Hammer, meet nail

That is ths only thing that will get us out of the war, and maybe even real universal health care. The Obama supporters like being with a diverse crowd of people who want to do something about the state of the country, even if they haven't though too much about exactly what it is they want to do. All I can say is that us issue junkies need to be ready for them with some serious plans.

[truedelphi]

142. I too care a great deal about the activists who support Obama

But I try not to kid myself that either of these two corportists will bring any type of change.

Also, I found it very scary last night to watch tEd Rendell, the governor of Pennsylvania, a Democrat, tell Bill Maher that under no circumstances should Obama come to power - because we need someone who is a leader with experience, and not someone who is cheerleader. He spoke with disdain for the "popular vote" as though we were not intelligent enough to be listened to.

This man is a superdelegate - and it gave me chills to watch him go on and on about how Obama must not get in.

It made me wonder if there is not already a back room deal being brokered that will keep the will of the people from coming to fruition.

[gerrilea]

53. Yup, here goes!

Under UN Flag, that's why Powel went to the UN first...despite any vote in the Senate...he could use our forces as part of a multi-national force under the UN...which by the way the media kept saying the "coalition forces" remember?

[Usrename]

94. So, that's how you think this stuff works.

If a few countries get together and form a coalition then they can just write their own laws and do anything they want.

And then you think that the UN must approve it and make it all legal-like, because the media called it "coalition forces."

This is truely down the rabbit hole.

[Hepburn]

101. Scary what some people seem to think about how things...

...really work! :scared:

[nvme]

150. the UN resolutions

the first issued (resolution) Said, that the UN would sanction the use of force if saddam would not comply with disarmament. The inspectors' were on the ground in and around december they had a few minor standoffs. but no weapons found. The UN was not going to declare the Iraq Noncompliant because Hans Blixx was unable to to find weapons. He pleaded with our gov. to allow more time. Time was not on bush's side public favor was waivering. Bush made a series of statements saying roughly, non compliant. The mood in the country had not changed toward anti-war. The media was not questioning for fear of being on the wrong side of a potentially patriotic issue. The didn't want to lose the opportunity to get imbedded wit the military units. So, Bush launched the offensive based on the first resolution and that was all. IWR was authorizing the use of AMERICAN FORCES NOT UN. We Never went in under the Auspices of UN Sanction. So treaty with UN or not Bush needed congresses abdication of its responsibility to do his deal. Once Bush's ducks were in a row that was it he moved. Anyone who challenged was called unpatriotic appeaser defeatists. NO smoking gun , NO Mushroom Cloud. Just a cowardly dictator shivering in a hole in the ground surrounded by lots of Oil. OMG So much oil.

[sniffa]

39. What a disgusting fucking post

Seriously. Fuck all those dead and wounded. Hillary had to look tough. :puke:

[gerrilea]

82. "Fuck all those dead and wounded"

So now you hate the troops too?!

[sniffa]

85. No, just Iraqi civilians

Fuck them.

[nvme]

151. YOur using Republican talking points Watch it

Are you really Sean Hannety? my fav is "Why do you hate your country"

[JimGinPA]

232. How Did You Make That Leap?

:shrug:

[JVS]

81. I cared about this vote long before I knew who Obama was, and it disqualified Hillary fot me.

Sorry that doesn't fit in well with your desires, but she fucked up.

[Hugabear]

87. If truth is the only weapon I can use, I'll take it every time

What's the matter, can't handle the truth?

[gerrilea]

88. The truth of what, foolishness?

[Hugabear]

90. Obviously there's no reasoning with you

If you're going to just come back with insipid one-liners, there's no use. Keep trying to spin the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq to make it sound like it was about diplomacy and not military force.

You and your ilk still have not come up with a convincing reason why you think that those who voted against the resolution did so.

[CatnHat]

161. The truth is

Obama is a flip-flopper. In 2004, when asked about Iraq, Obama stated he supported Bush's decision.

Get over it already.

Yeah, its easy to throw stones at Hillary
yet, in 2004 he stated he supported Bush's decision.

Obama is like a monday nite quarterback.
Easy to diss Hillary Clinton; when the guy wasn't even there to vote.
What would Obama do???? Be against the war in 2002, or be for the war in 2004????
In 2004 -Hillary Clinton opposed the war; while Obama supported Bush's decision.
That's the question Obama supporters should be asking?
Where does this guy stand, no one seems to know.

Our country is in deep shit--I don't trust Obama, he thinks people are naive enough to believe him at his word.

It's Bush's war--Hillary didn't start the war for gawd sakes!!!!!!!!

[otohara]

105. That's What Mary Matalin Said Today on Tim Russertt Show

only left wing wacko's still care about Iraq.

I made a decision back in 02 when this vote was taken, I would not support anyone in the PRIMARY in O4 and now 08, who had the terrible judgment and lack of foresight to vote "yes". I would think the majority of people voting against Hillary might say the same thing.

[Cha]

130. james carville's dim bulb,

dick cheney-water carrying, wife..yeah, a tool but not useful.

[SOS]

231. Hey Mary Matalin, here's a photo for you...

Only left-wing wackos still care about Iraq?
These right-wing freaks are sickening.
They ginned up this fiasco and now they don't care.
Screw 'em, they're going to lose their power this year.
That'll wake her up, since that's all she cares about.

[bread_and_roses]

133. I care. and right on, cali

I have cared from the moment the vote was taken and never stopped caring. and every photo I see of a dead Iraqi child, every word I read, makes me care more.

[L0oniX]

140. Freeper? Go home. n/t

[AZBlue]

155. No, the lies and the revisions of history are attempts to turn this into something it isn't.

And you're right - that DOES show desperation!

[earthlover]

185. Who cares...because if the phone rings at 3AM I want the president to do the right thing!

Hillary showed her lack of judgement on day one of the IWR, the day she voted for it.

This was her most significant vote cast. It led to hundreds of thousands of deaths. It distracted us from going after Been Forgotten. It broke our budget. It hurt our relations with our allies and others in the Middle East. It damaged our credibility. And it continues to harm the US economy.

And she didn't even bother to read the intelligence briefings provided Congress.

At 3AM I want the phone to be answered by someone with their head on straight and does their homework, from day one.

[geiger]

197. how you infer hate for Hillary from this post is beyond me.

Congress as a group bears the responsibility, even if she along with Biden was one of the ringleaders.

[Gonnuts]

200. Who cares?

Fifteen-million people that marched against this war and another 10 for every one that marched cared and knew that everything about the Iraq invasion was bullshit. So, please explain how all these ordinary people can be more aware and better informed than so-called government agents?

This goes for ALL and everyone that supported this war inside the government or out, if you supported the Iraq invasion you are either totally naive and easily duped and therefore have no business being in a position of leadership or you knew it was an illegal venture and are guilty of war crimes. PERIOD.

[theredpen]

202. It's one more weapon that Saddam Hussein had

The Iraq War has devastated this country economically, morally and spiritually. It will be the great shame of the 21st century. It was a weapon of mass destruction — of America.

Nearly everything wrong with the country today can be linked to the foolish adventure in Iraq. The first National Guard troops on the scene to help after Katrina were Mexican because the Louisiana NG was in Iraq. Just pick a Bush fuckup and you'll see the stain of Iraq.

[liberalhistorian]

217. It's not just the vote itself, it's the fact

that she has never, not once, ever even acknowledged that she was wrong, much less apologized for it. THAT is one of my many major issues with her. And how do you like all of them there votes for continued war funding that she so enthusiastically cast? All the while criticizing Obama. Hypocrite much?

Telling the truth isn't spinning, btw. Just sayin'.

[GarbagemanLB]

2. Agreed. It is really pathetic how desperate the Hillbots are, trying to revise history.

[Maribelle]

15. Actually, if your read in good Senator's speech, it is, in essence, what Hillary said.

'This resolution, like others before it, does not declare anything.'

[dansolo]

28. Then why did she vote against the Levin Amendment?

[Maribelle]

36. Because the Levin Amendment, if passed, would ..

(paraphrasing) make the United States subordinate, in the first instance, to the United Nations Security Council, and only if they failed to act would have Congress reconsider giving the POTUS permission to use Military Force against Iraq.

[Tellurian]

83. Obama LIES and his ilk push the LIE for him!

Exactly Right, Maribelle:

http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/%7Ehst306/documents/war73.html">What The War Powers Act of 1973 Says: (Passed by Congress)

"Passed by Congress over President Nixon's veto, the War Powers Act of 1973 requires the president to "consult" with Congress before "introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances," and to notify Congress within 48 hours of any U.S. troop commitment or deployment.

The Act also requires the president to end U.S. military participation in such hostilities within 60 days without a congressionally approved declaration of war or resolution extending the of use armed forces.

The operative word in the "War Powers Act" IS: "Consult": (this is the paragraph Bush used to go to War with Iraq. The Congressional Vote was no more than a token vote establishing support for the President from Congress and the People.

Consultation

"Sec. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations."

http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/%7Ehst306/documents/war73.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4833152

[SOS]

227. Zero concept of the WPA

If the WPA is invoked, the President is required to "consult" with Congress.
If you had even the slightest idea what you were talking about, you would know that Bush did NOT invoke WPA in his invasion of Iraq.
A joint resolution by Congress or a declaration of war supersedes the WPA.

If you are going to grab at straws to defend the yes vote, at least get one fact right.

[Demobrat]

3. It was not a vote for war.

Neither was it a vote for not going to war. It was a vote for their own political careers, and that goes for every one of the cowards who voted for it, self-serving apologies when the war became unpopular notwithstanding. End. Of. Story.

[Hepburn]

14. Ex-fucking-actly!

Only the ones who cared stood up and said NO to Monkey Boy! The others, IMO, cared more about public sentiment. Count Hillary in as on the WRONG side of that vote.

[0007]

196. Hillary ain't a lint lizard. She's the best 'camel toe' jockey money

can buy. And she takes it with her alligator smile, while her pimps work hard to come up with new ideas to give her human decency.

[RiverStone]

62. Yes - arrogant and idiotic

What ever looks best - a huge miscalculation as most of us non-politicians on DU and elsewhere knew it was a vote for war.

So did the apologists - but they just did not give a shit.

There will never, ever be a valid excuse for that IWR vote. Something like 23 senators voted NO - what did they get that all the other idiots giving Shrub a free pass did not get?

Integrity!

[Recursion]

4. I was in the Marines. It was signed on Oct. 16. We were mobilized on Oct. 18

Every. Single. Person. In. The. Country. Knew what it was about.

[PassingFair]

106. 2002 Clairvoyant Convention, New York City

[suston96]

5. It was NOT a vote for "war".......

It was a vote for reasoned diplomacy and if that failed.........

"My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

*******

A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort."

[cali]

12. You can post that in big bold red letters and it's still a big bold red lie.

And my excerpt of Leahy's speech PROVES it. As do practically all Constitutional scholars. It's disgusting and it's related to all historical revisionism to claim it wasn't a vote for war- including holocaust denial.

[gerrilea]

71. Leahy's speech proves nothing!

And your inclusion of it shows how little you really know!

[gerrilea]

84. Now posting exact quotes is lying? You really have lost your mind!

[Hepburn]

17. Oh, fucking bullshit.

What the fuck is use of force now??? Diplomacy???

Spin.......!!! :eyes:

[gerrilea]

72. What the hell do you think the Korean conflict was...a police action

WAKE UP!

[Hepburn]

103. No shit....

...:eyes:

Duh......

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

29. Finally. Some TRUTH!!!!!!!

Course, truth seems to hurt the heads of those that tout the IWR vote as a vote cast by blood thirsty war mongers.

[D23MIURG23]

109. Or doublespeak.

Anyone can use words to distance their actions from the foreseeable (or obvious) consequences, but you can't make the causal link disappear.

If I go rob a bank, I can tell the jury that I was putting money back in the drawer, however the security cameras will show me walking out with an AK and 10000 dollars in a burlap sack.

Clinton Authorized the use of force by an administration that had spent months on a PR campaign against Iraq. What does the evidence say her vote was?

[CTLawGuy]

33. I can't sign someone's death warrant

and claim I'm signing an order to give him a medal. He still dies, and I'm still responsible.

[Window]

52. Right.

Pre-War Militarism
Senator Clinton’s militaristic stance on Iraq predated her support for Bush’s 2003 invasion. For example, in defending the brutal four-day U.S. bombing campaign against Iraq in December 1998 – known as Operation Desert Fox – she claimed that “he so-called presidential palaces … in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left.” In reality, as became apparent when UN inspectors returned in 2002 as well as in the aftermath of the invasion and occupation, there were no weapons labs, stocks of weapons or missing records in these presidential palaces. In addition, Saddam was still allowing for virtually all inspections to go forward at the time of the 1998 U.S. attacks. The inspectors were withdrawn for their own safety at the encouragement of President Clinton in anticipation of the imminent U.S.-led assault.

Senator Clinton also took credit for strengthening U.S. ties with Ahmad Chalabi, the convicted embezzler who played a major role in convincing key segments of the administration, Congress, the CIA, and the American public that Iraq still had proscribed weapons, weapons systems, and weapons labs. She has expressed pride that her husband’s administration changed underlying U.S. policy toward Iraq from “containment” – which had been quite successful in defending Iraq’s neighbors and protecting its Kurdish minority – to “regime change,” which has resulted in tragic warfare, chaos, dislocation, and instability.

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4802

[Tellurian]

169. You have to face the fact Obama is a LIAR!

He will do and say anything to Win the Presidency.

His campaign is a sham and the reason he continues to point to Senator Clinton Iraq vote as allowing Bush to go to War IS his biggest LIE yet!. You can read here that Bush had the power for a preemptive strike against Iraq irregardless of the Congressional Vote..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4832109#4833200

[Hugabear]

89. The "Use of United States Armed Forces" part must have fooled me

Sorry about all this. It's just that the whole thing about authorizing the president to use military force in Iraq kinda made me think this was about allowing Bush to use military force. Silly me.

[D23MIURG23]

108. "I'm voting for this obvious rush to war even as I leave myself plausable deniability"

Are you kidding me? You mean this crap is actually convincing to someone? The CW at the time was that "no" votes would be seen as national security wimps and have no shot at the presidency.

A least Kerry could admit his mistake.

[Tellurian]

170. Kerry Won the election and refused to fight for us..

If Kerry is your idea of "right" than cry me a river of an apology because Bush didn't need a Congressional vote to go to war..See here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4832109#4833200

[D23MIURG23]

180. My senators were right. They voted against the damn thing.

But I could live with Kerry because he showed signs of learning from his mistake.

As for your other post, Im really not sure what you think "consult" means other than "ask for imput or approval". If you think this authorization was unnecessary for W to make war, than maybe you can enlighten me as to why he asked for it? Was it because he and Cheney are glowing fans of congressional oversight, and genuinely wanted the input of congress?

Your apologetics are not only unconvincing, but they also reflect poorly on your level of intellectual honest.

[SOS]

126. It was a vote to authorize the use of military force in Iraq

Her floor speech is utterly irrelevant.
Only the text of the AuMF matters and Clinton voted YES.

[Tellurian]

172. Huh? This is all that mattered..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4832109#4833200

[Hissyspit]

141. You are mistaken. n/t

[Bjorn Against]

149. I am sorry, but anyone who wanted to put responsibility in the hands of "our President" was wrong

I don't know who you are quoting, but whoever they are they owe the nation a serious apology for choosing to give such an obvious criminal such as Bush such "awesome responsibility". If they honestly thought he would only use such powers as a last resort they were delusional, but more likely they knew he would not use them as a last resort and they supported anyways and just gave that weak statement to make it appear as if it were not their responsibility.

[earthlover]

188. So, was it called the "Iraq reasoned diplomacy resolution"? No, it was the Iraq WAR resolution

[Smarmie Doofus]

8. She hedged her bets: she cautioned him with her vote....

...with words to the effect of "Mr. President: We are giving you the authority; use it wisely."

"Use it wisely" is, I believe, an exact quote.

She apparently thought that Bush and Co were capable of using power...ANY power..."wisely". Since poltical grown-ups everywhere new this not to be the case, the vote and the caveat speak volumes about her judgement.

In reality, she thought the war would work better than it did and did not want to be caught trying to explain why she opposed it. The argument that she didn't know what she was voting for is beyond silly.

Sen. Clinton is a political *machine*. Nothing more, nothing less.

[nvme]

156. its 3 am

You children are asleep. The phone rings. who do you want answering that call? Someone who stand behind the decision they are about to make or someone " grants the authority and hopes they will use it wisely". Checks and balances Are in place to protect the constitution. it is a cynical document. It does not believe that Awesome power should be wielded by one person. Thus the commander in chief cannot declare war. congress authorizes the use of force. If clinton wants to abdicate responsibility, and then hedge by saying use this wisely, she is twice the fool. one for the abdication. Secondly for abdicating to someone who can not Pronounce" Nuclear".

[Maribelle]

13. 'This resolution, like others before it, does not declare anything.'

'It tells the President: Why don't you decide'

[cali]

21. oh please

you don't even understand what he was saying. How pathetic is that?

"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. This Vermonter does not sign blank checks."

[Maribelle]

25. I made a verbatim quote and you bash me? lol

Whatevah you do here, sugar, don't you evah show your true colors, hear?

[bigtree]

77. yet nothing in that document precludes Congress from refusing to fund that occupation

from the first $87 billion. That's what makes the argument about the importance of the Iraq resolution so false. They could end the occupation today, using the only actual 'authority' Congress has, by controlling the funding. Nothing in the Iraq resolution can stop them from ending their support of the occupation. Conversely, there hasn't been the level of support in Congress necessary to effectively stand in the way or end that funding.

In short, Bush initiated the invasion using 'powers' which were NOT original to the Iraq resolution. Bush has been allowed to occupy Iraq for five years because of the lack of the necessary amount of votes (and will) to end the money support, not because of the Iraq resolution.

[frog92969]

168. They DON'T need votes to end the funding.

They need pelosi and reid to NOT give them a money bill to vote on.

But they're either making too much money or just plain scared of the anthrax.

[Window]

55. Sure.

Pre-War Militarism
enator Clinton’s militaristic stance on Iraq predated her support for Bush’s 2003 invasion. For example, in defending the brutal four-day U.S. bombing campaign against Iraq in December 1998 – known as Operation Desert Fox – she claimed that “he so-called presidential palaces … in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left.” In reality, as became apparent when UN inspectors returned in 2002 as well as in the aftermath of the invasion and occupation, there were no weapons labs, stocks of weapons or missing records in these presidential palaces. In addition, Saddam was still allowing for virtually all inspections to go forward at the time of the 1998 U.S. attacks. The inspectors were withdrawn for their own safety at the encouragement of President Clinton in anticipation of the imminent U.S.-led assault.

Senator Clinton also took credit for strengthening U.S. ties with Ahmad Chalabi, the convicted embezzler who played a major role in convincing key segments of the administration, Congress, the CIA, and the American public that Iraq still had proscribed weapons, weapons systems, and weapons labs. She has expressed pride that her husband’s administration changed underlying U.S. policy toward Iraq from “containment” – which had been quite successful in defending Iraq’s neighbors and protecting its Kurdish minority – to “regime change,” which has resulted in tragic warfare, chaos, dislocation, and instability.

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4802

[Maribelle]

74. Well, were the so-called presidential palaces well suited or not???

Your first emphasis leaves that point ambiguous.

Your second emphasis totally distorts what Hillary actually expressed, and fraudulently attempts to blame 1998 actions towards 'regime change' on Bush's failed war in 2003 and totally incompetence in managing that war.

How clever!

[DemGa]

16. St. Obama: "I think this is a tough question and a tough call."

BLITZER: Kerry, of course, and Edwards both voted yes.

OBAMA: But keep in mind, I think this is a tough question and a tough call. What I do think is that if you're going to make these tough calls, you have to do so in a transparent way, in an honest way, talk to the American people, trust their judgment.

BO has a different line for Kerry than Hillary -- indeed, he spins wildly, just like his followers.

[Hepburn]

20. Get a clue, OK?

If Obama had been in the Senate and had voted YES on the IWR and had like Hillary NOT apologized or admitted the mistaked with -0- prompting to do so, I would be on his ass as much as I am on hers about this bullshit.

Her EX-FUCKING-USES are NOT acceptable. PERIOD.

[cali]

22. Clueless. This has fuck all to do with Clinton or Obama

this has to do with the truth of the matter and repudiating revisionist history.

[DemGa]

38. It is a major theme of the Obama campaign -- of course it is relevant

And the the words I've posted by St. Obama directly CONTRADICT Senator Leahy -- relevant indeed. You see, if it was clearly a vote for war, it would not be a "tough call" as St. Obama has stated. Now who is correct, Leahy or Obama?

Has Obama engaged in revisionist history? This is very clear logic.

[D23MIURG23]

113. Obama has stopped short of decoupling the war and the vote that enabled it.

So no it isn't revisionist history.

And there are political reasons for it to be a "tough call" that don't define it as anything other than an authorization to use millitary force (read that as "start a war" if you can't see the connection all by yourself). You see at one point voting against this bill was supposed to make Democrats unelectable.

[Evergreen Emerald]

18. It was not a vote for war.

But it is certainly easier to say that than to really understand the issues and concerns and place she was in at the time.

[cali]

24. Tell it to Pat Leahy

And sorry, he's a lot smarter and more informed than YOU.

[Evergreen Emerald]

40. I have no doubt that Pat Leahy is smarter than 99% of the people on this board

present company included.

I also read Clinton's speech, and her explainations about why she voted the way she did. And I understand it.

It is the intellectualy lazy way out to just say: "it was a fucking vote for war."

[D23MIURG23]

114. How intellectually lazy of me to confuse the use of Military force

with the act of making war.

Your logic is lousy and so are your apologetics.

[Skidmore]

23. Absolutely! Hillary must think we all fell off the turnip truck yesterday.

Revisionist, spun like cotton candy froth, stuff of lies and obsfucation! Thousands have died and millions of lives have been destroyed because of the IWR vote. Sacrifices on the altar of political ambition or collateral damage of political cowardice. An office bid steeped in blood and misery.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

26. It Wasn't A Vote For War: Period.

One can argue that some Senators should've had better judgment in giving Bush such authority, but that still doesn't make it a vote for war. Senator Clinton has made quite clear what her expectations were and what her position was on how and when such force should be implemented. When people turn her REAL position into one instead of "yeah, go to war. It's all good. You have my permission. Just go ahead and do it now. Let's get it over with", they are engaging in deceitful smear tactics and are being amazingly disingenuous. That much is certain.

[cali]

34. This is NOT about Clinton. It's about my disgust for revisionist history

I've been writing and posting the same thing here with the same information for years. It absolutely was a vote for war. Leahy said so. Linc Chafee writes about it in his new book. And that you only think of it in political terms, demonstrates how oddly you view it.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

35. Sure It Is.

If it weren't, you'd be posting it in GD, rather than general discussion: PRIMARIES.

[cali]

42. I've posted the same thing in GD. You're engaging in a logical fallacy

something people with a lack of critical thinking skills frequently do. I saw the lie here, and I responded to it here. I've been saying the same thing and posting the same post for years in both GD and GD-P. YOU look at it simply as politics. I don't.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

46. You Don't Get It.

This is GDP. If you post something here, it is in relation to the primaries. Your post is in reference to Hillary's vote for the IWR, and her supporters/objective minded people's defense of it's mischaracterization. That's kinda pretty clear to see.

[Usrename]

43. I have to call you on this one.

If Hillary's position was what she now claims, why did she vote down the Leahey amendment?

Didn't it say EXACTLY what you are claiming she believed the vote was about? Yet she voted against it.

How did she decide to vote against an amendment that expressed exactly what she wanted?

What was her decision process like to go through that gyration? Was she thinking about the loss of life of innocent Iraqis?

This is a disgustingly dishonest argument. She WANTED this war! So did Bill! Grow up and face reality.

[Saturday]

44. Right, it's not about Clinton. Good one. LOL n/t

[mudesi]

104. Talk about delusion

Just because it didn't say explicitly in the bill "This authorizes George W. Bush to go to war" doesn't mean that's not essentially what it was.

The Democrats were afraid of looking weak and they blew it.

[PassingFair]

107. Correction: SOME Democrats were afraid of looking weak.

23 Senators voted NO!

The majority of our Democratic Representatives
in Congress voted NO!

Only those afraid of losing their seats
voted YES.

Well, and the Republicans...

[sofa king]

120. And yet, somehow, it was a vote for war.

As evidence I cite... the fucking war in Iraq.

I seriously doubt that a certain editorial escaped Mrs. Clinton on the morning of October 10, 2002, the day she voted for the war. It was an editorial in the foremost newspaper of her state, the New York Times, and that afternoon it was inserted into the Congressional Record, where it became public domain and may now be quoted in full.

The editorial was by none other than Senator Robert Byrd, who understood exactly what this vote was going to be about, just as Senator Clinton doubtlessly did.


Congressional Record, Page S10286-S10287

Congress Must Resist the Rush to War

(By Robert C. Byrd)

A sudden appetite for war with Iraq seems to have consumed
the Bush administration and Congress. The debate that began
in the Senate last week is centered not on the fundamental
and monumental questions of whether and why the United States
should go to war with Iraq, but rather on the mechanics of
how best to wordsmith the president's use-of-force resolution
in order to give him virtually unchecked authority to commit
the nation's military to an unprovoked attack on a sovereign
nation.
How have we gotten to this low point in the history of
Congress? Are we too feeble to resist the demands of a
president who is determined to bend the collective will of
Congress to his will--a president who is changing the
conventional understanding of the term ``self-defense''? And
why are we allowing the executive to rush our decision-making
right before an election? Congress, under pressure from the
executive branch, should not hand away its Constitutional
powers. We should not hamstring future Congresses by casting
such a shortsighted vote. We owe our country a due
deliberation.
I have listened closely to the president. I have questioned
the members of his war cabinet. I have searched for that
single piece of evidence that would convince me that the
president must have in his hands, before the month is out,
open-ended Congressional authorization to deliver an
unprovoked attack on Iraq. I remain unconvinced. The
president's case for an unprovoked attack is circumstantial
at best. Saddam Hussein is a threat, but the threat is not so
great that we must be stampeded to provide such authority to
this president just weeks before an election.
Why are we being hounded into action on a resolution that
turns over to President Bush the Congress's Constitutional
power to declare war? This resolution would authorize the
president to use the military forces of this nation wherever,
whenever and however he determines, and for as long as he
determines, if he can somehow make a connection to Iraq. It
is a blank check for the president to take whatever action he
feels ``is necessary and appropriate in order to defend the
national security of the United States against the continuing
threat posed by Iraq.'' This broad resolution underwrites,
promotes and endorses the unprecedented Bush doctrine of
preventive war and pre-emptive strikes--detailed in a recent
publication, ``National Security Strategy of the United
States''--against any nation that the president, and the
president alone, determines to be a threat.
We are at the graves of moments. Members of Congress must
not simply walk away from their Constitutional
responsibilities. We are the directly elected representatives
of the American people, and the American people expect us to
carry out our duty, not simply hand it off to this or any
other president. To do so would be to fail the people we
represent and to fall woefully short of our sworn oath to
support and defend the Constitution.

<[Page S10287>]

We may not always be able to avoid war, particularly if it
is thrust upon us, but Congress must not attempt to give away
the authority to determine when war is to be declared We
must not allow any president to unleash the dogs of war at
his own discretion and or an unlimited period of time.
Yet that is what we are being asked to do. The judgment of
history will not be kind to us if we take this step.
Members of Congress should take time out and go home to
listen to their constituents. We must not yield to this
absurd pressure to act now, 27 days before an election that
we will determine the entire membership of the House of
Representatives and that of a third of the Senate. Congress
should take the time to hear from the American people, to
answer their remaining questions, and to put the frenzy of
ballot-box politics behind us before we vote. We should hear
them well, because while it is Congress that casts the vote,
it is the American people who will pay for a war with the
lives of their sons and daughters.

As senior Democratic Member of the Senate and Senate historian, all freshman Senators by tradition meet and are supposed to be under the tutelage of Senator Byrd. The above editorial was inserted into the Congressional Record by another of Byrd's students, Senator Debbie Stabenow.

Byrd knew what was going on. Clinton knew what was going on. They all knew what was going on--Senator Byrd had been railing against this movement to war virtually every single day that Congress was in session in 2002--I watched it on CSPAN. He set the terms out far more clearly than anyone else did. He advised his freshman class of the same, certainly on the Senate floor and almost as certainly in private. Senator Clinton, for reasons which are probably obvious, chose to go the other way.

How dare she and her supporters try to cast that vote as anything other than what it was. And how dare anyone try to claim that vote was anything other than what Senator Byrd described it as above. They all knew, and now all that's left to do is to keep counting the bodies as they continue to pile.

[CTLawGuy]

31. well said

by both you and Sen. Leahy.

[Adelante]

37. Agreed and recommended nt

[ElsewheresDaughter]

41. must you all keep trying to convince yourselves over n over again...btw who did you vote for in 04?

[cali]

47. read my posts, genius.

One more time for those who aren't very swift: This is not about Clinton or Obama. It's about not letting revisionism stand.

[sniffa]

48. It's just some dead-enders and die-hard Baathists

[suston96]

49. Twisted words and phrases........

These blind partisans don't give a shit as they give the President of the United States a free pass on deceiving the Congress and the American people. Bush smirks his way through this campaign as blind partisan Democrats attack one of the 77 senators who voted for that resolution, which Bush wanted to carry out his vengeance against Saddam Hussein - who tried to kill his poppy.

Blind partisans indeed, who cannot see the real treachery in what Bush did as they concentrate on their rabid support for their candidate who has so little else to offer other than this vote by Clinton - one vote out of 76 others in the US Senate.

Al Gore's words were twisted to say that he arrogantly claimed to have invented the internet. He never said he invented anything, but that bullshit worked also.

[bigtree]

50. The resolution did not authorize the preemptive invasion and occupation Bush waged

. . . period.

[cali]

51. Senator Leahy says that's allowed bush to do whatever he freakin' wanted

and HE, unlike you, gives the evidence for his statement. What it all boils down to, as Leahy and others said, was it was a blank fucking check and an unconstitutional one at that. And somehow I think Leahy knows not just a little more than YOU, but a shitload more.

[bigtree]

78. Nothing in that document prevented Congress from defunding Bush. THAT'S what stops him.

The FUNDING is what enables Bush. Congress has very little ability to control what the military does with the money after it's allocated. They can cut off funds, but it's very hard to manage the behavior of the military from Congress, outside of manipulating funding. Bush is 'allowed to do what he wants' because Congress has given him money to do so, not because of words in a document that Bush mostly ignored.

[RiverStone]

69. This is like arguing religion...

The 23 brave senators that voted NO sure as hell felt it gave Shrub an authorization to war - so did 95% of DUers. We all saw the same thing and read the same news.

I can't fathom how some folks can see the exact same thing, but interpret the results so very differently.

It was unequivocally an authorization to give Shrub a pass to war - and we can debate it for a century and I will see it no differently. At the very least, since you do not see it that way bigtree, will you concede that whatever the vote was - it was still a misguided choice?

[bigtree]

76. I think it was a mistake to give Bush any encouragement

but, that vote was not the trigger for what Bush ultimately did. It was, however, instrumental in demonstrating the resolve of the U.S. to Saddam, enough to force more access for the U.N. inspectors to actually verify what everyone was speculating on. It was Bush who pushed past the restraint implied in the resolution, refused to return to the U.N. Security Council and invaded, using the provision in the War Powers Act which allows him to depoly troops for a time without prior congressional approval. That's why U.N. General Secretary Annan called it an illegal war. I just don't give that document any more regard than Bush did.

If the legislation was such a trigger, than why didn't he immediately invade, instead of feigning a return to inspections? Because, Bush knew he had to at least make it look like he was following the will of Congress expressed in the resolution, that he exhaust all peaceful means. Did he? Of course, not. All that Bush advantaged himself of in the bill, besides the PR, was the authority described in the resolution as residing in the provisions of the War Powers Act, which isn't original to that legislation.

He didn't need the resolution to mobilize troops and deploy them. He did need, however, for Congress to act to codify his invasion with their subsequent funding, which they did, from the first $87 billion.

[RiverStone]

79. Well, at least we can agree that it was a mistake...

The degree to which it was, however - we disagree on.

I'm tired of the worn out hyperbole which over exaggerates the restraint "implied" in the resolution. Sorry, I think Shrub and his minions had something far more nefarious planned than advertised from day one. He knew what we was getting all along - and he could not wait to wage an illegal and immoral war - all for his GD political expediency.

It was hiding in plain site.

I saw it, lots of people saw it - maybe you did not. Too bad - because giving Shrub the keys to the car was one of the most cowardly and stupid acts in US political history.

Obama will slowly but surely be able to reverse the damage - but it will be felt for over a generation.


peace~:)

[bigtree]

92. Everyone knew he was going to deploy troops, and afterward, Congress would be loath to pull the rug

This was a last ditch effort, by some, who saw the political realities of Bush's ability to deploy those troops, and sought to forestall that. It may have been a vain attempt, or, even a capitulation of sorts, but that bill was going to be the only legislative vehicle out of Congress at that time. To pretend that the other bills had a chance ignores the fact that NO bill would have emerged from that Senate if the majority didn't already intend to bend to Bush. I don't believe that it would have taken just one, two, or any handful of Democrats to oppose the legislation to stop it. I understood that there were NOT going to be enough votes to stop the legislation from advancing.

I can't imagine that Senators like Kerry and others, who worked to get the language about restraint included in the resolution had any illusions that Bush didn't intend to move forward, with or without Congress acting, much like Clinton did in Haiti. Bush had said so. This vote was, to some, a traditional big stick approach to diplomacy. Unfortunately, the Bushes believe that diplomacy is nothing more than a prelude to military aggression. The mistake, that time around, was in itrusting Bush. The lesson now, is that Congress will have to assume their traditional roles and actually declare war, instead of issuing these resolutions which don't do a thing to plug the loophole which allows presidents to merely deploy first and ask permission later. The Iraq resolution was NOT permission, as Congress is understood to give that consent. The funding is the only vehicle Congress has to regulate the Executive's control of the military. In fact, if Congress had just done nothing after Bush invaded, up until and after the period of time provided in the War Powers Act for Congress to either declare war or initiate it, Bush would have been forced to eventually withdraw.

[suston96]

57. Obama voted against the Iraq War Resolution? Really?

Where is his name? here are those in the Senate who voted against that War Resolution:

So where is his vote? These senators voted against it:

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)

Where is his name?

[cali]

60. Get it through your skull: This isn't about Obama and it's not about

Hillary. It's about not letting revisionist history get a toe hold here. I voted for Kerry in the general and I would have voted for Hillary if she'd been the nominee. I hate holocaust denial and I hate this relative of it.

[Skidmore]

67. This argument is always so BS.

It doesn't change the fact that Hillary voted FOR it and only recently gave lip service to recognition of how wrong it was to do so.

[Hugabear]

91. If Obama had really cared, he would have run for Senate in 1998.

Shame on Obama for not having the foresight in '98 to run for Senate (and win) so that he would be able to cast his vote against the resolution four years later.

[Tellurian]

174. It's only because you are not aware of ALL the facts..

Bush didn't need Congressional approval. He had the power without the Vote and would have gone to War with or without their Vote.

You can read it here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4832109#4833200

[SOS]

228. No kidding! What a revelation.

Using the WPA would have limited Bush to 90 days.
The AuMF superceded the WPA (as the law is written).

If Bush had invoked the WPA, we wouldn't even be discussing this and the Democrats would be off the hook in regard to the Iraq fiasco.
The fact that Bush didn't need Congressional approval actually strengthens the case for a NO vote.
Let him invoke WPA, let him go it alone.
Instead the AuMF authorized endless war.

[Tellurian]

175. It's only because you are not aware of ALL the facts..

Bush didn't need Congressional approval. He had the power without the Vote and would have gone to War with or without their Vote.

You can read it here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4832109#4833200

[indimuse]

59. watch~~listen~~LEARN!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wyCBF5CsCA&feature=related


The congress has to declare war...I DON'T think that happened ...BUSH's WAR! My lord!!!

[cali]

64. that's just so igorant. One can't help but be amused in a sort

of horrified way, by the idiocy of people here who think they actually know more about this than Pat Leahy. You aren't fit to be kicked in the ass by him.

[Johnny__Motown]

65. asked to give the president the authority to use force.. in the first 10 seconds of that video

watch part 2 also. It is clear she was voting on war. It is just that War does not do well in focus groups.

[Tellurian]

171. Thats what Congress thought, until Bush used the War Powers Act of 1973

here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4832109#4833200

[SOS]

230. Keep spamming

Bush did not use the WPA.
The AuMF joint resolution by Congress authorized endless war.
Try to get at least one fact right.

Since you are apparently unfamiliar with the WPA, here's section 5b:

"the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces.

That specific authorization is the AuMF.

[Stephanie]

63. But HRC "didn't know." She was "misled." It was not a vote for war, it was to send in inspectors.

She can's erase the past. She voted for the war because she thought it would be better for her career than voting against it. None of the excuses she uses now make sense because none of them are true.

K&R

[Hugabear]

86. Why do you hate America?

How unpatriotic of you.

:sarcasm:

[Omega3]

95. "I was against the war until I actually had to vote on it in the US Senate, since then I've been a

lapdog for dubbya just like everyone else because I got no integrity." BHO

[cali]

102. Believe it or not this isn't about Hillary or Obama

it's about the rage I still feel about that vote and how much I hate revisionist history. In some other context, I'd be glad to discuss Obama's votes to fund the war, but not here.

[tabasco]

97. Of course it was a vote for war.

Everybody knew it.

Bush and Cheney were champing at the bit to invade and anybody who thought they had any intention of letting diplomacy get in the way was a goddamn fool.

So H. Clinton is either:
1) A craven warmonger;
2)A goddamn fool, or:
3)A liar.

We already know #3 is true after she said, "I didn't have time to get that tax return information together," so the only debate is to #1 and #2. She is unqualified to be President, both morally and technically.

[TheWraith]

99. Yes indeed.

I can understand why some of our Dems voted for it, out of political expediency and not wanting to seem weak in front of the Republicans. But that doesn't mean that they weren't wrong, or that it wasn't a mistake, as some people continue to insist.

[grantcart]

111. To all those who try and nit pik what this OP is saying in clear terms:

you are the real kool aid drinkers

[apocalypsehow]

112. Yep! Exactly right. K & R. n/t

[Caro]

115. Obama has made conflicting statements ...

... about what he would have done if he had been in the Senate when the resolution was passed.

He even the New York Times at one point in 2004, "There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0407270351jul27,0,3085726.story

Also in 2004: "When asked about Senators Kerry and Edwards’ votes on the Iraq war, Obama said, 'I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,' Mr. Obama said. 'What would I have done? I don’t know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.'"
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9407E2DF153DF935A15754C0A9629C8B63

His much-touted 2002 speech wasn't as anti-war as he'd like you to believe. In the speech, he never said "Do not attack Iraq", or "If I were in the Senate right now, I'd vote against any resolution that could in any way be construed as giving the President the authority to send troops to Iraq." That gave him deniability, in case the war went well.
http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php

In 2003, when the war was popular, he took the speech off his website.
http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=491&Itemid=1

His war funding voting record has been exactly the same as Clinton's.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_01/012953.php

He didn't make it back to Washington to vote on the Kyl-Lieberman Iran resolution, even though he'd been notified the vote was imminent.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00349

"hose looking to the Obama campaign as a means of ending American militarism will be sorely disappointed. The Illinois Senator has vowed not to reduce the ballooning US military budget—which consumes an estimated $700 billion annually—but rather to increase it. He has called for the recruitment of another 65,000 soldiers for the Army as well as 27,000 more Marines. He has vowed to put 'more boots on the ground' in the 'war on terror,' the pretext invented by the Bush administration to justify 'preemptive war,' i.e., military aggression aimed at asserting US hegemony over the oil-rich regions of the Middle East and Central Asia.

"As for Iraq itself, his promises to end the war are belied by his pledge to keep American forces in Iraq to defend 'US interests' and conduct 'counterterrorism operations,' a formula that would see tens of thousands of US soldiers and Marines continuing to occupy Iraq and repress its population for many years to come."
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/feb2008/obam-f14.shtml

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

[cali]

117. you fucking don't get it at all.

This isn't about Obama or Hillary. No one can really know how he voted, and her vote is well known. It's about keeping the record straight. It's pathetic that you can't see this in anything but political terms. That isn't the point. That isn't the point at all.

[BeatleBoot]

118. What's with the rage and nasty language?

Get a grip.

[cali]

119. The war makes me angry

and I swear a lot anyway. You're hardly one to talk about nasty, however.

[Catchawave]

122. What are you doing to end it ?

Ragging on a message board isn't helping much, is it :D

[cali]

125. I've marched in DC three times

Last summer I put together a poetry slam to raise money for local ads. I've written letters to the editor and taken part in local anti-war activities. I've brought speakers to my area with my local peace & justice group. What have YOU done?

[Catchawave]

127. Then I must have met you in DC or NYC ?

Or worn your name on my DU shirt ? Unless you were not part of the DU group?

[cali]

129. Nope. Never went to NY and went

with Bread & Puppet once and with friends on the bus from Montpelieer twice.

[BeatleBoot]

134. Why do you start threads, then verbally abuse people?

It doesn't make any sense.

[Caro]

135. He said he would have voted for the war.

And he said he would NOT have voted for the war.

Doesn't that tell you something?

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

[rug]

121. It was a vote for funding the fucking war. Period.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10395107

80 - 14.

They both voted for it.

[Yavin4]

123. Here's The Bottom Line: Hillary Has Never Admitted That The Vote Was Wrong

All that she has to say was that her vote was incorrect. John Edwards, Bob Shrum strikes again, admitted as such. She has yet to state that her vote was wrong.



BTW, here's a lesson for all Democrats. Hire Bob Shrum, and whatever he tells you to do, just do the opposite, and you're guaranteed success in politics.

[Warren DeMontague]

145. Yep.

You got it.

[Zachstar]

146. Indeed.

Clinton Supporters you cant spin this into another vote when she will not even admit the most important one was a MISTAKE!

Clinton supporters need to turn the RPM down on the Spin Machine. You are doing tons of damage to the Clinton Political future.

[sendero]

124. It think HRC's brilliant minions ..

.. are FINALLY figuring out why she's going down in flames, so there is a last ditch effort to sanitize her war record. It won't work, we were there, we know what happened, what the facts were and HRC's bullshit statement after the vote matters not at all.

Her vote could have been forgiven if she renounced it a year or two later but NO, she waited until it was politically impossible to not talk against the war to say much of anything.

Too little, too late, bye bye see you Tuesday.

[Caro]

137. All we're saying is that Obama's record ...

... on war votes, since he's been in the Senate IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS CLINTON'S.

Don't let the truth get in the way of a good belief, now.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

[SOS]

138. As if starting a war and funding the US military are the same thing.

nt

[Tarc]

148. Yes, they are the same thing

My god you O-Bots are as dumb as a post sometimes.

[JAbuchan08]

166. no they are not

and saying so doesn't make it so.

Believe me I think that Democrats should cut off funding to end the war, but I still know that the difference between starting a war, voting for a war, and voting to fund the war. Bush started the war, Hillary voted for the war, and Obama voted to fund it. Three different people, three different actions.

[Tarc]

223. Saying they aren't doesn't make it true either, O-Bot

If you and your ilk are still whiny and uppity about the Iraq war, then the beginning of the mess and the continuation of the mess are inseperable.

[JAbuchan08]

238. Don't call me O-bot, Barak was not my first choice Hill-shiller

and BTW you can't continue something that wasn't started. Show me how you can do that and I'll accept your premise.

Oh, wait a second... how the fuck are you going to lecture me about what constitutes opposition to the Iraq war? You're voting for Hillary. What the fuck do you know about peace? You're voting for a hawk. thats H.A.W.K. HAWK.

[SOS]

229. Speaking of dumb as a post

Invading and occupying a country that posed no security threat to the US and appropriating funds for the military stuck in that fiasco are the same thing?
If you think these two issues are "the same", then I'll wear that O-bot badge with pride.

On edit: How did voting for the invasion of Iraq and against funding work out for President Kerry?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

163. Recklessly driving bus into ditch verses carefully getting bus out of ditch

very different.

And Hillary is not the anti war candidate. Why?

[sendero]

139. At least Obama's lip service..

... about ending the war has some credibility.

HRC's, being a total flip-flop, has zero.

See you Tuesday.

[thevoiceofreason]

143. Amen

[Guaranteed]

144. This is true. nt

[Tarc]

147. Disingenuosu, lying O-Bots are still trying to spin their same vile shit, day in and day out

Only the most vile, lying little jackasses try to blame Clinton for the sins of George Bush.

Grow the fuck up, kool-aid sippers.

[berni_mccoy]

153. CLINTON VOTED FOR THE IRAQ WAR.

PERIOD. END OF STORY. SHE GAVE BUSH AUTHORITY. IT WAS BAD JUDGEMENT. Get over yourself and your poor choice of a candidate.

[VotesForWomen]

152. OK, so you're writing in Kucinich, right? nt

[mattclearing]

154. All anyone needs to do to conclude it was a vote for war is to read the fucking resolution.

It's plain as day.

[gulliver]

157. Duh-err! Doi! Duh! Doo! Phflbtttt! Which way did he go George?

Which way dud he go?

[DemBones DemBones]

158. A guy who wasn't there to vote can't claim he voted against it.

In July 2004, while running for the U.S. Senate, Obama told the Chicago newspaper that his position on the war was much like George W. Bush's.

In 2002, while in the Illinois Senate, Obama made an anti-war speech at a rally. Big whoop. One speech.

Obama morphed into being pro-war in 2004 when the war was being supported by a lot of voters and he wanted to get elected. He'll say whatever works for him at the time.

Obama has voted for every single bill to fund the war and he voted to extend the PATRIOT Act.

Clinton is just a bit better -- I'm not exactly a fan of hers -- but could beat McCain.

But a lot of Dems seem determined to nominate another candidate doomed to lose, Barack Obama. Get the lifeboats ready before the S.S. Obama sinks in November.

A lot of Democrats are not going to vote for Obama if he's the nominee, some are even saying they might vote for McCain.

[guyanakoolaid]

162. I keep seeing this hilarious line from Clinton supporters

"Hillary is the one who can beat McCain"... Do you not see that you're not going to sway anybody into your camp with these tactics? When people see that you are willing to flat-out lie, misrepresent the IWR, and make claims about the ability to beat McCain that virtually every single poll in the nation refutes, they are not going to believe you are the "change" candidate.

[Tellurian]

177. Hillary can beat Obama because he's a bald faced LIAR..

He's promoting a lie and you people swallow it hook line and sinker. Bush didn't need the Congressional Vote to go to War. He did it for support and would have gone to war without or without the Congressional Vote. So, Obama's is just promoting another LIE for his own gain.. Obama has never done a single thing for America and never will.

Here is the legislation giving Bush the power for War without the Congressional Vote:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4832109#4833200

[cali]

187. what slobbering nonsense you spew

and Hilly is not beating Obama and it's doubtful that she can. she's run a shit campaign.

[bridgit]

159. This kind of tack is for me tedious i.e. "Those indians killed that nice man Gen. Custer period"

That's it. Just 'period', no context, no history shaping the event. Not 'a' cherry picked from one tree...but one cherry picked from a whole orchard.

Yes, coming from a military family, having tried to tuck my daddy's nightmares in bed along with him; I am able to confirm the initiation of war should be a major pre-consideration. But the republican congress of historical record shirked many more responsibilities than even that most grim, dire & deadly one. And to *not* see that is to contribute to histrionic revisionism imo.

Maybe only some needed Naomi Klein to explain the shock doctrine. For many others explanation wasn't required as it was fluttering in their faces like a drooling, big black vulture with blood soaked wings what to do what to do...

Sure, I see these over & over attempts to paint Clinton into the same old corner while giving BO a pass for never having had to make so grim, dire & deadly a decision. But these-such attempts are void of history while declaring yet others still "revisionist". When it is revisionist that do not want peeps to see history in sum total, but only those facets they desire be seen. The ones that flatter their camp.

Oh, and I have great empathy for they that didn't see some form of military action coming after the towers came ashes ashes all fall down. The Queen of England played The Star Spangled Banner in front of Buckingham Palace, she only plays stuff out of her rock block y'know...so you just had to know that something big was coming behind that. To not have seen it is to bow before folly. To continue to intone, "We're not talking about 9-11, asshole!!" Is to bow before the same alter. It's a big, gooey, sticky ball that's been rolling since before 9-11 in fact. Argue tactics, argue strategy, argue planning, argue no-bid crony war profiteers, argue in favor of the Geneva Convention; but to be stuck right here, with no other movement, is to set no resolutions in forward motion...imo

Americans outside Buckingham Palace

[silentchurch]

167. potty mouth is so wrong...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpRlFmhQhFU

[Tellurian]

178. Cali has never been right yet..

So what else is new..

She is busy thinking of a valid response to this post. That pea brain of hers has exploded so many time because she has been wrong, like Humpty Dumpty, she's trying to put herself together again.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4832109#4833200

[cali]

181. um, not quite

and you certainly do have your panties in a twist over my post. how telling, tellurian. Why would that be? And lots and lots of people disagree with you. not that there's anything new about that.

[cali]

182. hey, a big fucking welcome to fucking DU. n/t

[BringBigDogBack]

173. Fucking, A, cali....

fucking 'A.

[ellisonz]

176. "Error: You've already recommended that thread."

[Ravachol]

183. As the debate rages on...

It is crystal clear that partisanry - if not blind loyalty - is obscuring the judgement of many people here.

People all around the World knew it was a vote for war. Especially iraqis. It sure felt like war in 2003, in Baghdad.

[flordehinojos]

184. there you go again cali. having another tantrum. we have to take your word over the word of the

person who cast her vote and explained what her vote was and how it was misused by the resident in the white house? i don't think so. and... i do see BO as another GWB who is lying to get his way in to the white house ... he has said "don't be principled when everyone else is being pragmatic." and that is just what he has done. principles be damned. or, the means don't matter as long as you get to the end. or, as Sean Wilentz in The New Republic put it...

"It may strike some as ironic that the racializing should be coming from a black candidate's campaign and its supporters. But this is an American presidential campaign--and there is a long history of candidates who are willing to inflame the most deadly passions in our national life in order to get elected" . "Sadly," (Wilentz continues) "it is what Barack Obama and his campaign gurus have been doing for months--with the aid of their media helpers on the news and op-ed pages and on cable television ... The promise to continue until they win the nomination, by any means necessary


and, as also posted in another thread here earlier, as far as Barack Obama and the Iraq War (wrongly called Iraq War since it was an invasion and remains an occupation) said in 2006 about it and his so called No Vote on it:

2006 -- Statement by Senator Barack Obama on the subjects of Senator Hillary Clinton and the Iraq War Vote, New Yorker Magazine:

"You know, I think very highly of Hillary. The more I get to know her, the more I admire her. I think she’s the most disciplined—one of the most disciplined people—I’ve ever met. She’s one of the toughest. She’s got an extraordinary intelligence. And she is, she’s somebody who’s in this stuff for the right reasons. She’s passionate about moving the country forward on issues like health care and children. So it’s not clear to me what differences we’ve had since I’ve been in the Senate.

"I think what people might point to is our different assessments of the war in Iraq, although I’m always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn’t have the benefit of U.S. intelligence. And, for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices. So that might be something that sort of is obvious. But, again, we were in different circumstances at that time: I was running for the U.S. Senate, she had to take a vote, and casting votes is always a difficult test."

read more. . .

http://guerillawomentn.blogspot.com /

[cali]

186. This really is NOT about Hillary. And it's LEAHY you're calling a liar

I think he knows more that the likes of YOU. And comparing Obama to bush is just demented. You live in an Orwellian little world where up is down and peace is war. how sick.

[flordehinojos]

191. dear cali ... kids go on having tantrum when truth hits them in the face ...

i hear a tantrum going now. and as far leahy and this not being about hillary ... who is it about, then? you are certainly smearing hillary ... and leahy ... well, i lost respect a long time for him when he kept saying he was going to hold the gonzalez/bush feets to the fire and never did. he blew a lot of hot air. never acted on his words and always went with the excuse the gonzalez/bush white house gave him.

he knows darn well hillary is not going to play footsies with him ... as do all the rest in the senate who seem to be promoting the lies of BO.

O. have you anything to say about BO own 2006 words?

[cali]

192. dear flor, your powers of discernment are irrevocably broken

I have not had a tantrum. I do swear, however- with relish. And you respect hillary and not Leahy? What a joke. Do educate yourself, if it's remotely possible. Leahy did hold Gonzales accountable. That's why he's gone, dear. Even someone of limited reasoning abilities should be able to figure that out.

[flordehinojos]

216. as to discernment ...

if anything

i would believe my inner voice.
a friend from birth she talks to me
when all else is quiet.

she imparts magnitude to images
she wishes to make
immortal;
passages my daily life and voice
perforce must bury
inside the sounds of steal.

my inner voice keeps me
in touch with nature;
there she lets me read
inside people's hearts

of things unknown to them .

she lets me hear

the core.

she is my guardian:
she focuses a friend or foe.

she lets me walk out to life
and greet the morning
blindfolded.

by night, at the edge of the cliff
she speaks to me in a language unheard of
in monuments to steel.

flordehinojos

[ecdab]

189. My thinking regarding those that voted yes for IWR was in place

long before Obama got any notable national media coverage, as was the thinking of many here at DU - so for people to come here and say that Obama has shaped our thinking into to some delusion in this regard is far from accurate. A yes vote was an absolute mistake that helped to pave the way for what has occurred. It helped to trample the voices of those that opposed the war. It helped to move the one sided media narrative forward. It made the anti-war movement look small and isolated and without much political support - because the anti-war movement didn't have much political support at the time thanks to those that voted like Hillary did.

I don't think that Hillary would have gone to war in Iraq if she had been President at the time (but that is just an opinion). She may have lacked the judgment to understand what Bush and the media could and would do with such an authorization (that seems to play into what Obama is saying). She may have actually believed her speech on the Senate floor carried some sort of power like a Presidential signing statement - but that would be the height of silliness (so I don't believe that one). She may have been looking for political cover at a time when it appeared that voting against the authorization would have political costs (I think that is why many elected Democrats voted the way that they did). I don't know why Hillary voted differently than the proud handful that got this vote right - what I do know is that she got it wrong.

This was a pivotal moment in American history - and Hillary was on the wrong side of it. She was one of many Democrats that royally screwed up. In my mind that serves as a major point in deciding who is best qualified to lead my political party forward. Hillary already turned her back on the anti-war movement when it needed her most, she turned her back on many here at DU. I still respect all the good things that Hillary has done and I admire her dedication to many worthy causes - but people will have to excuse me if I don't rally to somebody that absolutely failed an anti-war movement that was near and dear to me at a very personal level.

[Guava Jelly]

190. something I made a few years ago

http://youtube.com/watch?v=iyiTFy7fJ4k
subtitled in french but the Byrd part is definitely worth rewatching

[0007]

193. bttft and recommend with many kudos for a great post.

[UALRBSofL]

195. Let me tell you one thing Cali

You try throwing up IWR as the "say-all, do-all" that defines this voting cycle. And anyone that voted for Kerry is a hyporite. Obviously it was a non-issue in 04 when Dean did not win the nomination. So, you know what you can do with your IWR post.

[ecdab]

198. maybe you should clarify that statement

it sounds like you are saying that anybody that voted for John Kerry against George W. Bush is a hypocrite. If that is what you are saying I have some additional words for you.

In '04 the Democratic primary was over on Super Tuesday. John Kerry won and his next opponent was George W. Bush. John Kerry screwed up just as badly as Hillary did (though he has had the sense to condemn what he did) - he helped to minimize the voice of the anti-war movement, he helped to shape the national media narrative with his actions and inactions, he left the anti-war movement with only a slim amount of political support that helped to enable the media to ignore us, he didn't pay attention to the information that was available and didn't help to get that information the attention it deserved - just like Hillary.

I hope you are not confusing supporting a Democrat in the GE with not supporting a specific Democrat during the Democratic Primary.

[UALRBSofL]

208. ecdab another thing about Kerry

He has never apologized for his vote. When he was running in 04 he said he would not have changed his vote, rather, he would do things different then Bush. That said, evidently it was a non-issue to voters in the general public in 04 but I see the Obama camp bringing it up all the time as an issue to pander for votes.

[ecdab]

219. I think you are speaking in overly generalized terms,

there are many of us here that were not behind John Kerry in the Primary (due in large part to his vote on the IWR) and are not behind Hillary Clinton for the same reason.

Obama is far away from being my perfect candidate - I see only a tiny bit of difference between him and Hillary on policy issues. Given their similarity, at least for me, the IWR vote becomes a very important issue when looking at them both side by side. I think that is the case with many people that have ended up in the Obama camp as the field has narrowed. I was really pissed after the IWR vote. I remember vividly how it impacted the anti-war movement. I remember how it fed into the twisted media coverage of the situation in Iraq.

I've said a thousand time that I like Hillary and respect so much of what she has done - but when choosing who should lead the party forward, the IWR vote is important - and Hillary got it very wrong. I listen to the arguments that Obama didn't get it right in a way that had national impact - and I agree. I listen to the people that are critical of Obama for voting to continue to fund the war (assuming they have a problem with everyone that has voted to continue to fund the war) - and I agree that it makes him less than perfect (but the choice is between Hillary and Obama at this point).

There is a measure of accountability that is needed when choosing a party leader. It is my feeling that those that voted for the IWR should be measured as having voted for something that hurt the anti-war movement in a very significant fashion. Obama is not immune to being measured for his transgressions against the anti-war movement - they are simply less significant transgressions that came after the dice had already been cast.

Certainly this is an issue that Obama has used to his political advantage - but I don't see why he shouldn't. I'd be giving voice to this if it was Hillary vs. anybody that didn't vote for the IWR - and not because I dislike Hillary (I don't dislike Hillary - I actually like her), but because it is one of the central issues of our time and I remember the aftermath of that vote.

And since you read my last post in this thread - you know I'm not giving John Kerry a free pass - he screwed up as well.

[kdpeters]

222. Non-issue? It was a HUGE issue to those of us against the war from day one.

It's been my number one issue since they started banging the war drums years before I'd ever heard of Obama. Maybe some in the "Obama camp" do bring it up with less than sincere motives. Speaking for myself, however, this issue is the reason I find myself in camp Obama not the other way around. Ended up here by default with my next to last choice. Hillary's stance to me seems about like what you describe Kerry's. It's that sort of pandering to warmongers that upsets me much more. I grudgingly voted for Kerry at the point where the only alternative left was magnitudes worse. I'll do the same if I HAVE to grudgingly vote for Clinton rather than McCain. As long as I have a choice, I'm voting against it.

I've seen you on some of the McClurkin threads and I've seen a lot of the other GLBT contributors complaining about having our genuine concerns about the issue dismissed. I don't know if you have made that specific complaint, but all of us gay folks are all too familiar with it. With this post, you are doing the same thing by dismissing genuine frustration with Senator Clinton's actions regarding the Iraq war. My personal opinion is that some have used the McClurkin incident to play politics much the same way you see some using Clinton's IWR vote for similar political shenanigans. It's been an effort on my part to remember and respect those with legitimate objections and not dismiss everyone out of hand because some are playing politics with it. That's all I ask of you too.

[LWolf]

199. Yes, it was a vote for war.

So were all the votes to fund that war. No amount of spin washes those votes clean, either.

[mdmc]

207. kick

:toast:

[George II]

201. Do we need this foul language on the FRONT PAGE of DU??

Oh, and by the way, have you read the AUMF? It wasn't a vote for "war", but bush usurped his authority and went to war anyway!

[theredpen]

203. Apparently we do

Sometimes emphasis is needed.

[George II]

204. Emphasis is one thing, obscenity it something entirely different!

[jgraz]

213. Fuckin-A. I, for one, am SICK of these fucking shit-mouthed motherfuckers

Jesus H. Ass-fucking Christ. You fucking know God will fuck your shit up when you fucking use that fucked-up language. Personally, I don't give a horse's throbbing cock how anyone talks. But there are motherfucking kids on this motherfucking board who don't need to be motherfucking exposed to that kind of virgin-mary-sodomizing, donkey-raping, baby-jesus skullfucking vocabulary.

So please, let's all try to keep it clean.


On Edit: FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK.

[theredpen]

214. Technically...

Obscenity is used for emphasis, so it's not something entirely different.

It's a special case of emphasis, I'll grant you that.

[Upton]

205. Hillary knew, everybody knew it was a vote for war

to claim different now is a flat out lie. She had a chance to stand up and demonstrate some character and failed miserably.

[mdmc]

206. Some people took to the streets, others were complicit

In NYS, my congressman Maurice Hinchey came out against the war. Pete Seeger was against the war. My Senators supported the war ("gotta support the trOOPS")

Lots of people were willing to sign Bush's blank check

[kdpeters]

209. Great post, Cali! Thank you for saying it.

It would be one thing to have to grudgingly accept that your candidate voted for war -- the same way we all did for Kerry and Edwards and would do for Clinton if she were the nominee -- but the outright denial by a handful of the Hillary folks is shocking. I agree with your analogy to Holocaust denial up above. It really is on that scale, yet it's the word 'fuck' that offends their sensibilities. Not the hundreds of thousands innocents dead and the millions displaced. Fuck. "Fuck' and McClurkin seem to be issues of the greatest importance to that subset. War? Not so much.

You've really pulled them out of the woodwork with this thread. I would have to disagree with you when you say that this has nothing to do with Hillary. It has everything to do with Hillary and her inability to take responsibility for her mistakes. Edwards supporters don't feel any need to rewrite history. Why is that? It's because he's repeatedly used strong language to acknowledge that his vote was wrong and his actions show evidence of genuine heartfelt contrition and a lesson learned -- speaking only for myself. Obama doesn't have that vote to defend or regret, but he is on the record being against it from the beginning. McCain still defends his vote an the war in Iraq. None of the other candidates had any need to represent the IWR vote for anything other than what it was -- not even the Republicans. It was a dereliction of duty on the single most important responsibility a Senator holds -- all for political expediency. Biden, Kerry, Dodd, Edwards and Clinton took the coward's way out.

But only Hillary has this urgency to minimize the impact of that vote. It's only Hillary who can neither defend her vote nor take responsibility for it. It's only Hillary who does both blame AND denial. On the one hand, it's Bush's fault. On the other hand, it wasn't a vote for war. Never mind the two excuses are inconsistent with one another such that neither one has any credibility. It has everything to do with Hillary because she is the reason for the revisionism you're responding to.

[jaybeat]

211. So was every vote in favor of funding it.

And no one who voting against funding it is running for President. So quit hiding your candidate behind the fact that he wasn't in a position to vote either way on the IWR.

When he WAS in a position to vote against continuing an illegal occupation that continues to make Iraq's problems worse, not better, what did he do? Same thing all the other spineless Dems in Congress did.

So I don't think you've got a whole lot to brag about here.

[nolabels]

212. Just one of those corner stone votes of the CRAP-HOUSE they want to defend

Trillions of fucking dollars so Europe can build the US military planes. Trillions of dollars so China can build these so-called hi-tech military armament circuit boards. Just on and on and on (it's all outsourced now)but we do know for sure we are protected and protecting other things from something. Just what the hell is it in a just kind of by the way? This is being asked because the militarist now seem to be having a hard time of describing it too? Just kind of makes a person wonder about those other so inclusive words injected into the lexicon. Where they clairvoyant as they said word boondoggle or were they just being ignored so the taxpayers could be ripped off?

Please, all you military rah-rah-rah people (you know who you are, you people who say that the military is such an important part of the economy) just give us a couple of your flow charts so we, we the common taxpayers, can see how efficiently it works :shrug:

[SlowDownFast]

215. Way to go, cali. It's all very simple. n/t

[hulka38]

220. whadya know

Hillary supporters know that in 2002 they were for the invasion of Iraq, believed that Iraq was going to attack the U.S. with WMD and maybe even a nuke if they could get one ready in time, and with their keen perception of the people of the middle east, Hillary supporters understood that Saddam and his good terrorist buddy Osama were responsible for the attacks on 9/11. Hillary supporters, you bought all that shit. You know you did.

[Herman74]

221. As an Obama supporter, let me come to Hillary's defense on this one

But first let me point out that had I been a Senator, I would have voted "no," simply because to me it made no sense to ever cede authority to Bush. Moreover, intelligent Senators such as Bob Graham (who was on the Intelligence committee) wound up voting "no," undoubtedly for good reasons.

Still though, I can see an at least somewhat logical case to be made for voting "yes" to this resolution. When Hillary voted "yes," the UN Weapons Inspectors were not in Iraq yet (though an agreement had been reached between the Iraqi government and Kofi Annan in Sept. 2002 for the return of the inspectors). Hillary's argument, that she was simply trying to put additional pressure on Saddam to let the UN weapons inspectors back in, is not totally without merit. Saddam had proven himself to be over time a tricky character indeed.

After the resolution passed, Saddam did keep his word, and allowed the UN Weapons Inspectors back in (they returned in November 2002). What Hillary failed to foresee, and what I myself failed to foresee was that

Darth Cheney and The Chimp would invade before the UN Weapons Inspectors were finished with their job!!! These inspectors just had to quickly pack up and leave! The whole thing was stunning, at least to me.

In my mind, Hillary was guilty only of an unwillingness to explore other options to get the UN Weapons Inspectors back into Iraq, impatience, and above all, gullibility. This is why I have often wondered about the phrase, "she voted for the war." She naively voted to give Bush the authority to go to war, and Bush misused his authority.

What annoys me about Hillary though, is that unlike Edwards, she refuses to admit she made a mistake. This failure is evident in her vote in favor of Kyl-Lieberman, which was truly inexcusable.

[hulka38]

225. naive

Obama, and I would guess most of his supporters understood that the intelligence was being fixed around the policy to go to war and being driven by the strong motivation to go to war. That was Bush and the neocon's objective - invade Iraq. All of the pro-war intel should have been seen from the that perspective. It should have been obvious to any senator. The weapons inspector argument is CYA.

[Tarc]

224. The real Main Page news should be the Obama camp calling black Clinton supporters "Uncle Toms"

as seen here;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4841483&mesg_id=4841483

rather than this piece of lying, misleading horse shit.

[hulka38]

226. Way to stay on topic Tarc. Do you want to argue the points

or go to one of the many threads that discuss hearsay and rumor.

[Tarc]

240. It isn't rumor, O-Bot

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

233. "ITS THE WAR, STUPID"

[dailykoff]

234. Wars, plural. IWR in 2002, cluster bombs in 2006, Kyl-Lieberman in 2007,

and a red-meat article in "Foreign Affairs" this past Nov/Dec advertising her readiness to nuke Iran, just in case there's the least doubt as to who she's aligned with:

"If Iran does not comply with its own commitments and the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table."

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101faessay86601-p40/hillary-rodham-clinton/security-and-opportunity-for-the-twenty-first-century.html

Hillary has shown a pattern and practice of enabling NeoCon genocide and we've spilled enough innocent blood already, thanks all the same.

[ProSense]

235. I don't agree, but that's beside the point.

Even with the vote, Bush had no reason to go to war except the evidence he manipulated and presented to Congress after the vote. Remember, Powell's show was after the vote, the sixteen words were after the vote, and so was Bush's letter to Congress.

Kerry, unlike Hillary, spoke out against Bush several times before Bush invaded, including this speech at Georgetown University on Thursday, January 23, 2003:

As our government conducts one war and prepares for another, I come here today to make clear that we can do a better job of making our country safer and stronger. We need a new approach to national security - a bold, progressive internationalism that stands in stark contrast to the too often belligerent and myopic unilateralism of the Bush Administration. I offer this new course at a critical moment for the country that we love, and the world in which we live and lead. Thanks to the work and sacrifice of generations who opposed aggression and defended freedom, for others as well as ourselves, America now stands as the world's foremost power. We should be proud: Not since the age of the Romans have one people achieved such preeminence. But we are not Romans; we do not seek an empire. We are Americans, trustees of a vision and a heritage that commit us to the values of democracy and the universal cause of human rights. So while we can be proud, we must be purposeful and mindful of our principles: And we must be patient - aware that there is no such thing as the end of history. With great power, comes grave responsibility.

<...>

Second, without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.

So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War. Regrettably the current Administration failed to take the opportunity to bring this issue to the United Nations two years ago or immediately after September 11th, when we had such unity of spirit with our allies. When it finally did speak, it was with hasty war talk instead of a coherent call for Iraqi disarmament. And that made it possible for other Arab regimes to shift their focus to the perils of war for themselves rather than keeping the focus on the perils posed by Saddam's deadly arsenal. Indeed, for a time, the Administration's unilateralism, in effect, elevated Saddam in the eyes of his neighbors to a level he never would have achieved on his own, undermining America's standing with most of the coalition partners which had joined us in repelling the invasion of Kuwait a decade ago.

In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing. But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war. As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.

The Administration must pass this test. I believe they must take the time to do the hard work of diplomacy. They must do a better job of making their case to the American people and to the world.

I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.

Senator Kennedy also urged Bush against going to war during the month after the vote and before the invasion. Why did Bush go ahead with his invasion when so many were warned the results would be catastrophic?

Kerry also, unlike Hillary again, has never wavered in calling out Bush on his immoral war, and he led the effort to set a deadline for withdrawal.

Hillary's problem has been not only her silence, but also her inability to explain her position with clarity and consistency.

Also, where was Hillary when Bill was "repeatedly" defending "Bush against the left on Iraq"?

"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life."

Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.

link

In the middle of the 2004 campaign to make Bush a one-term president (select) for his illegal invasion, Bill Clinton was defending him.

These are the things that bring Hillary's judgment into question.

[UALRBSofL]

236. Kerry stands by 'yes' vote on Iraq war 8/10/04

Bush challenges Democrat on stance
Tuesday, August 10, 2004 Posted: 12:04 AM EDT (0404 GMT)

GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, Arizona (CNN) -- Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said Monday he would not have changed his vote to authorize the war against Iraq, but said he would have handled things "very differently" from President Bush.

Bush's campaign has challenged Kerry to give a yes-or-no answer about whether he stood by the October 2002 vote which gave Bush authority to use military force against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

The question of going to war in Iraq has become a major issue on the campaign trail, especially in light of the fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found there.

Intelligence reports that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was a major rationale for going to war.

The U.S. senator from Massachusetts said the congressional resolution gave Bush "the right authority for the president to have."

But he told reporters on a campaign swing through Arizona, "I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has." He challenged Bush to answer four questions.

"My question to President Bush is why did he rush to war without a plan to win the peace?" Kerry asked. "Why did he rush to war on faulty intelligence and not do the hard work necessary to give America the truth?

"Why did he mislead America about how he would go to war? Why has he not brought other countries to the table in order to support American troops in the way that we deserve it and relieve a pressure from the American people?

"There are four, not hypothetical questions like the president's, but real questions that matter to Americans," Kerry said. "And I hope you'll get the answers to those questions because the American people deserve them."

Bush's campaign has hammered Kerry over his vote to authorize military action and his vote a year later against $87 billion in funding for the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Kerry has said he voted against that measure because it would have financed the war with borrowed money. He voted for a defeated alternative that would have rolled back some of Bush's tax cuts to pay for the conflict.

The president told supporters Monday in Virginia that he still would have gone to war based on the evidence at hand at the time, and he challenged Kerry to say whether he would have cast the same vote.

More than 900 American troops have been killed in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003 that deposed Saddam. No WMD arsenal has been found, although a few aging gas shells have been located, and U.S. inspectors have said Iraq tried to conceal some weapons-related research from U.N. weapons inspectors.

Bush said Iraq had the ability to build weapons of mass destruction and had been deceiving weapons inspectors, who reported no sign of banned weapons in Iraq in the weeks before the invasion.

"Everybody thought they would be there. We haven't found them yet," Bush said. "But he did have the capability of making weapons. Knowing what I know today, I would have made the same decision."

Kerry has said that if elected, he would work to recruit more U.S. allies to assist in stabilizing Iraq, where nearly 140,000 U.S. troops are still fighting to provide security for the country's interim government.

Kerry said his goal would be to reduce the number of American troops in Iraq within six months of taking office, but he said he would put more troops into the country "if the commanders ask for it."

"Obviously, we have to see how events unfold," he said. "The measurement has to be, as I've said all along, the stability of Iraq, the ability to have the elections, and the training and transformation of the Iraqi security force itself."

But he said if he could persuade other countries to contribute troops, reducing the U.S. contingent would be an "appropriate" goal.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/09/kerry.iraq/index.html

[ProSense]

237. Nonsense, from your link:

Why did he rush to war on faulty intelligence and not do the hard work necessary to give America the truth?

Kerry in 2003:

The way Powell, Eagleberger, Scowcroft, and the others were talking at the time, continued Kerry, I felt confident that Bush would work with the international community. I took the President at his word. We were told that any course would lead through the United Nations, and that war would be an absolute last resort. Many people I am close with, both Democrats and Republicans, who are also close to Bush told me unequivocally that no decisions had been made about the course of action. Bush hadn't yet been hijacked by Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney and that whole crew. Did I think Bush was going to charge unilaterally into war? No. Did I think he would make such an incredible mess of the situation? No. Am I angry about it? You're God damned right I am. I chose to believe the President of the United States. That was a terrible mistake.

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

link

[UALRBSofL]

239. This is when Kerry made his "I'm sorry speech" and he didn't even say he was sorry

The Path Forward” Georgetown University October 26, 2005

"There is, as Robert Kennedy once said, ‘enough blame to go around,’ and I accept my share of the responsibility. But the mistakes of the past, no matter who made them, are no justification for marching ahead into a future of miscalculations and misjudgments and the loss of American lives with no end in sight".

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=952

This was the reaction to his speech:
John Kerry will never get away with this. Too many in the base know he cynically sold out his fellow soldiers left behind in Vietnam in order to look strong by voting for that resolution. He can’t now say that he accepts part of the blame. He stood by and let Bush lead our troops to slaughter. He is as guilty as Bush in this, even more so since he knew what was in store for our soldiers.
*********************************************************************************************************************************

"Am I angry about it? You're God damned right I am. I chose to believe the President of the United States. That was a terrible mistake".

This is not an apology. Can he not say the words "I am sorry for the IWR". The closest he came to that was the link above I have provided at his Georgetown Speech - "The Path Forward"

[berni_mccoy]

242. Kerry's not running for President either. CLINTON IS. She has not APOLOGIZED for siding with Bush

And fully supporting the Iraq War. She will not bring our troops home.