Bill Clinton: I Opposed Iraq War From The Beginning
Well, this line from Bill Clinton probably won't do a lot to help Hillary on the Iraq issue. Speaking to an Iowa crowd today, the former president criticized the Bush Administration for continuing to cut taxes even as they pursued wars — and went on to say that he opposed the Iraq War from the start.
"Even though I approved of Afghanistan and opposed Iraq — from the beginning — I still resent that I was not asked or given the opportunity to support those Soldiers," Bill told the crowd.
Remember folks, his wife the candidate voted for the war in 2002, and has been working hard ever since to assuage the doubts of Democratic activists. Furthermore, Bill voiced his support for it at the time.
The audio, provided to us by a rival campaign, is available after the jump.
Late Update: The Hillary campaign makes the relevant point that Bill repeatedly said that we shouldn't invade Iraq without letting the weapons inspectors finish their job. More on what Bill said at the time here.
Comments (160)
NCSteve wrote on November 27, 2007 7:02 PM:I'll bet Wolfson's head nearly exploded when he heard about this one.
AlwaysTipTheWaitress wrote on November 27, 2007 7:03 PM:This is bad. If I were the Senator, I would hit my husband over the head with my purse.
Ni Daye wrote on November 27, 2007 7:08 PM:When will this freaking site officially declare for Obama?! I am so sick tired of seeing the contributors here put out comments that are designed to hurt Hillary. the morons were all over the most unreliable Washington Post/ABC News poll about Obama leading Hillary in Iowa but does not even bother to show new polls showing Hillary back on top. You can all wish hard but this country is not ready for a black president, let alone an inexperienced one who grew up among the white and Asians.
DTM wrote on November 27, 2007 7:11 PM:I'm sure Bill just meant: "I opposed Iraq--from the beginning of Hillary's presidential campaign."
Keith wrote on November 27, 2007 7:12 PM:Can you say self-inflicted wound? Unforced error? It becomes clearer every day that Bill Clinton is just not cut out for the support role he's being asked to play.
CalD wrote on November 27, 2007 7:14 PM:
I guess if there's anyone living who might be capable of explaining the difference between the AUMF Iraq and the Iraq War to people who are determined not to understand it (i.e., the only people remaining who still don't), my money would have to be on Bill Clinton.
Keith wrote on November 27, 2007 7:20 PM:CalD:
I'm not sure if I follow your point. Are you trying to be snarky? Or are you being serious?
hwc wrote on November 27, 2007 7:21 PM:Why would Wolfson's head explode? Hillary Clinton opposed the preemptive invasion of Iraq from the beginning, too.
Her position, clearly stated, was to use coercive diplomacy (i.e. the threat of military action) to force Sadaam Hussein to allow the UN weapons inspectors back into the country...exactly the scenario that unfolded in December 2002 when Hans Blix' team return to Iraq after a four year absence.
gqmartinez wrote on November 27, 2007 7:23 PM:This is if you assume that AUMF was a vote for war. This is where Liberals give Bush a lot of cover. Yeah, he went into Iraq based off the '02 AUMF, but he was out promising that it was a diplomatic tool and not a vote for war, in pretty much those exact words. Bush is the one who pulled the trigger on Iraq, but that doesn't really matter. We keep rehashing this and debating this point that couldn't be more clear and obvious to me.
Criticizing her judgment in voting for AUMF is completely on the table and how it relates to K-L and more broadly. But really, Democrats should just give up if we are going to start saying that we were truly for the war, when the peroponderance of evidence indicates otherwise. I don't see this as particularly nuanced or anything and it really boggles my mind that we continue to let Bush off the hook on this one. AUMF had accomplished the intent of the legislation (getting inspectors in) but Bushed ordered the inspectors out which had nothing at all to do with AUMF. That was him and his advisors.
keith wrote on November 27, 2007 7:29 PM:AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002.
We began massing troops on the borders of Iraq after Labor Day 2002.
Everyone who was paying attention in 2002 KNEW what the vote was about (if you are confused, check the papers for October 11/12, 2002--see how many of them mention war).
It was what it was.
Jesse wrote on November 27, 2007 7:40 PM:HWC...
You are right...but people on this site don't read or understand
what is in front of them.... If you read HRC's speech before she voted
it was for diplomacy. Bush is the evil person....not her.
All of this back and forth banter is crazy and is just
securing another Republican president. You so called "Liberals"
are ignorant and share the blame that Bush is president and that we are
in Iraq.
For me, I want someone with experience who knows how to make
change happen. HRC is that person....Obama
is an apprentice. SCARY!!
I echo every single word of this:
gqmartinez wrote on November 27, 2007 7:23 PM: "This is if you assume that AUMF was a vote for war. This is where Liberals give Bush a lot of cover. Yeah, he went into Iraq based off the '02 AUMF, but he was out promising that it was a diplomatic tool and not a vote for war, in pretty much those exact words. Bush is the one who pulled the trigger on Iraq, but that doesn't really matter. We keep rehashing this and debating this point that couldn't be more clear and obvious to me."
Repeat: THIS IS WHERE LIBERALS GIVE BUSH A LOT OF COVER.
DTM wrote on November 27, 2007 7:48 PM:One can look at the video of Hillary talking to Code Pink in March of 2003, or consider her vote against the Levin Amendment.
But the simplest thing to do is simply read the Iraq AUMF. It states in relevant part:
"The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to . . . defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq."
Keith wrote on November 27, 2007 7:49 PM:Jesse:
I'll agree with you on one thing, this back and forth is crazy.
Instead of reading HRC's lovely speech, why don't you try reading what she voted--the AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE IN IRAQ.
http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
None of those nice words were in the resolution and when Levin proposed an amendment requiring further congressional authority before attacking Iraq, guess how your experienced Senator Clinton voted?
stlounick wrote on November 27, 2007 7:50 PM:Hillary says this because she doesn't believe that Congressional authorization is needed for military action undertaken by the executive. Don't believe me? She fully supported Bill's use of our military in the Balkans; this was done under the War Powers Act and Congress did not authorize it beforehand. At the end of the 60 days under the War Powers Act, Bill sent an spending bill to the House for authorization; it was defeated.
Bill moved money around in the DOD until he finally got emergency funding approved by the Republican majority Congress in 2000. Word is that the President-Elect (guess who THAT was) asked for the funding and the bill was passed without Republican objection.
Hillary believes in the power of the executive to use ground troops and air power, as Bill did in the Balkans, without Congressional authorization. What about this do you Hillary-supporters not understand?
Hillary is in favor of preemptive military action undertaken solely by the executive. I have had absolutely enough of this crap in the Post Cold War environment and I refuse to endorse this.
Hillary's explanation is always "I didn't vote for war". I believe her. She simply does not believe that Congress needs to pre-authorize such action. Therefore, she is "innocent" of blame.
Those of us who understand the constitution simply do not agree.
dcshungu wrote on November 27, 2007 8:04 PM:
I'll bet Wolfson's head nearly exploded when he heard about this one.
Why would his head explode as a result of Bill Clinton uttering of a sanctioned line that shows Hillary's independence from her towering husband?
Bill Clinton opposed the war, Hillary had voted for the bill to authrize it. Conclusion: Hillary's decisions are hers and hers only, and this would remain the case even after she is elected POTUS, living with her ex-POTUS husband in the WH.
That is how I would read it...
Geek, Esq. wrote on November 27, 2007 8:13 PM:Dschungu:
Except that it's an obvious lie.
Bill used to be an unusually good liar. Now he's just an average liar.
dry_fish wrote on November 27, 2007 8:20 PM:I wish someone would challenge Bill Clinton on this statment because it's not really true. He opposed the Iraq Invasion in March of 2003 maybe, but not the Oct 2002 AUMF.
James (ESQ) wrote on November 27, 2007 8:26 PM:stlounick
Those of us that know and practice Constitutional
Law understand and support Hillary's vote...and
appreciate her statement.
Ultimately the question is who will be the
next President...and while there are nuances
on policy...Hillary is the one that is electable.
No one else.
So..make your interpretations...play with your
words....but think of the results....
4 or 8 more years of REPUBLICANs...no more
Roe and a World War. Or Hillary, A President
who has the ability, experience and intelligence
to make a real change...
Rewriting history already. Not only did Hillary dis the Code Pink gals in March of '03, her official Senate site list of her major speeches has mysteriously left out a late February of '03 speech she gave which parroted Bush/Cheney toughness talking points aligning her at that time with Bush's push to invade. It was not a speech in which she said anything like, 'Whoa, we voted for inspectors, let them do their job." It was more in the vein of 'Saddam has been given every chance and he's not taking it....'
Months ago now, I discovered this 'official' history revision, and only because I went searching and hunting for whatever was Hillary's position in the final couple of months of run up to the invasion. Back then, I was out protesting against war with Iraq and trying to follow the news....and I had no memory of high-profile Hillary making any statement countering the push to invade, in that very time frame in which such leadership would have mattered to all we millions of protesters.
Googling eventually turned up her late February of '03 statement which, guess what, she has evidently shoved down the memory hole in order to claim a different position today.
NCSteve wrote on November 27, 2007 8:37 PM:The Hillaroid capacity for doublethink is just staggering. Plusgood increases in your chocolate rations for all of you.
For God's sake! Were any of you people who keep insisting that voting for the AUMF-AI Resolution was different from voting for war actually in the goddamn country and paying attention in 2002-03? Or is this just another of the "Oceania is at war with Eastasia and has always been at war with Eastasia" moments that seem to typify her supporters here?
Let's leave aside for the moment the language of the thing resolution, helpfully linked above. And let's even forget that rather unambiguious title--"Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution." Let's not even consider that the title is kind of a tip-off, given that the two preceding acts that had the words "authorization for use of military force" in the title--against Iraq in 1991 and against Al Qaeda in '01, has led inexorably to actual wars.
All that to one side. Are you seriously going to tell me that there is a single one of you who did not clearly understand at the time that war was going to follow the AUMFAI vote as surely as day follows night? If so, you're truly exceptional because, notwithstanding the ass-covering just in case its a disaster "I'm voting for more diplomacy" pieties that John Kerry and Hillary Clinton mouthed while they voted for it, no one, and I mean no one, I knew or heard at the time, harbored the slightest, most miniscule doubt that Bush's "diplomacy" would last exactly as long as it took us to build up the invasion force in Kuwait and not one day longer. And that's exactly what happened, to absolutely no one's surprise.
Forget all that even. Assume she was voting for more diplomacy rather than war. When the war came, I do not recall any protest by Hillary that her vote for the AUMFAI was being misused and that more diplomacy was needed. Nope, even as Hans Blix and Mohammed El Baradi were quite truthfully warning us that there were no WMD's, when the 3rd I.D. crossed the border, Hillary was on board with George for the big win. Between the polls and her anxiety to show that her testicles were just as big as any Republican's, she was a full-throated supporter.
Let's listen in to a contemporaneous statement, shall we? (Transcript at the end, for the speaker deficient).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XP55PgYH15k
Rule of thumb about politics: if the dichotomy between your candidate's positions and your own creates so much cognitive dissonance that you haved to fabricate false memories of history you've actually experienced in order to keep supporting him/her, it's time to look at other candidates.
If, on the other hand, you're just deliberatly spewing disinformation, I'd like to respectfully request that you stop and move on to another topic.
Full Text of Hillary's comments in March, 2003 as the war was beginning:
There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm, and I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I have followed for more than a decade.
For now nearly 20 years, the principal reason why women and children in Iraq have suffered, is because of Saddam's leadership.
The very difficult question for all of us, is how does one bring about the disarmament of someone with such a proven track record of a commitment, if not an obsession, with weapons of mass destruction.
I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence I had available, talking with people who's opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision, and it is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution. That is not my preference, it would be far preferable if we had legitimate cooperation from Saddam Hussein, and a willingness on his part to disarm, and to account for his chemical and biological storehouses.
With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I do not believe that given the attitudes of many people in the world community today that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems were it not for United States leadership. And I am talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo, where my husband could not get a Security Council resolution to save the Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. And we did it alone as the United States, and we had to do it alone. It would have been far preferable if the Russians and others had agreed to do it through the United Nations -- they would not. I'm happy that, in the face of such horrible suffering, we did act."
Jesse wrote on November 27, 2007 8:45 PM:Keith...
I read HRC's speech and the resolution (not Obama's
speech...he was not elected to the Senate and
COULD NOT VOTE!!)...
Fact is Bush is the one that lied...took us to war
under false pretenses without a way out.
So here we are...Dems and libs attacking each other.
One outcome...another right week republican as President.
As far as I am concerned there is one dem that has
a chance to win the presidency in 2008..Hillary...
so let's stop arguing and work together to make a
change.
Go Hillary!!
CalD wrote on November 27, 2007 9:00 PM:dry_fish wrote:I wish someone would challenge Bill Clinton on this statment because it's not really true.
Ah, but it is.
He opposed the Iraq Invasion in March of 2003 maybe, but not the Oct 2002 AUMF.
Exactly.
AUMF Iraq = AUMF Iraq
Iraq War = Iraq War
AUMF Iraq ≠ Iraq War
Anonymous wrote on November 27, 2007 9:02 PM:Bill Clinton is a liar. Hillary Clinton is a liar. This is vintage Clinton: be on every side of every issue.
Hillary, with the POLITCAL ADVICE from her husband, voted to authorize an invasion of Iraq because she would be vulnerable to Repbublican attacks if she did not vote for the war. As a woman running for Commander in Chief, she is intent on looking tough. The Clintons calculations also included courting of oil interests and the defense industry, who are now huge Hillary supporters.
Hillary is all about getting elected president. What's the sacrifice of a few million lives, a few trillion dollars, the Constitution, international law, World peace, the environment in the process. It's all good if she wins.
The Clintons are liars.
stlounick wrote on November 27, 2007 9:04 PM:"Hillary is the one that is electable. No one else."
BS.
roo_P wrote on November 27, 2007 9:04 PM:I wholeheartedly agree with all those who said that the Authorisation to Use Military Force in Iraq was not any kind of a war or military action authorisation bill and only the very smartest of people with great judgement and foresight could have seen that Bush would just go straight to war. That is why Hillary Clinton voted for the bill!
hadenough wrote on November 27, 2007 9:05 PM:"Remember folks, his wife the candidate voted for the war in 2002"
Go ahead say his wifes name... what's a matter kinda stick in your craw? You are a clown.
If he didn't exist you couldn't make him up. Did kleefeld just land on earth from another planet? Was he born last night. What is his problem? So many questions. Oh, and there is definitely a problem there.
The Big Dog from kleefeld’s link to the guy that says drudge rulz his world:
“I supported the president when he asked for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq”
October 10, 2002
Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?
So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html
Gore:
September 23, 2002
The president should be authorized to take action to deal with Saddam Hussein as being in material breach of the terms of the truce and, therefore, a continuing threat to the security of the region. To this should be added that his continued pursuit of weapons of mass destruction is potentially a threat to the vital interests of the United States. But Congress should also urge the president to make every effort to obtain a fresh demand from the Security Council for prompt, unconditional compliance by Iraq within a definite period of time. If the Council will not provide such language, then other choices remain open. In any event, the president should be urged to take the time to assemble the broadest possible international support for his course of action.
http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/02/02-09gore-speech.html
Giving bush "authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" is OK. Kicking out the UN inspectors and invading not so much. If space alien kleefeld would have been planet earth in 2002 he'd know that.
So The Big Dog, 'his wife' and Gore [and many more] all think bush should be "authorized to take action to deal with Saddam Hussein." None of the three think invading is a good idea. Then there is kleefeld. The rube herder. Yeah, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. He knows he is typing crap. He types crap because he thinks you are a rube.
Anyway why is that moron allowed to post here? I know marshall is up to his eyeballs in obama luv but does that mean the whole site has to be trash?
Jesse said: "Fact is Bush is the one that lied...took us to war under false pretenses without a way out."
Sure Bush lied, but the classified intelligence briefing available to Senators exposed those lies. The Democratic senators who took the time to read it VOTED AGAINST THE WAR.
The problem is Hillary either knew Bush was lying, and gave him authority to invade Iraq anyway, or she was gullible and uninformed enough to believe Bush. Hillary, as I recall, claims she believed Bill when he told her he did not have an affair with Monica. But Hillary knew Bill's past. So, she either was naive enough to believe him and state in publicly on national television to the nation, or SHE WAS LYING.
Hillary has terrible judgment in believing liars, or she is a liar herself. Neither profile makes me want her for president.
Shochu John wrote on November 27, 2007 9:17 PM:I do find it telling that the Hillary supporters keep claiming that all this talk about who helped G.W. Bush start this war and who hindered him only helps the Republicans.
I seem to remember the same embarassing lines being bleated in 2004 when John Kerry, another pro-war from the beginning candidate, was on his way to the top of the Democratic ticket. I just don't bloody understand it. The war is massively unpopular. There is no good excuse for having voted for the AUMF (it is OBVIOUS what that would lead to and I would seriously like to see someone try to claim otherwise). Given this, why not actually nominate someone with clean hands on the war? It would be a massive asset for attacking the Republican in the general.
I just don't get why Democrats STILL feel like that have to run candidates that were wrong on the war to win. Can someone explain that to me?
john mccutchen wrote on November 27, 2007 9:17 PM:Someone stop Clinton before he lies again.
Those Hilllary Dillaries hereabouts may not think that Brunehilde has anything to worry about.
Bill does
Anonymous wrote on November 27, 2007 9:21 PM:Hillary Clinton was one of 100 people in the world with the power and opportunity to prevent the war in Iraq. Supposedly, she is every bit as informed and knowledgable on world issues as Bill Clinton is. Yet she voted to give George W. Bush the authority to invade Iraq, enabling the greatest American foregin policy blunder in history. She showed really terrible judgment on an issue of monumental importance. Bill knew better.
Shochu John wrote on November 27, 2007 9:23 PM:hadenough says, "So The Big Dog, 'his wife' and Gore [and many more] all think bush should be "authorized to take action to deal with Saddam Hussein." None of the three think invading is a good idea"
Answer me this, then: Did these people honestly think that G.W. Bush was only going to use the AUMF for purposes consistent with their lovely speeches?
john mccutchen wrote on November 27, 2007 9:23 PM:No DO-OVERS!
Stop the Clintons Before They Lie Again. Bill's wife was a co-sponsor of the Greatest Strategic Disaster in US history from 2002-2006 when it came time to run for president, per their marriage settlement
Clinton's Floor Statement October 2002 http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html
They DARE Democrats hold them responsible
Sure Bush lied, but the classified intelligence briefing available to Senators exposed those lies.
No, it didn't. Read any of the books about the Iraq invasion. The NIE was a sales brochure for the Iraq invasion. The contradictory information the CIA and State had was not included in the document.
matter of fact wrote on November 27, 2007 9:25 PM:dcshunga said "Why would [Wolfson's] head explode as a result of Bill Clinton uttering of a sanctioned line that shows Hillary's independence from her towering husband?"
Know one needs to be reminded that Bill Clinton towers over Hillary. Do you think that showing he had better judgment than Hillary on the disaterous war vote shows she is his equal?
Dcshunga, your desperate spins don't help Hillary, and it fact make her look even worse.
SeeDee wrote on November 27, 2007 9:26 PM:Anonymous: Hillary was not nearly so worried about REPUBLICANS accusing her of being 'weak' should she NOT have voted to give Bush the authority to go to war against Iraq as she was concerned what B-A-D effects it might have on her AIPAC campaign donors if she did not support the war advocated by Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith and other Likudniks in the DOD.
john mccutchen wrote on November 27, 2007 9:26 PM:Do we Democrats REALLY want to spend 2008 parsing and shuffling and spinning away more lies from the Clintons?
Not THIS democrat. Eight years was more than enough
John,
Do you actually know what the word "parsing" means?
john mccutchen wrote on November 27, 2007 9:37 PM:Yes I do!
That supposed to be some kind of shot?!?!?!
CalD: Do you actually know what the word "authorization" means?
CalD wrote on November 27, 2007 9:42 PM:OK, what does it mean?
Anonymous wrote on November 27, 2007 9:42 PM:hwc said: "The NIE was a sales brochure for the Iraq invasion. The contradictory information the CIA and State had was not included in the document."
Thanks hwc for more Hillary funded comment board distortions.
I prefer to believe former Senator Bob Graham who wrote:
"At a meeting of the Senate intelligence committee on Sept. 5, 2002, CIA Director George Tenet was asked what the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) provided as the rationale for a preemptive war in Iraq. An NIE is the product of the entire intelligence community, and its most comprehensive assessment. I was stunned when Tenet said that no NIE had been requested by the White House and none had been prepared. Invoking our rarely used senatorial authority, I directed the completion of an NIE."
"Tenet objected, saying that his people were too committed to other assignments to analyze Saddam Hussein's capabilities and will to use chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons. We insisted, and three weeks later the community produced a classified NIE."
"There were troubling aspects to this 90-page document. While slanted toward the conclusion that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction stored or produced at 550 sites, it contained vigorous dissents on key parts of the information, especially by the departments of State and Energy. Particular skepticism was raised about aluminum tubes that were offered as evidence Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. As to Hussein's will to use whatever weapons he might have, the estimate indicated he would not do so unless he was first attacked."
"Under questioning, Tenet added that the information in the NIE had not been independently verified by an operative responsible to the United States. In fact, no such person was inside Iraq. Most of the alleged intelligence came from Iraqi exiles or third countries, all of which had an interest in the United States' removing Hussein, by force if necessary."
"The American people needed to know these reservations, and I requested that an unclassified, public version of the NIE be prepared. On Oct. 4, Tenet presented a 25-page document titled "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs." It represented an unqualified case that Hussein possessed them, avoided a discussion of whether he had the will to use them and omitted the dissenting opinions contained in the classified version."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802397.html
Hillary Clinton had access to the same FULL report that raised huge doubts in the minds of Senator Bob Graham, who co-chaired the joint House-Senate intelligence committee, and many Democratic Senators who had the courage and good judgment to vote against war in Iraq. As we know, Hillary voted for the war. And the result has been historically tragic and is not over.
Someone said a bit ago that Hillary needed to distinguish herself from Bill.....Guess what? Bill just did.
hadenough wrote on November 27, 2007 9:46 PM:"john mccutchen wrote on November 27, 2007 9:23 PM:
Bill's wife was a co-sponsor of the Greatest Strategic Disaster in US history from 2002-2006"
I think you have your senators mixed up. edwards was a cosponsor. But I can imagine it's hard to keep your facts straight being all full missed placed of rage and senseless hate as you are.
Anyway this might be news to you but bush threw the UN inspectors out, then invaded.
CalD wrote on November 27, 2007 9:47 PM:Anonymous wrote:Concerned in Iowa wrote on November 27, 2007 9:51 PM:CalD: Do you actually know what the word "authorization" means?
Apparently, I'm one of the few people here who does. I also know what it doesn't mean. Do you? (Hint: it doesn't mean "compel" or even "encourage.")
So Hillary ignored Bill's advice and voted for war in Iraq anyway? She of course is very experience and knowledgable about foreign affairs. Little oopsie or monumnetal failure of judgment.
CalD wrote on November 27, 2007 9:52 PM:Apologies for the missing blockquote close tag in that last comment of mine. In case it wasn't clear, the second paragraph in roman (i.e., not italic) text was my reply.
Anonymous wrote on November 27, 2007 9:53 PM:CalD, in Hillary's case voting for "authorization" meant abdicating Constitutional responsibility to declare war and enpowering an incompetent warmonger.
texasdem wrote on November 27, 2007 9:58 PM:"Sales brochure" or not, Hillary did not read the NIE. Secondly, I am NOBODY, and even I knew damn well there was a rush to war on nonexistent evidence. That falls into the common knowledge category of the time, like it or not.
loki wrote on November 27, 2007 10:12 PM:texasdem,
Common knowledge. Worst "knowledge" ever.
CalD wrote on November 27, 2007 10:12 PM:Anonymous wrote:CalD, in Hillary's case voting for "authorization" meant abdicating Constitutional responsibility to declare war and enpowering an incompetent warmonger.
I knew I was the only one here who knew what that word meant.
John: How we doing with "parsing"? Find your dictionary yet?
hadenough wrote on November 27, 2007 10:17 PM:"Shochu John wrote on November 27, 2007 9:23 PM:
Answer me this, then: Did these people honestly think that G.W. Bush was only going to use the AUMF for purposes consistent with their lovely speeches?"
I'll answer you like this: I know as much about what people honestly think as you do [unless you are mind reader].
loki,
Granted. Nevertheless, a review of every major media outlet, letters to the editor, etc., will back up the environment of the time. Rush to war.
Keith wrote on November 27, 2007 10:19 PM:This is probably the funniest thread I've ever read on TPM. Okay so there's now a faux debate about what the provisions of the 2002 AUMF mean. Let me clarify everything about Section 3 does:
Section 3(c) WAR POWER ACTS REQUIREMENTS. Consistent with Section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of Section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 5. (b)
Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, 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, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.
SEC. 8. (a)
Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred--
(1)
from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution;
So let's review. Congress expressed support for Bush's diplomatic efforts. Authorize him to use force against Iraq as he determined to be necessary. And made a clear statement that Section 3 constitutes authority to use force under the War Powers Resolution.
James (ESQ) said "Those of us that know and practice Constitutional Law understand and support Hillary's vote...and appreciate her statement."
James (ESQ) your condecsension is obnoxious. Like the thoughts and opinions of mere citizens in a democracy don't matter? If you know and practice Constitutional Law you should be working your well compensated butt to get George W. Bush impeached. Our nation is in a Constitutional crisis. Congress surrendered its check and balance role and George Bush is trashing individual rights. Do something or shut up and hang you head in shame, James (ESQ)
Here's a link to the declassified 28-page white paper that the CIA prepared for members of Congress from the NIE on Iraq at Bob Graham's request. Graham was reportedly livid when he saw it but couldn't tell anyone why because some of the stuff he knew that the CIA had omitted was still classified. A sales brochure brochure for the Iraq war, as someone called it upthread, is a pretty apt description. It has color pictures and everything.
Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs
If you've never read it, it's definitely worth checking out.
Anonymous wrote on November 27, 2007 10:32 PM:Keith said, "Let me clarify everything about Section 3 does".
Wow, Keith, you are so smart. But it sounds like Congress could have encouraged Bush to exhaust diplomatic channels and then come to Congress for a Declaration of War. Maybe Hillary with all of her years of foreign policy experience and desire to seek a peaceful solution could have INTRODUCED an alternative. She calculated her vote for her own benefit, ignoring the consequences for the nation and the world. She diqualified herself as capable of being an effective president. Oh, but she would be every bit as good as George Bush.
moomin wrote on November 27, 2007 10:45 PM:Seriously, guys, "Hillary was too stupid to understand that Bush would start a war" is NOT a great retort to "Hillary voted for the war."
CalD wrote on November 27, 2007 10:47 PM:To the commenter at 10:32 PM (apparently unable to type their name):
An amendment to the AUMF Iraq that required Bush to return to Congress for final go-ahead to commit troops was after exhausting diplomacy and inspections introduced. It was voted down. The version that did pass wasn't all the different than the Democratic alternative though. It had almost everything the Democrats wanted except that clause and did in fact require the president to exhaust all diplomatic possibilities before committing to war. Bush just kind of decided he didn't feel like doing that.
Keith wrote on November 27, 2007 10:48 PM:Anon:
Re-read my post. You are barking up the wrong tree. I know what AUMF means. I know what HRC was voting for (even if her supporters/apologist don't).
DTM wrote on November 27, 2007 10:51 PM:CalD,
As NCSteve pointed out, both the Persian Gulf War and the Afghanistan War were "authorized", not "compelled" or "encouraged" (or "declared" for that matter). A Senator would have to be completely ignorant of recent history (very recent in the case of the 2001 AUMF) not to understand what the 2002 AUMF was doing.
Keith wrote on November 27, 2007 10:53 PM:CalD:
Just for shits and giggles, please point me to the provision that says Bush had to "exhaust" diplomatic efforts.
CalD wrote on November 27, 2007 10:54 PM:Typo in the first sentence of my last comment. That should read:
An amendment to the AUMF Iraq that required Bush to return to Congress for final authority to commit troops after exhausting diplomacy and inspections was introduced.
DTM wrote on November 27, 2007 10:56 PM:If people aren't aware, CalD is referring to the Levin Amendment.
And here is an interesting question. How did Hillary Clinton vote on the Levin Amendment?
stlounick wrote on November 27, 2007 11:02 PM:calD, you are not being as thorough as your should be.
You are linking to the 28 page white paper that Graham threw a fit about. Graham insisted on the NIE which ran to 90 plus pages. Since it was classified, it was made available to members of Congress in a secure room. No paper or pens were allowed.
If this is what you're basing your decision on, then you need to understand the difference. Most Congressfolk who actually showed up in the room only read the executive summary. The best of the bureucratic CYA, however, was found in the body of the report where dissenting opinions were all over the place.
Senator Clinton has said that she did not read the NIE because it was "old news" and she consulted with members of Bill's administration and members of Bush's administration. Yippee! Also recall that Senator Clinton was NOT on the Armed Services Commitee at this time and so did not have that "inlet" into the DOD.
So please update your details so your can defend Senator Clinton appropriately.
In my book, she voted how she truly thinks. She believes in this war and her current flop is merely to get the nomination from the Democrats. I am working hard to deny her this desire. I am an Obama supporter.
CalD wrote on November 27, 2007 11:02 PM:Keith: Sure, no problem. Section 3, clause B and subparagraph 1.
Keith wrote on November 27, 2007 11:08 PM:CalD:
That's an interesting read, but I'll humor you. Who determines if the criteria set forth in Section 3(b)(1)(A) or (B) is satisfied?
vdomeras wrote on November 27, 2007 11:09 PM:I wish people would stop referring to people they disagree with as liars. Bush has proved himself to be a liar -- true. Politicians are pretty much required to dissemble at times, and good honest leaders are required to lie at times. An inconsistent, ambiguous voting record doesn't make a legislator a liar, though we have every right to wonder about their motives or the quality of their judgement. But real liars simply cannot be believed.
Does anyone here really think that if Bill or Hillary had been president in '02, that we would have invaded Iraq? The Bush administration did it. Plenty of us were in favor of it and gloried in our quick victory and the video of our people moving through the country like a hot knife through butter. Those of us who would have unquestionably voted against the resolution may have been right, but we could have been wrong. History may still prove us wrong. Talk is cheap, but it doesn't have to be.
Sooo, let's see WJCLinton just proved that he not only has the experience but the JUDGEMENT to be President and Hillary doesn't.
Hillary, more importantly, is her OWN person just as many of us have known all along...she is NOT Bill, she does not act nor think like Bill either. Even when Bill gives her advice she willfully ignores him and prefers her own counsel.
Independence is an admirable trait. The only thing is that Hillary has demonstrated she has exceptionally poor judgment.
Let's recall, Bill had to come out and mop up behind her when she attacked Barack on foreign policy when she actually had the same posture, but couldn't resist the opportunity for a fight so she instead blasted Obama as 'naive and irresponsible' only to wind up with egg on her face after eminent foreign policy experts agreed with Obama. Bill knew this and tried to patch things up by saying he did not think they were all that far apart.
Then we have Bill who told Hillary to compromise on Hillarycare, but Hill once again followed her own independent streak and insisted on closed door sessions as well as fighting with Senators and congressman and threatening them as well. When they refused to do buckle under, AMERICANS opportunity for universal health care was loss. Hillary lacked the judgment and leadership skills to drive the policy and today Bill claims that was mostly his fault...suuure.
And now today we have Hillary the war hawk voting for the AUMF and Bill Clinton saying he opposed the war from the start. Sooo once again he gave HILL good advice and she in turn made her own decision and voted for the AUMF. Guess that was that Wellsley training that taught her how to 'run with the boys' that made her not listen to Bill and vote yes instead.
Why in the world should anyone vote for Hillary as President thinking that Bill will be there to guide her..given her track record of not ACCEPTING his JUDGMENT?
Hillary is a disaster waiting to happen and she will not be able to lead this country as she will be too busy fighting everyone and riling up old grudges to fight some more.
Hillary lacks the character, integrity and judgment to lead.
Bill will not be able to influence Hillary she will not listen to him...so anyone who thinks a vote for HIll is a vote for BILL is going to be deeply shocked. This character trait is consistent with Hillary's need to wield power and to pay folks back. She has a lot to pay Bill back for after all those years of having to suck up his whoring around on her. If Hillary was being the 'international face' of America then Monica was the domestic face. That has to eat away at Hillary. Hillary has no intention of listening to anything Bill has to say, he is simply a resource to be used to get to where she wants to go. Once she has the Presidency he will no longer be useful to her and she will not ever rely on his judgment.
Hill ain't Bill and she is NOT going to listen to him. The bigger problem is her judgment is awful and responsible for the greatest foreign policy disaster in the history of the nation.
A vote for Hillary is a vote for perpetual war, as she is a fighter not a leader. She intends to fight with the GOP and to fight wars on the wrong battlefield all over the globe just to prove she can do anything the boys can do.
We need change we can beleive in. Please vote
Obama 08
Send the Clintons home.
CalD wrote on November 27, 2007 11:33 PM:DTM: Actually I was referring to the Spratt amendment that one was voted down in the house. A lot of people 75 Senators including Clinton voted against the Levin Amendment in the Senate because it required a UN Resolution to commit troops and half of the intended purpose of the resolution -- a purpose that it did in fact accomplish -- was to light a fire under the UN to deal with Iraq. Obviously its coercive value in that respect would have been diminished by effectively giving the UN veto power over the use of force.
CalD wrote on November 27, 2007 11:41 PM:Keith,
Well if you go and read the constitution, it does kind of put the executive branch in charge of diplomacy, now doesn't it? And if your next question is, why doesn't the resolution say he's not allowed to lie when he makes his report it's because we already have a law about that.
hadenough wrote on November 27, 2007 11:45 PM:"stlounick wrote on November 27, 2007 11:02 PM:
In my book, she voted how she truly thinks."
Really? You gonna stand by that? You think Hillary really voted they way she 'truly thinks'?
The way Hillary thinks:
"October 10, 2002
Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?
So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html"
Hillary says she thinks invasion is a big mistake.
More you:
"She believes in this war and her current flop is merely to get the nomination from the Democrats."
Something isn't fitting right. Your second ratwing flip flop talking talking point doesn't fit if you really think Hillary voted the way she really thinks.
So which is it? Were you lying then or are you gonna lie later?
Keith wrote on November 27, 2007 11:53 PM:CalD:
I guess that's your way of acknowledging that AUMF gave Bush authority to use force and to determine, unilaterally when that force was necessary. Hopefully that puts to bed the issue of what a 'Yay' vote on AUMF mean.
Keith wrote on November 27, 2007 11:59 PM:
Hadenough:
So, if I understand you, HRC's floor speech trumps the clear language of the resolution. Is that correct?
CalD wrote on November 28, 2007 12:00 AM:Keith,
I'll take that as your acknowledgment that the resolution did in fact give the president the authority to go to war only after exhausting diplomatic possibilities, just like it says.
Keith wrote on November 28, 2007 12:11 AM:CalD:
So close, yet so far away. Try this: I acknowledge that a 'Yay' vote on the 2002 AUMF meant that the Senator "gave the president the authority to to war only after HE DETERMINED THAT DIPLOMACY WOULD NOT ADEQUATELY PROTECT US INTEREST.
So, he's authorized to go to war when he determines that diplomacy isn't working. The only condition is in his control, so in reality: he's authorized to go to war.
CalD,
The Levin Amendment did not give the UN "veto power over the use of force".
Here is a recent article from former Senator Chafee on the subject:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/opinion/01chafee.html
"Acutely cognizant of the dangers of the time, and the reality that diplomatic options could at some point be exhausted, Senator Levin wrote an amendment that was nimble: it affirmed that Congress would stand at the ready to reconsider the use of force if, in the judgment of the president, a United Nations resolution was not 'promptly adopted' or enforced. Ceding no rights or sovereignty to an international body, the amendment explicitly avowed America’s right to defend itself if threatened."
DTM wrote on November 28, 2007 12:32 AM:By the way, this is the language about the necessary Presidential determinations from the 2002 AUMF:
"(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.
In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq . . . ."
And here is language from the 1991 AUMF which authorized the Gulf War:
"(b) REQUIREMENT FOR DETERMINATION THAT USE OF MILITARY FORCE IS NECESSARY- Before exercising the authority granted in subsection (a), the President shall make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) the United States has used all appropriate diplomatic and other peaceful means to obtain compliance by Iraq with the United Nations Security Council resolutions cited in subsection (a); and
(2) that those efforts have not been and would not be successful in obtaining such compliance."
Again, a Senator would have to be completely ignorant of recent history not to understand what the 2002 AUMF was doing.
CalD wrote on November 28, 2007 12:53 AM:Keith,
We're only talking about two paragraphs here. There's really no need to paraphrase. According to the resolution, as a precondition for the use of military force in Iraq, the president had to be prepared to certify to congress (under penalty of perjury) that:
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Frankly, I don't really think he covered either of those bases. This is to say that I do not believe the president complied with this resolution and that in fact his subsequent actions were in defiance of both the spirit and the letter of this law in important respects.
DTM wrote on November 28, 2007 1:08 AM:CalD,
"Penalty of perjury"?
Seriously?
Even if there was the slightest chance of such an impeachment and trial happening, how exactly would one prove that Bush knowingly lied about whether diplomacy would "adequately protect the nation security of the United States"?
And again, this is essentially the same diplomacy requirement in the 1991 AUMF for the Gulf War. So how dumb do you think these Senators are?
CalD wrote on November 28, 2007 1:12 AM:DTM: That's not what the Levin amendment says. Go and read it.
CalD wrote on November 28, 2007 1:16 AM:DTM: Any testimony anyone gives to congress is made under penalty of perjury -- unless congress specifically grants someone immunity, I suppose. You can look that up too.
LJ wrote on November 28, 2007 1:21 AM:Hillary Clinton admitting her vote for Authorization is a vote for war:
This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.
Nothing nuanced or difficult to understand about this statement. It shows that Hillary Clinton knew full well her vote might lead to war. And she was right - it did lead to a war.
Of course she didn't start the war. And nobody has said she did. What everyone is saying is obvious and true: she enabled this war. She voted to give President Bush the power he asked for. On the biggest foreign policy question to cross her path during her short career in the Senate she was wrong. Demonstrably and obviously and horribly wrong. And she has the audacity to claim vast amounts of foreign policy experience? Please. I can only thank God that during her eight meaningless years as first lady she had no real power to endanger our country with her complete and utter lack of good judgement when it comes to matters of foreign policy.
Steve wrote on November 28, 2007 1:41 AM:Um, this man has a, uh, credibility problem???
keith wrote on November 28, 2007 1:51 AM:CalD:
*Yawn*. Round and round we go. As a threshold matter, AUMF doesn't require President Bush to give testimony to Congress--just notify the Speaker of the House and Senate Pro Tempore of his determination.
Whether you like paraphrasing or not, the AUMF gave President Bush conditional authority to use force against Iraq. Sadly enough, determining whether that condition was satisfied was placed solely in President Bush's hands--no Congressional check. As such, there is, in reality, no condition--there's just authority. That's just basic reading comprehension.
No amount of wishful thinking; blame shifting, or pointing to well-intentioned speeches is going to change (1) the text of the resolution, or (2) the nature of Clinton's vote.
I am about to make a post about what Clinton said in 1998. Every damned one of you has forgotten what Clinton said, what he did, and what the response was.I guarantee you that Greg will never mention it. It is.....a lot to think about....
I am about to make a post about what Clinton said in 1998. Every damned one of you has forgotten what Clinton said, what he did, and what the response was.I guarantee you that Greg will never mention it. It is.....just read a little of it.
the water hen wrote on November 28, 2007 2:17 AM:You have to wonder how the Clinton antagonistas are going to deal with it should she win the nomination and then the election. She is a good progressive with a decade long record to prove it, and like her husband will preside over an apparently forgettable term of peace and prosperity. I would add that I am hopeful that she will be able to get more done with a Democratic congress, but the progressives here leave me wondering if they wouldn't prefer to see her every move obstructed by her own party.
Based on the rhetoric in this thread, I'm starting to think Democrats may be as stupid as Republicans say they are.
You know, guys, supporting someone else doesn't mean that you have to make up shit about Hillary. You can like Hillary just fine, and not chose her as your first choice or your second choice or even your third choice. No prob. With one exception, I'm quite delighted with the entire field.
And no, Hillary didn't diss Code Pink. They showed up at her office without an appointment and she met with them anyway. She stuck to her guns but she was gracious and respectful. And now they are birddogging her and attempting to interrupt her every speech - for reasons i can't fathom at this point - they have proved themselves to be the non-productive ones.
You guys aren't going to defeat Hillary in the primary with this dumbass rhetoric. Most people aren't stupid enough to swallow the crap you're dishing out here. What you are doing is the same thing that was done to Gore - you're creating an atmosphere where if Hillary gets the nomination, the right has room to steal the election. We cannot succumb to thuggery. If you're going to behave like thugs, the rest of us must avoid the candidates you endorse in order to avoid indulging thuggery. We'll still vote for Clinton. You aren't going to hammer us into being afraid to vote for her because of your bad behavior.
I am going to have a lot of fun gloating though if she takes the nomination and wins the presidency.
kjoe wrote on November 28, 2007 2:21 AM:in retrospect---remembering this was part of Hillary's "experience"---somebody say something---anything!
this is 1/15th of the transcript from december of 1998------------------------------------------------------------------
Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike
CLINTON: Good evening.
Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------republicans were pizsed-------------
WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, December 16) -- White House officials insist a looming impeachment vote in the House had no bearing on President Clinton's decision to bomb Iraq -- but planes were still in the air as a chorus of critics began voicing skepticism about the timing.
"I cannot support this military action in the Persian Gulf at this time," Lott said in a statement. "Both the timing and the policy are subject to question."
"The suspicion some people have about the president's motives in this attack is itself a powerful argument for impeachment," Armey said in a statement. "After months of lies, the president has given millions of people around the world reason to doubt that he has sent Americans into battle for the right reasons."
House intelligence chair says not consulted
Rep. Porter Goss, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said he was unaware that U.S. airstrikes were planned against Iraq until he saw them under way on CNN.
Goss (R-Florida) expressed anger that he was never notified by the White House that a strike was imminent and that no members of the House Intelligence Committee were brought into the loop.
"To be cut out at the eleventh hour is annoying, and it's certainly not helpful," Goss said.
He called the fact he was not contacted "a bad mistake of judgment or an oversight by the White House. ...---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
democrats explain------------"This is a time for our country to be united, even though we're divided on other matters," said Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota).
He and House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-Missouri) issued a joint statement defending the timing, saying "any delay would have given (Iraqi President) Saddam Hussein time to reconstitute his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and undermine international support for our efforts."
CalD wrote on November 28, 2007 2:48 AM:And how do you think such notification would be made, Keith? Mental telepathy?
Anyway I think I see the root problem here. You seem to be under the impression that this war could have been averted somehow, by some means other than passing this resolution, this one, the best deal we could cut with Republicans, and by a convincing enough majority to let the UN know in no uncertain terms that we were crazy enough to do it if they didn't get off their asses.
I happen to think this probably was our one and only shot -- other than if less people had stayed home on election day 2000 or found other ways to throw away their votes. But I do try to keep an open mind. I'd like very much to hear your idea. Knowing everything we know now, tell me how we could have stopped George W. Bush from having his war. Tell me what Democrats in Congress should have done differently that would have ensured a different result.
VictorLaszlo wrote on November 28, 2007 3:30 AM:Amazingly, sometimes people report on negative aspects of your favorite candidate, whoever that may be, because it's the truth, and not because they're shilling for a candidate other than your favorite.
Assumption of the latter is killing DailyKos, and the phenomenon is starting to creep throughout the blogosphere.
moomin wrote on November 28, 2007 3:43 AM:CalD said:
I'd like very much to hear your idea. Knowing everything we know now, tell me how we could have stopped George W. Bush from having his war. Tell me what Democrats in Congress should have done differently that would have ensured a different result.
Ooh, ooh, I know! They should have NOT VOTED TO GIVE BUSH AUTHORISATION TO GO TO WAR.
I mean really, it is pretty simple.
Anonymous wrote on November 28, 2007 7:21 AM:From CalD:
"So close, yet so far away. Try this: I acknowledge that a 'Yay' vote on the 2002 AUMF meant that the Senator "gave the president the authority to to war only after HE DETERMINED THAT DIPLOMACY WOULD NOT ADEQUATELY PROTECT US INTEREST."
Was there some justifiable reason then that Hillary remained silent or EXPLICITLY supportive of the war from 2003-2005? Was there a reason (other than SUPPORT for Bush's war) that she ...well...supported the war? You know, I HEARD Al Gore and Jimmy Carter attack Bush's war; that was the same time that I HEARD Bill and Hillary support Bush's war. I know, bad hearing and all that. I should check my ears, my eyes, my nose, my brain...just don't insinuate that the Clintons supported this war. Don't say Clinton's Iran vote encourages the Bush team to attack Iran. Just don't say the Clinton's have the same basic outloook on foreign policy that Bush has. After all they are the CLINTONS and no one dare criticize the CLINTONS.
DTM wrote on November 28, 2007 7:57 AM:CalD,
First, I have indeed read the Levin Amendment, and it does exactly what Chafee said. It calls on the United Nations to "adopt promptly" the relevant resolution (Sec. 2(2)), and requires the President to report to Congress within 60 days on whether the United Nations has done so (Sec. 4(1)). Meanwhile, it also "affirms that, under international law and the United Nations Charter, the United States has at all times the inherent right to use military force in self-defense." (Sec. 2(3)).
So, claiming that the Levin Amendment somehow gave the United Nations a veto over the use of force by the United States is just flat out false. But that was indeed the kind of lie the President and his allies were telling at the time in order discourage fearful Democrats from placing any further impediment in his way before he could go to war. So, it is interesting to me that even five years later, you are passing along this lie in defense of Senator Clinton's vote against the Levin Amendment.
Second, technically the law you are thinking of is not perjury, but rather making false statements to Congress, which is illegal under 18 USC 1001. Perjury would only be applicable if the AUMF required the President to testify under oath (see 18 USC 1621).
But that was not my point (I gave you a pass on calling it perjury, since I knew what you meant). My point was that: (a) the only way to prosecute a President for an official act is impeachment by the House and trial in the Senate; (b) the practical chance of that happening in this case was nil; and (c) even if it somehow did happen, it would be impossible for the prosecution to win because all the AUMF required is that the President believe that further diplomacy would not "adequately protect the national security of the United States", and it would be impossible to prove Bush knowingly lied about that.
Third, we will never know what would have happened if all the Democrats in the Senate had stood firmly against a rush to war in late 2002 and early 2003 (some did, of course). But it is entirely possible that such opposition at least would have slowed the process down, and the longer the process took, the more it would have become apparent that the case for war was nonexistent. Indeed, from what we know of what was going on within the Bush Administration, they also felt some urgency to get the war started as soon as possible, because they also calculated that opposition might grow over time. So, again we don't know, but it would have been nice if all the Senate Democrats had at least tried.
In the end, though, this is an election blog. And as another poster pointed out, the Democrats have been down this same road before with Kerry, and the American people did not buy it. In my opinion the American people did not buy it for good reason, but the ultimate point is that knowing this argument is an electoral loser, it would be quite foolish for the Democrats to nominate someone who voted the same way and still insists on making this argument.
Abe wrote on November 28, 2007 8:00 AM:Simple idea: VOTE AGAINST IT.
I don't care whether they were cutting deals. The resolution is what it is. If Hillary Clinton thought there was a chance it could lead to war, and she was opposed to the war, she should have voted against it.
Repeat after me: Vote NAY. Vote NAY. Vote NAY.
This is why Hillary would make a terrible president. She acts tough, she postures, she has built up this fake image of being a fighter. But when the chips were down, when she had a choice between YAY or NAY, she made the wrong decision.
Consequently, the Republicans were able to shaft Kerry and if she is the nominee, they will be able to shaft her. That's what happens when you fail to vote on principle and instead vote on posture. You end up stuck with your fake posture, and if you reverse it, you get shafted. Happened to Kerry, will happen to Hillary.
I'm voting for a candidate who won't (rightfully)be called on their hypocrisy by the Republican nominee.
biff diggerence wrote on November 28, 2007 8:12 AM:Hillary voted for the Authorization of Military Force.
Rationale: She was already running for President.
"I can bomb the living shit out of totally innocent strangers just as well as a white guy with a little dick."
George Bush was going to go to war with Iraq no matter what. Come hell or high water there was going to be military action. He did not need nor did he care about the AUMF, much less a congressional declaration of war. That was window all dressing. He said he wanted UN authorization as well but when that wasn't forthcoming he said screw them and did it anyway.
Clinton and Kerry and Edwards all made political calculations--poor ones in my opinion--to vote for the resolution. The folks in here who are against Clinton really believe she wanted to go to war. Really believe that if she were President at the time she would have done exactly as W did. I suppose they feel the same about Kerry and Edwards but you hardly ever hear that. Their last name isn't "Clinton" after all! There is something about that name isn't there?
In the end the real issue is political calculations. The whole idea about this is just sooo grating for the purists in here. Especially the Obama purists. The ones who really, truly believe he is different. He's the one with hope and the candidate of change. He'll make all the world pure again! Politics is an ugly business. It sometimes makes you do things and say things that are less than palatable. (Obama of course, as most of us are aware, is not immune to this--but shhh, don't tell his followers. Their brains might explode.)
All this forum combat about whether or not a vote for the resolution was really a vote for war or whether or not Hillary really wanted war or for that matter wants war with Iran today...is academic.
The folks who are against Clinton wouldn't vote for her even if she had voted against the resolution. They have bought hook, line and sinker both extremes (left and right) of the narratives of the Clintons.
John Kerry once told Eric Alterman, after Eric had been hounding him about his vote, that if he really thought we'd be in Iraq if he (Kerry) had been President he said, "then you really shouldn't vote for me!"
Exactly.
chigger wrote on November 28, 2007 8:31 AM:"Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members...
Any vote that might lead to war should be hard. But I cast it with conviction...So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation..."
--Senator and 2008 Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton (D-NY), on the U.S. Senate floor, October 10, 2002
Michael wrote on November 28, 2007 8:51 AM:Sure bill was against the war and clinton II just up and voted for war for the heck of it, without consulting with bill. Yeah, I remember all those speeches by bill at the time speaking out against the war and what a huge mistake it was. I hear he also has a bridge for sale in NY as his wife is the senator from NY.
biff diggerence wrote on November 28, 2007 8:59 AM:It would appear that none of the Senators mentioned in this thread had done their PNAC homework.
This was (and still is) an Executive Branch that is not to be trusted.
DonnaG wrote on November 28, 2007 9:24 AM:Loki wants to make this just a matter of 'purity':
"In the end the real issue is political calculations. The whole idea about this is just sooo grating for the purists in here."
Ok, Loki.....tell that to the families of 3,876 dead US soldiers and to the tens of thousands of maimed US soldiers, and to the uncounted beyond a hundred thousand dead Iraqis and to the millions of displaced Iraqis.
Yep, all this, in the end, you say, is just a matter of 'purity' and 'political calculations'..... What pathetic blinders you wear in order to develop your pathetic narrowing of what this is about, Loki.
Daniel A. Greenbaum wrote on November 28, 2007 9:28 AM:It is interesting that the left is no better with the facts
that the right. If anyone bothered to read the speech
Hillary Clinton made before she voted in 2002 it was
not to "vote for the war." Those who say that it was
are being simplistic and misleading. She clearly states
that the purpose of her vote was to give Bush leverage
in the U.N. It is unmistakeable that she expected
a return to the United Nations both to get additional
support for whatever was to be done in iraq and to let
the weapons inspectors have more time. The given that
it was U.S. policy since 1998 to remove Saddam the U.S.
could gather a coalition to deal with Saddem.
Bil Clinton gave a talk at his Library some after the War began that
was broadcast on CSPAN. He makes it clear that he thought that Iraq had weapons
of mass destruction and he would never criticize Bush
for say Iraq had them. However, he also said that he would have let the
weapons inspectors continue their search in Iraq while the U.S. finished the war
in Afghanistan and acquired more global support for removing
Saddem from power. Once the war in Afghnaistan was concluded and the weapons inspectors
had completed their work the U.S. should at a time of our choosing remove
Saddam.
Should blogs bother to take the time, even if the mainstream
Media won't, to get the facts right.
Some of you need to forget your emotions for a minute and "read" what Bill Clinton said; while he didn't say not to invade Iraq, he didn't say invade either.
If Bill Clinton didn't do enough of anything, it was to not talk down the invasion before it happened, although to Bush, that wouldn't have made any difference.
You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
RaymondA wrote on November 28, 2007 9:49 AM:The biggest Hillary lie of all is the conceit that she opposed the actual invasion of Iraq. It's Hillary that's relevant here, not Bill.
And I found the following transcript of a Feb 27 2003 CNN piece, see http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0302/27/ip.00.html, by Judy Woodruff, who interviewed HIllary about the impending war:
I [Judy Woodruff] started by asking Senator Clinton if she agrees with President Bush that Iraq has been given every chance to disarm, and that we're just weeks away from war. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) CLINTON: Well, I think that's the unfortunate conclusion that one has to draw from any objective reading of the evidence, not just in the last months, but going back more than a dozen years now. So I think that the president's made the right decision to go back to the United Nations. I always believe if you can have a larger group of people behind you, not only for the military action, where we don't really need their help, but for what comes after, that's preferable. But I also believe that at some point, this has been in Saddam Hussein's hands from the very beginning. He signed agreements that he has failed to keep, and even now has refused to cooperate with the inspectors."
I do agree that, in theory, you could have supported the resolution but six months later opposed the invasion (though I still don't get why you'd vote "no" on Levin). But this quote, and the statement she made to Code Pink, destroy the notion that Hillary opposed the invasion "from the beginning." She simply did not use her prominent public platform to speak out when it mattered in the last three or four weeks before the invasion. Yes, the quote above, suggests that Hillary was hoping there would be a second UN resolution, but when it became clear we would not even get 9 security council votes and Bush abandoned introduction of a new resolution, Hillary was nowhere to be found complaining about a rush to war. Notably, Daschle did speak out (after having also voted for the AUMF). But not Hillary.
So stop the pretense. HILLARY SUPPORTED THE WAR. And for those of you who insist otherwise, look into your souls and answer this: If the war had turned out well, would Hillary or Bill say, "Gee you know we really did not think the invasion was necessary and would not have launched an invasion; we would have tried to disarm Saddam through other means." No way. And if a Hillary challenger had voted "no" or opposed the war, Hillary would be relentless about that person's softness and naivete.
RJ wrote on November 28, 2007 9:54 AM:"Or is this just another of the "Oceania is at war with Eastasia and has always been at war with Eastasia" moments that seem to typify her supporters here?"
Wooot! There it is.
CalD wrote on November 28, 2007 10:07 AM:DTM: If you have read the Levin amendment the perhaps you can show us the part where it provides the president any authority to commit troops to Iraq in absence of a UN resolution. It's basically a resolution to have a conversation, despite the glowing write-up in the NYT that you quoted.
dcshungu wrote on November 28, 2007 10:09 AM:Oh, boy. It lookd like the "natives" have been agitating all night and on cue.
I have said this repeatedly: If Hillary's AUMF vote drives you bonkers, then you are a far-left-wing-nut case. Most of the country (at least those who'd care to know) already knows that Hillary had voted for the Iraq war authorization bill and, according to every poll that I have seen, is fine with it. Under spell of CDS, your binary mind is deluding you into thinking that the whole world shares your "outrage" about how Hillary had voted. Nah, you're just "projecting", which is one the surest signs that you are affficted with CDS.
You can hyperventilate all you want, it won't make a bit of a difference with respect to the outcome of this election. Meanwhile, some of us would confidently cast our votes for Hillary, with the certainty that she is too intelligent to squander the opportunity to go down in history as the first and great female POTUS (a George Washington-type figure, in fact) by pursuing senseless wars of choice. What the wingnuts usually lack is a sense of proportion because of their pathologic "passion" for their ideology. Mountains are seen as molehills and vice versa. Please juxtapose the importance of Hillary's legacy as the first ever female POTUS for eternity and her vote on a bill that would still have passed overwhelmingly in a Repub Congress even if she had voted "nay", and you will see how dumb and petty you come off sounding. No one seeks the American presidency so that they can go to war. Not even GWB had sought that office so that he could go to war (remember that in 1999 he still did not do "nation-building".) He was just too stupid and let the neocons and folks at PNAC preempt his presidency. In just 12 months, the Village Idiot, who took us to war should take the blame, will leave the White House and return to Crawford, TX, with the dubious distinction of being the worst POTUS in American history. After seeing how a senseless war of choice has fucked up the Village Idiot's presidency, why would anyone with Hillary's intelligence willingly repeat those mistakes, much less adopt them, when elected POTUS? Why would Hillary choose to be like George W. Bush when she has a historic opportunity to be the female equivalent of George Washington? With that in mind, if you truly believe that Hillary is itching to take us to a war of choice against Iran or perpetuate the Village Idiot's ongoing misadventure in Mesopotamia, then you are really dumb for words. She'll get us out of there as soon and as responsibly as possible so that she can concentrate on undoing the damage that 8 years of Bush are sure to leave behind. Heck, just succeeding in undoing Bush's damage would ensure the next POTUS a nice legacy and place in history!!
I have written long post-essays on HRC and her AUMF vote and won't bother again. I just wanted to let you know that a vote for AUMF, while the wrong call then, is largely immaterial now. Give it a rest. To keep going bonkers about it brings to mind images of Dr. Pavlov's dog going rabid... on cue.
Clinton!
Now, that is your cue, please go back to foaming at the mouth...
Yours truly,
DCS, NYC
Thanks, RaymondA for finding that Hillary material from late February, 2003.
So, we have Daniel A. Greenbaum [9:28am] assuring us that Bill Clinton.....'some' after the invasion had happened, was making a statement that 'the inspectors should have been given more time'.........while the Woodruff interview brought to light by RaymondA [9:49am] has us learning that Hillary was asserting [three weeks before the invasion] that 'Saddam has refused to cooperate with the inspectors'.
Sounds like the Clintons nicely straddled both sides of the issue. Okaaaay.
John McCutchen wrote on November 28, 2007 10:17 AM:Did Bill have an I-didn't-inhale moment on Iraq? Newsday
or did he really have sex with that woman?DTM wrote on November 28, 2007 10:17 AM:
loki,
No, it isn't about purity. It is about what sort of leadership we can expect from the next President.
It is true that in 2002 and 2003, it appeared that it would be very difficult to stop the rush to war. However, we do not know if war was inevitable, and in fact we know in retrospect that the case for war was very fragile (in that if serious questions had been asked by more people for much longer, it might have fallen apart).
Confronted with such a situation, different Democrats made different choices. Some chose to fight against the rush to war anyway, even though that looked like a difficult fight to win. Others chose to give up and just go along with where things appeared to be heading.
Why is all this relevant? Because the next President is sometimes going to face adversity. The question in those future situations is going to be whether the President will be willing to take on difficult fights, or will rather just go along with where things appear to be heading.
Of course, sometimes the next President will lose those fights (that in fact is how the framers of the Constitution wanted things to work), and sometimes the President will have to give up certain causes as lost without much of a fight. But even the more sophisticated version of this question remains whether the next President will at least take on the difficult fights when the stakes are really important.
That is ultimately why this issue was so damaging for Kerry: his failure to fight for what he claimed to believe when it mattered made him look weak and unlikely to be a good leader. And if the Democrats nominate another person who is in that same position, that person will have the exact same problem.
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-ushill1128,0,7615111.story?track=rss
out of the loop wrote on November 28, 2007 10:24 AM:This all goes to show why Hillary and the Democrats are a lost cause. She voted to authorize military force. That meant war. We all knew it at the time. Now she wants to have it both ways, "I was for the war while I was against it." And some poor pathetic Democrats still support her. I for one will not vote for the Democrats if she if their candidate. I opposed the war then and I oppose it now. Clear enough, no? Triangulator, obfuscator, enough! The next person who tells me that Nader votes lost the races in 2000 and 2004 better explain to me why one should have voted for Kerry, who wanted to increase the number of American troops in Iraq. A vote for Hillary in the primaries is a vote for the Republicans in November.
DonnaG wrote on November 28, 2007 10:26 AM:Anyone else notice that Eric did an update to twice link to an 'authoritative' [cough] Hillary spin site, a site, by the way, that doesn't itself do links which would allow independent checking of its spun and sifted 'facts'?
Way to go, Eric!
dcshungu wrote on November 28, 2007 10:27 AM:As an update on the bogus Zogby internet "poll" that the MSM had hyped as a sure sign that Clinton had slipped nationally, below is an analysis that I recently posted in the ongoing discussion on the topic at pollster.com. Wrong thread but, hey, it beats the heck out of reading all the mindless stuff about HRC and her AUMF vote. They have a comment "previewer" there so there are fewer grammatical errors, typos or omitted words than in here. Enjoy...
mikeel wrote:My apologies about my shout. What makes this poll an outlier is not so much HRC;s slippage, but how all Republicans polled are essentially statistically equal. Hillary trails them all by nearly equal margins; Obama leads them all by nearly equal margins.
Isn't that odd?
Astute observation that drives yet another nail into the Zogby internet-type poll's coffin. As a "pollster" John Zogby surely must be familiar with the basic requirement that the sample being polled be normally distributed to avoid biasing the results...
The striking uniformity of the responses in this poll is indeed odd, as pointed out by this poster, and is a dead giveaway that the polled sample was not "normally distributed", meaning that this was anything but a "random sampling" of opinions. The folks in this poll did not represent America. Rather, they were folks who can be distinguished by their "passionate" views and a specific ideology, and are likely to respond to an invitation to take to the internet to express those views. From these results, I would hazard the guess that the overwhelming majority of these people are far-left Democrats or far-right Republicans (the "vast left- and right-wing conspiracy") , whose only point of agreement is that they loathe Clinton with equal fervor. Presented with an opportunity to express this loathing, they repeatedly pressed the anti-Clinton "lever", and it made them feel good, at least at that moment. They were expressing their opposition to Clinton and not their support for any other specific candidate, who just as well could have been a "generic" Republican.
Let's look at the numbers again in the context of the preceding comments:
Huckabee 44%, Clinton 39% (delta: 5%)
Thompson 44%, Clinton 40% (delta: 4%)
McCain 42%, Clinton 38% (delta: 4%)
Giuliani 43%, Clinton 40% (delta: 3%)
Romney 43%, Clinton 40% (delta: 3%)
Note, as the poster pointed out, that the numbers for the Republican candidates are virtually identical and that those for Clinton are also virtually identical regardless of who she is pitted against. Also note that the delta is even largest for Huckabee who few people nationwide have ever heard of outside of the early primary and caucus states! A quick analysis of variance yields:
Mean for all Republicans 43.2 % +/- 0.8
with a variance of 0.7
Mean for Clinton: 39.4 +/- 0.9
with a variance of 0.8
In order to get such a small standard deviation and variance from sampling something as subjective as a choice between five Republicans with "liberal" [Rudy] to conservative [Huckabee] views and one centrist Democrat, Zogby might as well have polled a bunch of clones or robots. This sample population was anything but normally distributed. It was a delta function, i.e., a "spike" within the American population continuum.
Conclusion: This poll could have pitted Clinton against anyone or anything and the results would have been the same. The deck was so stacked against her that the only possible outcome was that she'd lose.
For completeness let's look at the other match ups:
Obama 47%, Thompson 40%
Obama 45%, McCain 38%
Obama 46%, Huckabee 40%
Obama 46%, Romney 40%
Obama 46%, Giuliani 41%
Edwards 45%, Thompson 42%
Edwards 44%, Romney 42%
Edwards 44%, Giuliani 43%
Edwards 43%, Huckabee 42%
Edwards 42%, McCain 42%
Since many credible polls have shown the GOP candidates faring poorly against even a generic Democratic candidate, it would seem that the respondents of this Zogby poll might have provided a more "honest" opinion of how they feel about the other candidates. In fact, if you just assign to Clinton the GOP candidates' numbers, what you would get is a poll that qualitatively agrees with the latest and more reliable Gallup phone poll (at least for Clinton and Obama).
Dear Mr. Zogby:
Please discontinue this travesty or come up with an acceptable method for ensuring true sample randomization. As of now, all your internet poll samples is the opinion of a bunch of cyber-geeks who are "passionate" enough to respond to your invitation to take this poll. That in itself should tell you that the sample is skewed. This being a polling of opinions (a subjective quantity), no a posteriori "weighting" would effectively control for the evident a priori bias in your flawed sample "randomization" methodology.
There is no mystery here at all, and the main stream media, which must retain expensive statisticians on their staff, just got a collective black eye by hyping this bogus poll, while all but ignoring the more credible Gallup poll that showed both Clinton and Obama (but especially Clinton) doing very well against all the GOP candidates.
Howie Kurtz, here's a nice and juicy piece for your "Media Notes" column. This embarrassing episode plainly shows just how mindless the MSM can be, as already documented here.
The trouble is that it is this same mindless noise machine that shapes the news that ultimately drives campaign dynamics. Way to go in service of the good ol' US Democracy!
DCShungu, Ph.D.
Associate Prof of Physics in Radiology,
Psychiatry, Physiology and Biophysics.
@ a couple of Ivy League Medical Schools in Manhattan.
CalD,
First, that "writeup in the NYT" was actually an opinion piece by Lincoln Chafee, who was a Senator at the time and the only Republican Senator to oppose the rush to war.
Second, of course the Levin Amendment DOESN'T give the President the authority to go to war without a UN resolution. That is the whole point: if the President couldn't get the UN to pass such a resolution, he would have to come back to Congress for that authority.
But what you originally claimed is the Levin Amendment gave the UN "veto power" over the use of force. That is an outright lie: the Levin Amendment specifically reserved every right by the United States to use force in its own defense. It just made sure that if the UN did not promptly provide the President with the relevant resolution, he would have to come back to Congress for the authority to go to war.
Now, it would be fair to say that the Levin Amendment implied that CONGRESS thought it should have "veto power" over an invasion of Iraq (absent perhaps a truly imminent threat). But at least in retrospect, that seems like a darn good idea.
loki wrote on November 28, 2007 10:38 AM:DTM,
The reason Kerry lost was far deeper, far more complex than his vote on the resolution. In fact it was hardly that at all. So much more to it.
In addition, votes made in the senate...no matter which way you vote, can and will be used against you by your opponents. A good political candidate can make hay of anything. Doesn't matter.
Further, determining "leadership" goes far beyond looking at one vote.
CalD wrote on November 28, 2007 10:43 AM:Abe,
A lot of folks seem to forget that in August or September of 2002, the White House had already made it abundantly clear that they didn't believe they needed a new congressional resolution to go to war with Iraq. They had already concluded that the original Gulf War resolution and the fact that UN resolutions that it called upon the president to enforce were still unmet provided them all the legal authority they needed.
70%+ of the country was also still scared completely shitless at the time and thoroughly convinced that Hussein was in up to his neck on 9/11 and still wanted to send more terrorists to eat their babies. The Republicans had the House and half the Senate, and the Supreme court had not been much help lately. If Bush truly had a boner on to go to war, and of course he did, there was no one in a position to stop him. The resolution that Congress did pass was really our only shot at even slowing him down. Without it, it's most likely that we would have had troops in Iraq several months earlier than we did.
biff diggerence wrote on November 28, 2007 10:48 AM:DCShungu, Ph.D.
Associate Prof of Physics in Radiology,
Psychiatry, Physiology and Biophysics.
@ a couple of Ivy League Medical Schools in Manhattan.
Paid Clinton Operative.
dcshungu,
I know you are proud of your efforts, but not only are they off topic, they again display your ignorance. Again, everyone knows Zogby started with a nonrepresentative sample, including Zogby. But that is why the next step in the process is a serious of methods used to compensate for this fact.
You really should take the time to educate yourself on internet polling if you want to participate in this sort of discussion. And reading up on the related posts at pollster is a great place to start.
DTM wrote on November 28, 2007 10:56 AM:loki,
I agree that there was more to Kerry's loss than this one issue. In general, he came across to the electorate as weak, unprincipled, and unlikeable, and that was a deadly combination. However, his Iraq vote--and his attempt to explain it away in the same way that Clinton has tried to explain hers away--played a major role in supporting the notion that he was weak and unprincipled. And obviously, the reason that particular vote mattered more than most votes is that the Iraq War was then, and is now, the single most important issue among the electorate.
Michael wrote on November 28, 2007 10:57 AM:I am so sick and tired of the clinton II defenders about the vote to go to war. She was for it, before she was against it. It really is outrageous. We are not talking about voting on social security or education or a woodstock museum. We are talking about going to WAR. Killing innocent women and children. Destroying peoples lives. Blowing up a freaking country. Its war, death and destruction. You bozos make it sound like it was voting for a picnic. And to top it off, she didn't even read the freaking NIE that showed that the king's case for war was all based on lies.
Also, I am sick and tired of the clinton II position that no matter what she did or anyone else did the king would have gone to war anyway. Wrong. If people like powell, clinton II, the dem leadership spoke up and made a huge stink, we would not have gone to war. That's a pathetic excuse and it reminds me of the nazi excuse of only following orders or the german people acting like sheep and claiming "they didn't know" about the holocost. We are all responsible, some more than others, but we are all responsible.
Finally, to claim, like clinton II, that war for political purposes is ok or just fun and ignoring the consequences is pathetic. It was a gd war authorization given to a mental light-weight with a messiah complex. WTF were they all thinking, including clinton II and how can any sane person think that it was aok to kill all those innocent people and americans. Disgusting.
Anonymous wrote on November 28, 2007 10:59 AM:'@ a "couple" of Ivy League Medical Schools in Manhattan'
(hmph)
CalD,
Again, it is easy to say the war was inevitable, but in fact we do not really know if that was the case.
In practical terms, if the public had turned decisively against the war before it was started, it is entirely possible it could have been called off. And the public in fact had growing reservations in early 2003. That is also why it was so crucial that people like Senator Clinton actually supported the war in early 2003: the public at the time appeared to be ambivalent about war and open to persuasion.
Again, though, we will indeed never know what might have been possible, because Senator Clinton and too many others simply did not try.
joejoejoe wrote on November 28, 2007 11:12 AM:On March 18, 2003 (5 days after the cite from Fact Hub) in The Guardian Bill Clinton wrote an op-ed supporting UK PM Tony Blair AFTER Bush stopped trying to get a UN resolution.
"
Comment
Trust Tony's judgment
Bill Clinton
Tuesday March 18, 2003
The Guardian
Last October, when I spoke at the Labour conference in Blackpool, I supported the efforts of President Bush and Prime Minister Blair to renew efforts to eliminate Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, and to try to accomplish this through the UN.
In November, the UN security council adopted unanimously resolution 1441, giving Saddam a "final opportunity" to disarm, after 12 years of defying UN resolutions requiring him to do so. The resolution made it clear that continued sanctions were not sufficient and that continued defiance would lead to serious consequences.
Article continues
The credit for 1441 belongs in large measure to Blair, who saw it as a chance to disarm Saddam in a way that strengthened the UN and preserved the Atlantic alliance. Unfortunately, the consensus behind 1441 has unravelled. Saddam has destroyed some missiles but beyond that he has done only what he thinks is necessary to keep the UN divided on the use of force. The really important issues relating to chemical and biological weapons remain unresolved.
In the face of the foot dragging, hawks in America have been pushing for an immediate attack on Iraq. Some of them want regime change for reasons other than disarmament, and, therefore, they have discredited the inspection process from the beginning; they did not want it to succeed. Because military action probably will require only a few days, they believe the world community will quickly unite on rebuilding Iraq as soon as Saddam is deposed.
On the other side, France, Germany and Russia are adamantly opposed to the use of force or imposing any ultimatum on Saddam as long as the inspectors are working. They believe that, at least as long as the inspectors are there, Iraq will not use or give away its chemical and biological stocks, and therefore, no matter how unhelpful Saddam is, he does not pose a threat sufficient to justify invasion. After 150,000 US forces were deployed to the Gulf, they concluded the US was not willing to give inspections a chance anyway. The problem with their position is that only the threat of force from the US and the UK got inspectors back into Iraq in the first place. Without a credible threat of force, Saddam will not disarm.
Once again, Blair stepped into the breach, with a last-ditch proposal to restore unity to the UN and disarm Saddam without military action. He secured US support for a new UN resolution that would require Saddam to meet dead lines, within a reasonable time, in four important areas, including accounting for his biological and chemical weapons and allowing Iraqi scientists to leave the country for interviews. Under the proposed resolution, failure to comply with this deadline would justify the use of force to depose Saddam.
Russia and France opposed this resolution and said they would veto it, because inspections are proceeding, weapons are being destroyed and there is therefore no need for a force ultimatum. Essentially they have decided Iraq presents no threat even if it never disarms, at least as long as inspectors are there.
The veto threat did not help the diplomacy. It's too bad, because if a majority of the security council had adopted the Blair approach, Saddam would have had no room for further evasion and he still might have disarmed without invasion and bloodshed. Now, it appears that force will be used to disarm and depose him.
A s Blair has said, in war there will be civilian was well as military casualties. There is, too, as both Britain and America agree, some risk of Saddam using or transferring his weapons to terrorists. There is as well the possibility that more angry young Muslims can be recruited to terrorism. But if we leave Iraq with chemical and biological weapons, after 12 years of defiance, there is a considerable risk that one day these weapons will fall into the wrong hands and put many more lives at risk than will be lost in overthrowing Saddam.
I wish that Russia and France had supported Blair's resolution. Then, Hans Blix and his inspectors would have been given more time and supprt for their work. But that's not where we are. Blair is in a position not of his own making, because Iraq and other nations were unwilling to follow the logic of 1441.
In the post-cold war world, America and Britain have been in tough positions before: in 1998, when others wanted to lift sanctions on Iraq and we said no; in 1999 when we went into Kosovo to stop ethnic cleansing. In each case, there were voices of dissent. But the British-American partnership and the progress of the world were preserved. Now in another difficult spot, Prime Minister Blair will have to do what he believes to be right."
Bill Clinton is endorsing Blair full-stop AFTER the UN resolution fell apart.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,916233,00.html
colonpowwow wrote on November 28, 2007 11:18 AM:Does anybody really believe, as a practical matter, that if Congress had voted against the authorization resolution, that Bush wouldn't have invaded Iraq on other pretenses real or imagined?
As others have said, this was Bush's war from the beginning, it was completely inevitable (see Richard Clarke), and although I disagree with her vote and reasoning on supporting the authorization, I'm not a one-issue candidate like the religious crackpots or the Hillogynists who have twisted themselves into being so whenever convenient.
Do you agree with every vote and position that your candidate has ever proffered?
DTM: IOW, you can't show me the part of the Levin amendment where it provides any sort of authority commit troops without a UN resolution. (I actually already knew that you couldn't. I just wanted to see if you did.)
As regards what Democrats congress hypothetically could have done in 2002 that might have had a better chance of averting war let's hear your idea -- only requirement is that it has to be something they credibly could have done, not just something they might have been able to do in a more perfect world. And as for your contention that public opinion was turning against Bush by early 2003, there is frankly no data that I have ever seen to support that claim. Perhaps you were thinking of 2004.
Michael wrote on November 28, 2007 11:25 AM:colon, in one word, yep. Congress holds the purse strings. No congress, no war. Also, if leadership in the dem party and republicans, like colin, protested or resigned. Yep. If the government officials read the freaking NIE and screamed about the fact that there was no evidence for war. Yep. Colin had tenant behind him at the un because he didn't believe in the case for war. Why in the heck didn't he resign?????? It really pisses me off. I respected him before this fiasco and actually thought that he might make a good president. But now, forget it.
On the second question, nope, but on the big ones, like going to WAR, yep.
Jeremy wrote on November 28, 2007 11:26 AM:Here is Bill Clinton expressing his "opposition" to the war on Letterman:
"He is a threat. He's a murderer and a thug. There's no doubt we can do this. We're stronger; he's weaker. You're looking at a couple weeks of bombing and then I'd be astonished if this campaign took more than a week. Astonished."
Yep, just a couple of weeks and then. . . wait for it. . . MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.
What a liar.
Anonymous wrote on November 28, 2007 11:28 AM:From Pollster.com:
One DTM wrote:
So, my suggestion is that if you really want to participate meaningfully in these conversations, the first thing you should do is start reading some of the material available here about IVR and internet polls. Once you understand that background material, it will make it easier to understand pollster's discussions of specific polls, such as the one Franklin provided above.
I am not the issue here, nor is pollster.com per se. If pollster.com wishes to "educate" the public while also doing another great public service (to help stop the spread wrong information and impression), it should post a bogus poll and simultaneously caution its readership about any methodological flaws, instead of pointing them out in a later column.
And, DTM, I have been doing "hard" scientific reseach and practicing the "scientific method" for over three decades and do not need to be lectured by you or anyone about what I should do to "understand" discussions on pollster.com. This stuff comes to me naturally, as a long-time practitioner of the "art." I hope that once for all you would just stop dripping with condescension [a well known technique to try to discredit someone] and provide your own meaningful analyses in way that would contribute to the debate. Before Franklin had come up with his analysis of this bogus poll, I had already cautioned people in a forum at Talking Points Memo blog, who were trying to hype its results, not to read anything into it. The poll was simply bogus. My "Open Letter" on this issue is part of that blog's archives.
That you are a Hillary dectractor [an established fact] and have vested interested in disparaging those who might defend her is a logical assumption. This poll was a travesty and anyone who thinks otherwise has an instant credibility problem.
Good day.
"Do you agree with every vote and position that your candidate has ever proffered?"
Giving Bush bipartisan cover to wage this war, and thereby neutering effective political opposition to it for two election cycles, was a mistake (war crime?) of historic significance. It's not like voting for farm subsidies or health care reform. If the Democrats who voted for this