Hillary's Claim: I Wouldn't Have Started Iraq War

Comments (122)

brm wrote on January 6, 2008 4:37 PM:

She is lying again
Plenty of video of her not only voting for the AUMF but endorsing Bush's invasion

End the Bush-Clinton era

Bye Bye Goldwater girl

Keith wrote on January 6, 2008 4:44 PM:

Can she point to a contemporaneous statement that going into Iraq was taking our eye off the ball?

addy wrote on January 6, 2008 4:52 PM:

It's nice to see someone who has complained about "dirty politics" engage in them so willingly.

Doesn't she remember the "fire" of Dr. King when he planted the idea of possibility of something different?

vena wrote on January 6, 2008 4:53 PM:

Boy did she just step in it or what? Everyone knows the deal, why try to revise and spin it. Who advises her?

Gregor wrote on January 6, 2008 4:54 PM:

Two of this year's candidates for President have made each made a horribly wrong miscalculation in how to position themselves, against the zeitgeist. I am speaking of course of Clinton, and Romney.

Just imagine how different things might have been, had Mitt simply not strayed from his moderate record. He could have ceded the Christianist vote to Huckaboom, and then had a much more spirited contest against Rudy and McCain. Instead, Mitt finds himself tonight shredded into a thousand little pieces--a man literally without a narrative, having chopped himself into bits.

So is it any wonder that we will now see Hillary do a Romney in desperation, with 72 hours left in NH, and start revising history on her Iraq War vote? (And let's not forget her more recent Iran vote.)

Bottom line: the Iraq war vote continues to hurt her. Obama is a wall of granite on Iraq, meanwhile. He has judgment. Hillary does not.

Anonymous wrote on January 6, 2008 4:58 PM:

Boy is Obama lucky he never actually had to vote on this, he can cruise through now with "what he said".

hello_world wrote on January 6, 2008 5:06 PM:

I watched Bill Clinton field the question about the Iraq resolution earlier today on C-Span. I've never seen him parse his words as carefully as I saw him right there. And that includes, "I didn't inhale", "what IS is", and his most famous, which I'll leave out for the time being. By the end of his answer, he'd dropped the names of Lieberman (he fooled me and my poor wife) and Hagel (he was always against the war, just like me...really) and I truly had a flashback to the 90's.

The war vote is a problem for her. But she wants a REAL problem, let Bill keep on trying to defend that vote in public. I loved Bill back in the day, but he shouldn't have anything to do with something that involves giving someone the benefit of the doubt.

MarkL wrote on January 6, 2008 5:12 PM:

Why are you questioning her on this? It's obviously true.
She certainly warned of the risks in going to war with Iraq. Not sure of the specifics though.

johnk wrote on January 6, 2008 5:13 PM:

anyone have any quote of video of Hillary endorsing the Iraq invasion?

Anonymous wrote on January 6, 2008 5:18 PM:

Did she waggles her index finger and declare, "I did NOT authorize that invasion"?

Jeff L. wrote on January 6, 2008 5:22 PM:

This is one of the reasons why Sen. Clinton cannot win the GE. The GOP will use her revision of her AUMF vote the same way they used the "I was against it before I was for it" argument against Kerry.

Gregor wrote on January 6, 2008 5:23 PM:

There was nothing "cruisy" about Obama's statement on his Iraq War position which was made part of the record in the IL state legislature. At the time, the country was suffering from a mass hallucination that Iraq was a threat, and your average person will recall the discomfort that most people felt in having to assert their position at that time. There was practically a McCarthyist hysteria in the country about the coming war and anyone who dared speak out against the war was slammed pretty hard. Admit it: not that many elected politicians put forth a public statement against the proposed war that combined such forcefulness, and breadth. Go and read the statement(s) Obama made at the time. They were full speeches, with alot of detail and clarity.

Bill Brock - Chicago wrote on January 6, 2008 5:25 PM:

Clinton's thinking probably runs as follows:

Keeping in mind that the Bush Admin has misled Congress on WMD, Senator Clinton was willing to give the executive the AUMF.

But had Clinton been President, she would not have used the AUMF.

While she is my third choice among the candidates, I don't think this is a trivial distinction at all. But nuanced positions on life-and-death matters are hard sells politically.

markg8 wrote on January 6, 2008 5:25 PM:

It's as dumb as saying she's taken on Big Pharma etc. Last time I checked there's 47 million people without any kind of healthcare in this country and millions more with abysmal coverage. Like it or not she failed at the single biggest initiative she's ever fought for.

Anonymous wrote on January 6, 2008 5:26 PM:

Hillary this weekend is campaigning like a Republican does... The candidate is going negative and trying to scare people away from voting for a younger candidate, and she's ignoring the truth about Iraq. Her supporters are tearing down signs supporting rival candidates' and taking their literature off of voters' doorsteps.

I hope that Democratic voters reject this kind of campaigning in a Democratic Primary.

Alan Snipes wrote on January 6, 2008 5:27 PM:

Dummies,

Hillary is saying this because it is true. DUH

Mike H wrote on January 6, 2008 5:28 PM:

Look, I think it's indisputable that Clinton, or any other halfway sane person, would not have launched a war with Iraq and not have cooked up the "intelligence" to justify it.

But given this, it's frankly worse, in a way, that she actually did authorize the blank check. She trusted Bush when all evidence indicated that he was a fundamentally dishonest warmongering twerp. To say that her vote showed poor judgment is overly generous.

NJ Lawyer wrote on January 6, 2008 5:28 PM:

If you believe that the AUMF was simply to strengthen Bush's hand with the UN, it's a reasonable thing to say. If, otoh, you believe that it was merely a stalking horse that served as a precursor to an invasion, it's not.

Michael A wrote on January 6, 2008 5:31 PM:

I am guessing the gop is hoping to get a clip of her wind surfing and praying that she is the dem nominee. She would get slaughtered in the general election. I really wish she would pack it in and let the country move forward.

the real cookie wrote on January 6, 2008 5:35 PM:

did the people heere vote for Kerry? Do they recall he said he voted for the authorization for the President to use force? Did they accept that then but not Clinton now?

Austin, TX wrote on January 6, 2008 5:35 PM:

Would that be a flip? or a flop? Or just the same kind of 'change' she so fiercely attacking Senator Obama about?

Bet she gets a pass on this in TV world.

stlounick wrote on January 6, 2008 5:38 PM:

Good grief. The majority of Congressional Democrats voted AGAINST the 2002 Iraq War authorization. It's ridiculous to claim that Obama was somehow presenting a minority view in the Democratic Party.

The actual minority view was from Hoyer, Murtha, Reid, Edwards, Kerry, Clinton. They voted for this miserable authorization. They have all sorts of reasons for those votes.

Check out the Congressional Democrats who voted against this authorization. There are plenty of them.

Do we really have to contort ourselves in pretzel shapes to explain the whys or why nots of Clinton's position? This is simply not going to work. Judgment matters and trying to have judgment after the fact simply does not work.

We were not failed by the majority of Congressional Democrats. But we were certainly failed by the majority of our Congressional Democratic LEADERS. And we haven't managed to kick those leaders from their respective positions. And this is the real failure in WDC, now isn't it?

nycvoter wrote on January 6, 2008 5:39 PM:

She's not a liar, everyone else wants to rewrite history and forget that she spoke out against a rush to war. She wanted to be supportive of the President as he went to the UN to return to the inspections, but everyone wants to simplify it now. She would have worked on the inspectors, let them do their jobs and if necessary would have built a coalition, but by that time maybe they would have had good intelligence. Obama has even said, if he had been a Senator at the time, he is not sure how he would have voted given the intelligence provided the Senate. So let's not make it so simplistic, only people who want a President without experience think that it's a simple answer

Desider wrote on January 6, 2008 5:41 PM:

Repeated over and over, she didn't authorize a blank check, she gave lots of caveats including her perception of Bush's changes to honestly pursue a non-military solution over the previous weeks, the war did not start for another 5 months which included a unanimous Security Council vote (including Syria), and 2 months of returned inspectors. Hussein would not have allowed inspectors back in without a serious military threat, and our intelligence without inspectors and dependable on-the-ground was deeply compromised. Read her speech.

DRinOH wrote on January 6, 2008 5:42 PM:

Obviously she's saying she just wanted to give Bush the authority to pursue diplomacy, but as a poster pointed out above, while the distinction isn't trivial, that dog ain't gonna hunt now.

Peter Vander Arend wrote on January 6, 2008 5:43 PM:

Lost last night in the hoopla of the debates in New Hampshire was the reality check Ron Paul tired to deliver to the rest of the knotheads on stage, the Republican part's membership, and America. There is absolutely NO WAY the continuation of the present Bush Policies or minor variants of them vis-a-vis the Hillary approach will allow our nation to remain in our vaulted position as the "leader of the free world".

Sen. Clinton never gets grilled for her continued support of Sen. Joseph Lieberman, who is by all acocunts a Republican masquerading in Democratic clothing. It's time for Hillary to tell all Dems how she feels about Lieberman's support given to John Mccain and the iraq War policy. Herein, lies the real Clinton "centrist" approach.

Austin, TX wrote on January 6, 2008 5:45 PM:

'trying to have judgement after the fact simply does not work'

Interesting perspective. While, Monday morning quarterbacking isn't particularly fair, it's definitely a part of the equation. Particular when Senator Clinton is apparently set on calling others out for some of their contradicting votes and comments.

Although, I really would hope that we can judge our decision, and whether they were right or wrong, after the fact. Otherwise, we'll keep making the same mistake again and again.

anony-mouse wrote on January 6, 2008 5:45 PM:

"She is lying again"

by saying "again" you are assuming that at one stage she actually stopped.

Jim H wrote on January 6, 2008 5:48 PM:

Once again the Obama mamas distort history. Look at the authorization to use force. The vote was to force Saddam to accept inspectors, and threatened to use force a) if he didn't allow them in, and b) if he wouldn't get rid of anything that was against the agreement he signed after the Gulf War. It was not a vote to invade, as much as Obama the Chicago street pol would like it to be. She and Bill were both for the inspectors to finish the job that the authorization made possible. If they had allowed Blix to finish, there would have been no war. If Bill had gotten that act through Congress, and gotten the inspectors in, show of hands: would he have invaded? Would Hill? No. Anybody believes any different, or talks about "Bush lite" or any of that Obamaganda, is talking out of their asses.

PghMike wrote on January 6, 2008 5:48 PM:

Obama was very clear on his opposition back in 2002, and from what I've read, he was planning on a US Senate run at that time. He knew that his was a risky position to take, given the drumbeat for war that was sounded all across the country. He stood up against the war anyway.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhpKmQCCwB8

Desider wrote on January 6, 2008 5:57 PM:

Thank you, nycvoter.

I think you highlight that Hillary has spent 7 years in the Senate building up credibility that she would deal with security threats seriously, something the public has not often given Democrats points for. Somehow the revisionist history is that a bungled war in Iraq equals no concerns post-9/11 for a reassessment in Mideast policy. While I agree that more international policing and better adherence to international rules of law should have been the corner piece of our policy, policing alone would not bring Hussein or Taliban to openness. And people are seriously deluded if they think the American people equate getting out of Iraq with a pacifist foreign policy. George Bush got re-elected after the pictures of Abu Ghraib, and it's not like GOP candidates have been shunned for endorsing torture. But Kum-ba-ya, y'all. Russia and China just want to get along with everyone in the new order, no opportunism, no danger.

anonymous wrote on January 6, 2008 5:57 PM:

Yeah, her laserlike focus on Afghanistan is why, in her statement explaining her vote "authorizing the use of military force in Iraq," she failed to mention Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden, or the Taliban even once.

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

Now, she did mention Al Quaeda in her speech--but only once, when she said that Saddam Hussein had harbored them.

And she did mention September 11--to explain that she was voting for the Iraq invasion bill because: "I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting."

Yep. She sure was focused on Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden. So much, that in the most important war vote, she never mentioned them once.

Compare that to Feingold's statement, which explicitly asked:

http://feingold.senate.gov/speeches/02/10/2002A10531.html

"In Afghanistan, the government and President Hamid Karzai work under constant threat and instability plagues the country outside of Kabul. Many Afghan people are waiting for concrete indicators that they have a stake in this new Taliban-free future. The task is daunting. Mr. President, we've only just begun that task. What demands might be added in a post-Saddam Iraq?...I am concerned that the President is pushing us into a mistaken and counterproductive course of action. Instead of this war being crucial on the war on terrorism, I fear it could have the opposite effect."

And compare it to Gore's speech, which made the same point

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2002/iraq-020923-gore01.htm

As well as Obama's.

This is really just a pathetic attempt to rewrite history. How can Afghanistan have been a serious consideration in her thinking when she didn't even mention it?

Mike timmons wrote on January 6, 2008 5:58 PM:

Hi there, Hillary lovers:

Hillary didn't vote for a War in Iraq, she just gave carte blanche to a President who was aching to go to war in Iraq.

See how simple that is?

Also, my girlfriends vibrator is really a back massager. Oral sex is not sex, you really do need the undercoating on a new car, the WWF is not staged, and those publisher's clearing house checks you get in the mail are legal tender.

frankly0 wrote on January 6, 2008 5:58 PM:

"Why did she say this?"

For God's sake, has idiocracy taken over both Eric Kleefeld and TPM?

She is saying that she wouldn't have invaded Iraq because she wouldn't have done so.

She has always maintained that her vote was intended to confront Saddam so that he would demand inspections and disarm, and was not intended as a support for the war come what may.

Kerry made this very point when he was running for President. Virtually every Democrat who voted for the AUMF made that very point.

If it strikes Kleefeld and TPM as simply incoherent that she would make such a claim, what does that suggest about their own ability to remember even recent history?

Why are we bothering to read these ignorant people?

Kyle wrote on January 6, 2008 6:00 PM:

So she wouldn't have done it, but voted for it. If you do believe that she wouldn't have done it then this vote was nothing but political cowardice. There is no way not to hammer her for this. The cooked intelligence was so easily seen through it was not even funny. She would side with anyone she thinks will get her more power. So long Hil, hope you get primary challenged into oblivion.

Keith wrote on January 6, 2008 6:00 PM:

Jim H:

We've debated the 2002 AUMF language EXTENSIVELY abd your synopsis is not correct. It encourage Bush's efforts to use diplomacy, but gave him sole discretion to determine if those diplomatic efforts were either exhausted or fruitless and use force. And he only needed to notify certain members of Congress 48 hours after he used force.

Nycvoter: I love the dishonesty amongst HRC supporters. July 2004; Democratic Convention; keynote speaker at the invitation of the Democratic Nominee. All of those FACTS were in operation before the question was posed. But the critical piece is that he went on to say, that based on what he knew the case wasn't made. Seems to me that Clinton said that based on what she knew the case WAS made. Later we find out, she didn't bother to read the classified NIE. So given them same information, one got it right (and for the right reasons) and one got it wrong.

Fasdf wrote on January 6, 2008 6:01 PM:

It was not a vote to invade

More accurately, Bush said it wasn't a vote to invade. But in essence it was a vote to invade, and it didn't take much to see that Bush was lying through his teeth when he said he wouldn't treat it as a vote to invade.

Obama saw through that.

I actually think Hillary saw through that, too, but the polls were telling her that standing up against the war would be politically unpopular. And that was true at the time. Either that or she took Bush at his word and didn't see the duplicity, but I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt.

John McCutchen wrote on January 6, 2008 6:01 PM:

Babling old bat

Why did she say this?

Take a wild guess

She supported Bush's war with full throat for four years. She voted FOR the war and was the only democratic senator to embrace EVERY SINGLE ONE of Bush's "justifications" because she's been running for president since 2000 and wanted to show how tough she was

She figured that it would all be over by now

blackstar wrote on January 6, 2008 6:02 PM:

Bill Clinton: "i opposed this war from the start" (despite being on record as supporting the President's decision at the time)

Hillary Clinton: "i would not have taken us to this war" (despite voting in the Senate to.... take us to this war)

what is wrong with these people? do they just not understand we remember things they said before? or, better yet, have VIDEO of them saying these things?

where is Jon Stewart when you need him.

Fasdf wrote on January 6, 2008 6:02 PM:

It was not a vote to invade

More accurately, Bush said it wasn't a vote to invade. But in essence it was a vote to invade, and it didn't take much to see that Bush was lying through his teeth when he said he wouldn't treat it as a vote to invade.

Obama saw through that.

I actually think Hillary saw through that, too, but the polls were telling her that standing up against the war would be politically unpopular. And that was true at the time. Either that or she took Bush at his word and didn't see the duplicity, but I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt.

Keith wrote on January 6, 2008 6:04 PM:

The new cnn poll is Obama 39% (+6), Clinton 29% (-4), Edwards 16% (-4)

JIm H wrote on January 6, 2008 6:05 PM:

From her floor speech on the AUMF:

"Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

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."

Read it for yourself:
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

Obama voted for every single budget request by Bush too.

improper wrote on January 6, 2008 6:06 PM:

Someone please put this broken down sow out of her misery.

tbhull wrote on January 6, 2008 6:09 PM:

JIm H wrote on January 6, 2008 6:05 PM:

"... Obama voted for every single budget request by Bush too."

Obama was always, vocally in public, against the war against Iraq pre-mar, unlike the cascading failure that is HRC.

Funding the troops nce they are ncorrectly thre is a much differen vote and should not be confused with the error of putting our troops there in the first place.

HRC is desperate and finished, just face it.

eric_k wrote on January 6, 2008 6:11 PM:

Yes, frankly0, you are correct all the way around.

The blogosphere has a maddening ability to favor juvenile amateur night antics like this. But who wants to edit or even fact-check on a Sunday afternoon? No one at TPM apparently.

vena wrote on January 6, 2008 6:11 PM:

And once again we come back to the experience v. judgment argument. What does it say about the "experienced" candidate that she got duped by Elmer Fudd, while the young and the naive candidate saw right through it? So much for experience.... The truth is, it takes common sense and that is hard thing to find the world of politics.

Dennis wrote on January 6, 2008 6:12 PM:

I'm not buying into Hillary and I don't know why anyone else would want to. This nation needs a change from the status quo of which, agree with me or not, Hillary is a part of.

If the nation has not yet collapsed under Bush (but....), just maybe some new blood can stem the tide from the direction we've gone for the past seven years. After all, it's the career people who work for government who hold it together, not the elected officials.

(Interestingly, Hillary goes at it like it's owed to her).

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

Dan wrote on January 6, 2008 6:13 PM:

Not going well for Clinton at all. The new CNN/WMUR poll was just released minutes ago and it has Obama surging by TEN points in 24 hours!

Jim H wrote on January 6, 2008 6:14 PM:

It is very discouraging how the "left" here thinks it's cool to adopt Republican speech about Clinton. She is now a sow, and does not need to be put out of her misery. Or an old bat. She's a politician you don't agree with, a fellow Democrat. Since when do you think that being foul-mouthed and disrespectful marks you as anything but stupid?

Obama is a young guy who had zero pressure on him. He was running against frickin' Alan Keyes, for God's sake. Easy vote for him, especially in Democratic Illinois, especially since it didn't affect anybody.

edshea wrote on January 6, 2008 6:15 PM:

while all you hill-haters pounce and lick your chops, the republicans are rubbing their hands together preparing to eviscerate your golden boy...i blame the naderites for 8 years of bush and i'm gonna blame you hill-haters for at least 4 years of mccain...hillary decided not to go negative in n.h. because you all and the liberal media would see red meat...but guess what kids, the right ain;t gonna be so demure...the hillary-pile-on is all fun and games right now, but brace yourselves kiddies: the dark side is gonna pick off the empty poet in a flash...

Transcendentalfloss.com wrote on January 6, 2008 6:16 PM:

I can think of nothing more definitive on this subject than her Floor Speech on S.J. Resolution 45 (Google it!)

It's tempting to pounce on this bit right out of the gate:

"Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt."

But the speech is more complex than that, and she states explicitly that she prefers a diplomatic solution rather than a rush to invade.

Ultimately, in my opinion, any objections are completely overshadowed by her "yes" vote.

She says:

"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."

But real conviction would have been to vote "no" if she had objections, not vote "yes" and hope, giggle giggle, that the Bush administration would practice restraint.

The speech was talking the talk, but the "yes" vote shows there was no walk, just lip service.

tbhull wrote on January 6, 2008 6:21 PM:

HRC is part of the problem, not part of the solution. She is simply finished. You can keep the sign in your yard if you wish the same was my parents kept McGovern and Humprhey badges. It is over.

To continue on the porcine reference she has fed at the DC trough for too long and is bloated and simply unable to move with the times (i.e. her inability to pivot after her "experience" approach fell flat on its face like a drunk at Mardi Gras).

Her day was yesterday, not today. She and he hubby sold the dem party out in the 90s to corporations and brought the dems and DLC to the right. She was a republican when she was young, campaigning for Goldwater. She might as well be a repub today being so tied to corporate interests she represented for years and cozied up to for money, just like Obama.

anonymous wrote on January 6, 2008 6:22 PM:

JimH--Sorry, where in there did you find the piece where she talks about Afghanistan?

Because she's saying she was so focused on Afghanistan that she'd have never gone into Iraq. So, uh, where's that mention of Afghanistan? The thing she was supposedly so focused on? Because, see, a LOT of other Dems were talking about it at the time and warning that Iraq would take our eye of the ball...

It's just fascinating that even though she now says she wouldn't have invaded Iraq because of Afghanistan, that she didn't mention Afghanistan as even a concern when she authorized the use of military force in Iraq.

Anonymous wrote on January 6, 2008 6:23 PM:

Oh, for Pete's sake, here is the resolution: http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

Here is Sen. Clinton's speech regarding same: http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=233783

Read and think about it.

Now in regard to Sen. Obama, while his anti-war speech was very stirring,(text here http://usliberals.about.com/od/extraordinaryspeeches/a/Obama2002War.htm?p=1 ) it was 5 years ago.

Since that time, I have not seen him take an active role in any legislation to set timetables, give the armed services more respite time, withold funding. So I take his touting of his Illinois speech with a grain of salt.

It's easier to talk than do.

I am neither an Obama nor a Clinton supporter yet, but I like to see accuracy and fair play and I read everything I can get my hands on.

Big River Bandido wrote on January 6, 2008 6:23 PM:

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.

That's what she said. And then she went and voted for the war anyway.

As Clinton said herself in the NH debate, there's talk, and there's action. Her actions — voting for the war — speak clearly for themselves. This attempt to "spin" Senator Clinton's vote on the IWR as anything other than approval is not only brazen Orwellianism, but embarrassingly tone-deaf.

tbhull wrote on January 6, 2008 6:23 PM:

No matter how hard she tries and how bad her supporters want, her words cannot undo her actions. Words are cheap.

blue cayuga wrote on January 6, 2008 6:23 PM:

check out Obama's speech made before the vote for the Iraq war (from a post on dailykos today):

Good afternoon. Let begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.

I don’t oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

I don’t oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Roves to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

DeeDee wrote on January 6, 2008 6:27 PM:

I agree that bashing the Clintons is counterproductive, and also that neither Clinton would have begun the Iraq war (at least not without a more convincing international coalition). But I don't agree that her judgment in voting for the war was justified. It was a mistake. I voted for Kerry because he was the nominee, and I'll vote for Clinton if she's the nominee, but that vote was bad judgment, and many of her actions in the Senate reflect bad judgment: The Kyl-Lieberman amendment, for example; the flag burning amendment, for example; etc. I like her, but I wish I liked her better.

anonymous wrote on January 6, 2008 6:29 PM:

Obama is a young guy who had zero pressure on him. He was running against frickin' Alan Keyes, for God's sake.

LOL! As opposed to Hillary Clinton's bruising campaign against powerhouse John Spencer.

Edwards is the only one who's ever beaten a Republican in a red state. And an incumbent at that.

leftdcin72 wrote on January 6, 2008 6:30 PM:

Jim H

Speak as you feel you must but you ignore the Clintons main problem, they are petty job seekers, appointing like kind such al albright, tenet, berger freeh and trying for zoe baird. The Clintons and the Bushes are the heart of the drakness the country has been subjected too for the past 16 years. Indeed it was the Clintons who promoted this great economy nonsense all based on fossil fuels, a great country such as ours should not have to rely on what comes out of the ground in Saudi Arabia. The Clintons are so dangerous and callous.

Anonymous wrote on January 6, 2008 6:31 PM:

Here's what Obama said before Bush invaded Iraq. This is the person who is presidential, this is the person who has good judgement... Clinton failed us. She is not presidential material.

from an early post on dailykos.com

_______________________________________

Barack Obama

Good afternoon. Let begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.

I don’t oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

I don’t oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Roves to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

Michael A wrote on January 6, 2008 6:31 PM:

Those winds of change are blowing at gale force. CNN's poll showing a ten point lead!!!!! Wow, if he blows her out in nh. Look out, she may be toast. If edwards wasn't dithering around, obama would be totally blowing her out of the water. It's looking more and more like less than 30 days of triangulation and distortion and then she will be back in the senate. It can't come soon enough. She should have waited her turn until 2016.

Helter wrote on January 6, 2008 6:31 PM:

"She has always maintained that her vote was intended to confront Saddam so that he would demand inspections and disarm, and was not intended as a support for the war come what may." In which case, she was naive and stupid, since nearly everyone else on the planet knew what Bush was going to do with the vote.

The better interpretation is that her vote was meant to be pro-war with an escape clause if things went bad. A case of political cowardice. Hillary hid under the bed in fear of the big bad right wing, the same right wing she's telling us she knows how to fight.

SteinL wrote on January 6, 2008 6:31 PM:

Because she is mad as a coon and has the memory of a Bush appointee?

Paulie wrote on January 6, 2008 6:34 PM:

First off, why oh why is Hillary even touching the subject of Iraq? Clearly out of desperation.

Second, many have said the repugs will devour obama but fail to mention that a Clinton nomination would be a repugs wet dream. Sure, we all have our picks as to who we want to win but let's be real, a Hillary nomination would motivate MANY more people to vote (against her) than an obama nomination.

Finally, if it does come down to obama v mccain, the people will most definitely side with anti-war obama than hundred year war mccain.

mkolb wrote on January 6, 2008 6:35 PM:

Anonymous at 6:29, her first campaign was against Rudy Giuliani who dropped out of the race and then against Rick Lazlo. It was not a pleasant campaign by any means - Lazlo was the leading light of the NYGOP at the time, I believe.

Her second run was against Spencer - I don't think the NYGOP had anyone who was willing to go up against her.

Anonymous wrote on January 6, 2008 6:35 PM:

Desider says in defense of Hillary "Read her speech."

Her speech takes all sides of every issue on Iraq. It was calculated to give her cover and to justify any subsequent position she wants to take.

SHE VOTED TO GIVE INCOMPETENT, DISHONEST GEORGE BUSH THE AUTHORITY TO INVADE IRAQ.

Everyone including Hillary Clinton knew he was preparing for war. EVERYONE. She voted for the war because she wanted to look hawkish for her presidential campaign.

If Hillary had been genuine about the diplomatic route, and was a true LEADER, she would not only have voted for the Levin Amendment, it would have been the Levin-Clinton Amendment. BUT HILLARY VOTED AGAINST IT.

Twenty-three responsible, wise, courageous Senators read the intelligence report and had the GOOD JUDGMENT to vote against authoriizing war with Iraq.

Hillary was not one of them. No amount of revisionism, parshing, qualifying, or LYING will change that.

r€nato wrote on January 6, 2008 6:36 PM:

She is saying that she wouldn't have invaded Iraq because she wouldn't have done so.

Look, that AUMF - including its duplicitous title - was carefully calculated to allow Congresscritters to have it both ways. To allow them to vote for war but claim later they voted for war (if it went well) or that they merely voted to allow the threat of the use of force in order to strengthen Bush's hand in diplomacy (if it didn't go so well). Never mind that even a simpleton who wasn't deluded by the mass hysteria which existed at the time, could tell that Bush was going to go to war no matter what.

Hillary has repeatedly refused to apologize for her vote for the AUMF. That's all I need to know.

jhill123 wrote on January 6, 2008 6:40 PM:

How many people, other than myself, really and truely believed that bush was lying when he made the case for war? I heard very little from anywhere that questioned his motives, and questioned his evidence, despite Colin Powell's protestations. Honestly, I still don't think Obama has the experience to lead, and I still have questions about Hillary's ability to bring the country together.
I will tell you, however, that I really don't want to have a pizza or beer with the president. I think they should be way more worried about running the country than sitting down for a tall cold one or a slice of pie. I don't ever again want a president who is more worried about his daily bike training than he is about New Orleans, the war in Iraq, the Economy, or anything else for that matter.

xrepub wrote on January 6, 2008 6:41 PM:

I am not a Hillary fan, but I think this is overdone.

The resolution merely gave Bush the power to go to war. It would have enabled a smart prez to simply stare down Saddam and get the inspectors back in. It was difficult at that time to realize just how stupid Bush was, that he would go to war for the fun of it.

tbhull wrote on January 6, 2008 6:41 PM:

HRC personifies duplicity and political cowardice and the Iraq vote is the albatross around her neck that lets everyone on a daily basis of her cowardice. she cannot shake this no matter how hard she tries.

Hillary is over, yesterday's news. Bring on the bedpans and clean up the room at the retirement center in DeQueen as the Clintons are comin' home.

Desider wrote on January 6, 2008 6:44 PM:

Anonymous 6:35,
Of course Hillary calculated her speech to cover herself - she couldn't have believed it, she couldn't have sat in the West Wing for 8 years while her husband dealt with cat-and-mouse with Hussein.
If she had been a true LEADER she would have course voted like everyone else.
If she were courageous, she would capitulate and apologize for her vote; instead she's cowardly and refuses to say she's sorry or even blame others for her decision (like say Edwards and his poll takers). I mean, what kind of presidential material is that, to stand by her past decisions even though it hurts her politically?

Desider wrote on January 6, 2008 6:46 PM:

Paulie, as Digby noted, Iraq is issue #1 with the American people. It needs to be addressed. Hillary needs to talk about it. She should have before, she has to know.

Gregor wrote on January 6, 2008 6:46 PM:

People are forgetting this race has been run over the past 12-18 months, and we are actually much, much later in the game. There's not a single thing Hillary can do now, to turn this around for herself. Obama stole the fire. Hillary is a dud.

While Iowa, just 4 days ago, appeared to be "news", it was, in fact, the culmination of her failure as a candidate over a long period of time, and, the effect of Obama's enormous talent.

This chatboard and others like it are really much more post-game analysis than people realize. This thing is exploding in Obama's favor, and I'm not convinced even Obama can stop it now. Something bigger is going on, and, I think it's a cultural need for catharsis that the voters intuit they can get with Obama, but not Hillary.

So it's not rational now. The rational period was the 18 month lead up to Iowa. What's happening now is the release, the exhale.

I think we'll understand later, how this was all over for Hillary by last October.

DonnaG wrote on January 6, 2008 6:48 PM:

Hillary's floor speech on AUMF was fence-sitting in a way, trying to verbally cover all bases.
But her vote against Levin, her vote for AUMF, her failure to read the complete NIE before that vote, and especially her silence and lack of leadership in February and March of 2003, at a time when she could have used her stature to resist Bush's blatant push to short circuit the inspection process.......all these point to her giving the nod to the Bush Iraq War agenda.

When Hillary was first confronted with a voter unhappy about her AUMF vote, and I believe that was in New Hampshire earlier in this primary season, she refused to admit her vote was wrong, and she invited everyone who didn't like that answer to just vote for someone else. If, in fact, her real position was that she herself would never have invaded Iraq, then why didn't she offer that position last summer, instead of her infamous dismissal of the voters' concern?

Charles wrote on January 6, 2008 6:48 PM:

At a minimum, Hillary Clinton misjudged Bush and his people. THAT is even more ridiculous than voting for the resolution in the first place.

If she had learned anything, she would not have voted for Kyl-Lieberman.

These two votes - as well as the hemming and hawing about ending the war -- oh, it is complex. What do we do with the translators who helped us level Fallujah? What about the non-combat troops? And the NGOs and contractors? And on and on -- Next she'll want to bring out the servers behind the lunchcounter in some Baghdad diner.

She lacks the fundamental honesty to say, "Dammit, I was wrong. Here is why. It won't happen again."

She will not say it, because she can't. On this one, you can't have it both ways. What the Clintons do NOT get is that this was not just another policy and this is NOT "just another election."

Anonymous wrote on January 6, 2008 6:52 PM:

xrepub said "The resolution merely gave Bush the power to go to war."

Our Constitution clearly gives only Congress the power to declare war. It's part of the "checks and balances" as was meant to prevent a dishonest, incompotent, corporate serving President from starting a war just because HE wanted to do it. Congress gave their approval for war to Bush, Constitutionally. They sanctioned the war. And it has ended or disrupted millions of lives, cost trillions of dollars, damaged America's trust and standing in the world, damaged the Constitution, international law and the cause of peace.

Hillary was irresponsible in giving Bush authority for war. She does not have the kind of judgment we need in a president.

stlounick wrote on January 6, 2008 6:52 PM:

Last night Hillary was against fancy-pants words and wanted all of us to focus on her actions. Well, this vote is an action. And it shows poor judgment--in fact, judgment so poor that I refuse to REWARD the person casting such a vote with the possibility of a promotion to president.

It is NOT going to happen.

JR wrote on January 6, 2008 6:52 PM:

Well, Bill DID inform us only last month that he never-ever supported Bush's Iraq invasion. Unlike Al Gore, he chose to keep his mouth shut out of respect for Bush. Perhaps Hillary was doing the same?

If the Clinton campaign is paying attention, I'd be more than happy to take your money for the excuse in the preceding paragraph. You certainly need some new advisers as you don't have a gut you can trust. I know you're desperate as all get out as you realize that Democrats were not ready to just roll over and give you the nomination.

No, I'm not a Hillary Hater - only a person who believes that family name is not enough to elect you into the White House.

tbhull wrote on January 6, 2008 6:53 PM:

Desider wrote on January 6, 2008 6:44 PM:

I mean, what kind of presidential material is that, to stand by her past decisions even though it hurts her politically?"

Hillary is one of those folks that is never wrong and violently intolerant to others that oppose her. See last night's hystrionics as an example when Edwards got underneath her skin. Her eyes bugged out of her head and she exploded, in a manner not too dissimilar to when she found out that Bill received a BJ/diddled another (Monica)to Hillary's embarrassment for at least the tenth time. She is not worthy of respect.

She will never recognize or admit her errors, much like our current idiot in chief. Bill survived admitting the Monica fiasco. His ability to be humble, feigned or no, separates him from his politically inferior spouse.

blackstar wrote on January 6, 2008 6:55 PM:

the point of contention is in the sheer gall of her bringing up the issue in the first place.

if she wanted to come out (as Edwards did) and apologize for her vote on Iraq, which is obviously the single biggest foreign policy disaster in modern American history, that would be fine.

but trying to dance around the issue by saying "well if I were in charge, I wouldn't have done it", even if the sentiment is true, presents a very basic contradiction with HER VOTE FOR IT.

if you believed it was a bad idea, you wouldn't vote for it. the only way in which a Senator votes for a bill is if they believe in it or if they believed a vote for it would be politically expedient. these are very easy to understand concepts to the American electorate, and its really incredible that she can be unapologetic about her vote for Iraq and STILL think we're just going to forget she did it.

jimBOB wrote on January 6, 2008 6:57 PM:

When I vote for a candidate for president, I'm voting, more than anything else, for that candidate's judgment. There's no way to know what challenges the candidate will face once in office - voters in 1960 could have had no inkling that JFK was going to have to deal with the Cuban Missile crisis, for example. So what we are doing in electing a president is designating him or her to make judgments. And on those judgments will be riding anything up to and including the survival of the nation and the world.

When the AUMF came up, Hillary Clinton faced (whether she knew it or not) a pivotal judgment call - whether or not to authorize George W. Bush with the power to take the country to war.

She may have couched her vote in language of whatever sort, intending to shade the bare vote with nuances of meaning - statements expressing the expectation of what Bush should do with the authority he was getting, thoughts about international relations and military strategy.

But in the end, none of that surrounding language is meaningful. George W. Bush was under no requirement to pay any attention to it. Nor should Clinton have expected him to do so - by that point there had been plenty of time to take the measure of this man. In the end, all that mattered was the vote itself.

That vote was a mistake.

The vote was not merely a mistake of judgment, it was a colossal mistake, a mistake of the first order.

It was a disqualifying mistake.

Now it may well be true that Clinton would not have led the mad rush to war the way President Bush did. I certainly hope she wouldn't have. But that's not anywhere near enough. And by bringing up this assertion, Hillary Clinton is inviting us to reconsider her basic mistake, her yes vote on the AUMF. It was a mistake that strongly suggests she hasn't the judgment to be Commander In Chief.

One last thought. If we want politicians to show good judgment (particularly regarding war), we'll need to both reward them when they show it, and punish them when they don't. Clinton's punishment should be that as a result of this mistaken judgment, she never achieves the lofty political career she aspired to. And maybe by punishing those Democrats who let themselves be drawn into the rush to war, we'll make the next generation think very long and hard before before plunging into war.

PHB wrote on January 6, 2008 7:01 PM:

Hilary appears to be justifying her vote on the not unreasonable basis that at the time Saddam was refusing to allow the UN ispectors in and the President had asserted that incontrovertible proof existed that Saddam was in fact building weapons.

Voting to authorize force should Saddam not compy does not appear to me to indicate that she would have gone to war after Saddam complied with the demand to let the inspectors in and further that the inspectors reported fining nothing.

Of course Clinton would not have gone to war with Iraq. No US politician other than Bush, Cheney and the neo-cons would have thought the idea remotely desirable. McCain would not have started that war, nor would Gore, Pat Buchannan, Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Riely. the idea would simply not have occurred to them.

Kansas-City-Dem wrote on January 6, 2008 7:09 PM:

jimBOB at 6:57,

You just nailed it. Judgement is one of the critical reasons that I'm for Obama, and not Hillary or Edwards. I'm wondering if there's a sign on the wall at Obama campaign strategists that reads: "It's judgement at critical moments, stupid."

wes2 wrote on January 6, 2008 7:13 PM:

I like distinctions myself, and I don't find the AUMF vote disqualifying, as many here do.

But still, even interpreting this as Hillary seems to want (if I had been President, I wouldn't have used the AUMF to go to war), it beggars credibility.

It's as though Marie Spadafora went to Tony Soprano and said, sure, it's OK with me if you threaten Little Vito with being sent to bootcamp in Idaho to scare him straight. She can't then turn around and say she had good judgment in the affair because she wouldn't have packed Little Vito off to Idaho herself. Don't give sociopaths with no boundaries and a profound disregard for human life blank checks to do something you actually oppose. How hard is that?

Desider wrote on January 6, 2008 7:22 PM:

Okay, let's talk about Obama's speech. First he dilutes it by attacking Rove regarding the uninsured and "a drop in the median income". WTF? We're talking about going to war and fighting terrorism, and he's talking about a drop in median income?

Second, he claims "I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history." Brilliant plan!!! Hussein had access to $10 billion dollars a year in oil-for-food, and 9/11 cost maybe a couple million dollars total to carry out - this wasn't Serbia under sanctions. Didn't Obama get the memo that the equations had changed, that we'd already waited 12 years for Hussein and Qaddafi and Assad to fall away and post-9/11 were tired of taking chances? If Obama read the NIE he would know the intelligence community thought Hussein had anthrax and potentially biological weapons even if the nuclear threat was overstated, and that somewhere there were still SCUDS left along with shorter range weapons. Since he couldn't read the NIE, well, what was he basing his passion and certainty on? Or was this "hope"?

BimBeau wrote on January 6, 2008 7:27 PM:

Get a life folks!
HRC is not waffling with the cited comment. If she had the real intelligence report, instead of the pablum fed the Senate, she would not have voted the way she did.

OKAY!

Now let's start in on the real issue. Why didn't she ask better, more invasive questions?
Why didn't she develop a more incisive view of the world and that area in particular?
Why did she accept the pablum?
What was happening that she couldn't provide adequate oversight?

Now go somewhere with relevant questions instead of these stupid leftovers from the Republicans.

No choice?
No democracy!
Support Governor Richardson

Steve LaBonne wrote on January 6, 2008 7:27 PM:

I could forgive and forget her AUMF vote, even though she's never apologized for it as Edwards has- but voting for Kyl-Lieberman demonstrated that she learned NOTHING from the Iraq fiasco. Indeed, she lacks the good judgment I want in a President. And she also lacks political judgment for inviting people to focus on this again. Feh.

Anonymous wrote on January 6, 2008 7:29 PM:

Here's the problem I have with those trying to now parse HRC's vote and rational behind it. She is a sitting US Senator and as such had at least some sort of duty to look at all the information available and not blindly rely on the White House's intelligence and reasoning. Our elected officials should at least perform due diligence before taking such an action.

Sure, she can claim her vote was simply to try to force Sadam back to the table, but there was clear intelligence that he was not hiding a secret weapons program prior to her vote. That information was ignored in the rush to was, even though it was there, stories were written about it in the news papers if she had bothered to look.

So the way I see it, she's either incompetent as a Senator, or lying now. I'll defer to her and her supporters to pick one.

johnsturgeon wrote on January 6, 2008 7:31 PM:

nycvoter @ 5:39 PM:
She's not a liar, everyone else wants to rewrite history and forget that she spoke out against a rush to war.

I disagree that Hillary gave anything other than lip service to the idea of following any kind of legal process or examining the cause/justification as Bush muscled this country into war.

Hillary's a lawyer, and she capitulated her Congressional Power and Duty to Declare War to the Executive Branch.

Citing the cheap talk she substituted for substantive action is not going to change that.

It's a poor, poor fig leaf for an incredible betrayal: everyone knew Bush wasn't going to follow UN protocol or listen to inspectors. Get real.

SocraticGadfly wrote on January 6, 2008 7:33 PM:

Clinton is tying this with the FACT that Obama has voted for every war funding measure since he actually became a senator.

Differences between most Democrats on Iraq? No more than nuance.

Kucinich will go nowhere; Richardson is going nowhere, and at bottom line, he's still ultimately part of the bipartisan foreign police establishment.

If you want real change, vote Green, or at least seriously consider it.

tbhull wrote on January 6, 2008 7:39 PM:

SocraticGadfly wrote on January 6, 2008 7:33 PM:

Voting for funding is far different than voting for the authority to go to war.

If you are looking for things that are similar, consider voting for the Green Party and pissing in the wind with your mouth open.

Ray Baxter wrote on January 6, 2008 7:39 PM:

There is an insignificant difference between not starting the Iraq War and failing to take action to stop the war when she could have.

It would have taken very little, other than political courage, for a person in Senator Clinton's position to put the brakes on the warmongering. There was zero evidence for the claims that were being made to advance the war. Any sentient person in Clinton's place would have known this, much less a person with the experience and credentials that are the core of her appeal.

If instead of calculating the political implications of a no vote on her presidential aspirations, Senator Clinton had spent an hour applying the lessons that she learned about the rules of evidence in law school she could have demolished the Bush administration's so called evidence. She didn't do that.

Clinton, and every other senator that voted for the AUMF are responsible for green lighting this ill-advised War in Iraq. In my opinion, a person of courage and conviction would accept the responsibility
for their role. Clinton has not and will not.

Steve LaBonne wrote on January 6, 2008 7:48 PM:

Live by political calculation (as HRC did when she voted to enable Bush's war), die by political calculation when the winds shift. Too bad, so sad. I haven't totally forgiven Edwards either, but at least he's apologized in a way that suggests he's actually learned from his mistake. HRC is like the Bourbons- learned nothing, forgotten nothing.

johnsturgeon wrote on January 6, 2008 7:49 PM:

Desider @ Jan 6, 2008 5:41 PM:
Repeated over and over, she didn't authorize a blank check, she gave lots of caveats including her perception of Bush's changes to honestly pursue a non-military solution . . . Read her speech.

A blank check? Settling for anything less than a full Congressional Declaration of War is the Ultimate Blank Check. The AUMF is just a fig-leaf for Hillary's capitulation of her Constitutionally mandated Legislative Powers to the Exec.

Hillary's caveats were just farts in the wind. Anyone could tell Bush wasn't operating in good faith. That 'authorization' was a gigantic green light to someone who'd been nailed faking evidence time and again. Anyone with eyes knew it opened a hole big enough for Bush drive a semi--HUmmer--through

None of your excuses have any relevance. Doesn't matter when the war started. Doesn't matter what anyone "thought" (supposedly) about the inspectors. Rumsfeld & Powell lied to Congress in September; Bush signed his Exec Order going to war with Iraq in August.

Any idea these [IR]Resolutions are anything but a ritualized castration of sitting Senators, the Constitution, and the country itself, is just delusion.

Desider wrote on January 6, 2008 7:54 PM:

Ray Baxter,
Truly revisionist on the threat of Hussein. While we knew more by Feb 2003, and some assertions were disputed in Oct 2002, that in no way means Hussein was seen as completely without threat. Go read Hans Blix's comments from January 2003 - he was hardly reassured at that point in time.

Balancing the need for American security with concerns about the President's intentions and trustworthiness is difficult indeed. You can blame the American people for this predicament. They should have given Gore a serious majority. They shouldn't have given Bush 80% approval or whatever in Oct 2002. No Senator is a God. They got the Republicans to go through formal channels that took 5 months to go to war. The Republicans lied. The American people should again have cast judgment, but in 2004 they gave the Republicans another majority, and in 2006 voted barely to change - not enough for effective change. This is the backdrop for all this - a popular corrupt government. I don't recall Obama leading any filibusters either, and I don't particularly blame him.

Steve LaBonne wrote on January 6, 2008 8:08 PM:

Go read Hans Blix's comments from January 2003 - he was hardly reassured at that point in time.

I invite anyone to Google using the search terms Hans Blix February 2003, as I just did, and read anything in his remarks before the Security Council in that month that could come anywhere close to justifying AUMC (which, to say it yet again, a MAJORITY of Congressional Democrats dod not support). And what Blix thought about the American rush to war is a matter of record.

HRC's supporters seem to have a relationship to the truth that is as oblique as her own. No surprise there. Tough luck guys, she's toast and not all the spin in the world will save her.

Ray Baxter wrote on January 6, 2008 8:18 PM:

Desider,

I never said that Hussein was completely without threat.

I said that there was no evidence for the claims that were being made to advance the war.

These were claims such as Saddam working with Al Queda, having missles capable of reaching New York and obtaining yellowcake from Niger. These claims were the gasoline that was poured onto the smoldering fears of 9/11 to force the war to begin immediately.

Hussein having stockpiles of chemical weapons or trying to obtain nuclear capabilities is a threat, but not a sufficient threat for the US to invade another country. That threat had to be pumped up with hysteria over an imminent attack on the US.

It is true that the Republicans lied. They told stupid, easily disputed lies and they dared the Democrats to call them on it under threat of being labelled as traitors, cowards, or weak on defense. The Democrats, and notably for this discussion, HRC, caved.

roo_P wrote on January 6, 2008 8:19 PM:

Clinton's statement is careful but certainly technically correct. Whether she would in fact have done so remains to be seen when the time machine is invented.

From a strategy perspective, though, I think that at the point when the only defense you can muster for your candidate is that she was too stupid or naive to understand that Bush would go to war given the authorisation, you should probably try to avoid that discussion completely instead of bringing attention to it.

BimBeau wrote on January 6, 2008 8:19 PM:

When dealing with a narcissistic personality like Bush's, we must accept that in the alternative, he will follow the path of greatest destruction. Not just to others or even himself. THE most destructive --- period.
Witness the machinations brewing in the Defense Department and its collateral industrial establishment: these people are through and they know it.

It is also important to examine the state of affairs here in Kentucky where Bush-lite got caught by a vigorous Attorney General who displayed the political courage to confront him. Boy-Guv pulled a Russian Defense out of his underwear and spread it all over the state. He spent money we didn't have that he said at the time was surplus (more lying) such that now, with a new governor in the state house we have to look at increasinbg revenues and decreasing expenditures.

The real issue is: that beginning right now Bush is going to squander the next 50 years of our future. He's going to defecate on the electorate; he's already urinating on the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines. I know we have 3 in our family: 2 O-4's and an O-3.

The Defense Department hasn't replaced any of the National Guard's equipment CDX'ed in Iraq. They just requisition more from another Guard unit stateside and leave an I.O.U. behind. That I.O.U. must be redeemed by an administration that will be castigated for raising tazes to pay for Bush's war. That's the other topic of conversation around my parents' table 6 times each year - paying for Mr.Roosevelt's war.

We need to begin --- immediately --- to brand Republicans as the real tax & spend party! They tax the poor and spend on the wealthy; they borrow from the wealthy to spend on them so that the wealthy end up with the revenue today that's saved in an off-shore bank account as a bond purchased from the U.S.Treasury Department. It's a 3-hour graduate course in government finance through private sector spending. Simply put ... the government doesn't borrow money when Republicans are in office. They sell bonds. Democrats must then redeem them. So - according to 'spin', the democrats raise taxes to spend on entitlement programs, what they would otherwise not have been funding if we hadn't begun those programs in the first place, because these shiftless democrats won't work for a living.
The Republican attitude toward unemployment is that it's the fault of the person who's unemployed that it's not working. Their approach is: when you lose your job - for any reason - it's time to go into business for yourself. Entrepreneurs are their gods.

Take this with you from my ramblings. Allocate no more money to this administration - except for entitlement programs so they won't bankrupt us. No earmarks or any other spending. If money is earmarked they'll sequester funds and move them under executive authority to war funding and local Republican tasks to try to sway the election and scare hell out of our patriotic - the really patriotic- citizens.

No Choice?
No democracy!

johnsturgeon wrote on January 6, 2008 8:27 PM:

Desider wrote:
"Balancing the need for American security with concerns about the President's intentions and trustworthiness is difficult indeed."

There'd've been no need to make that judgement had Clinton insisted that Congress Declare War, thus upholding the Constitution.

"Balancing...American security with..the President's ..trustworthiness" was never the job of Senator Clinton.

Declaring War, was.

"No Senator is a God." I'll settle for a citizen doing a human, citizen's job. Not whining about how hard it is.

"You can blame the American people for this predicament."

Dead wrong on this. You'd blame the victim? It's not so hard to read the Constitution and uphold it--not with Hillary's Yale law degree.

America has a Constitution. Hillary Clinton capitulated her sworn Constitutionally mandated Power---to the Executive. To the very branch NOT endowed with that power.

And you'd blame the voters!

Anyone unwilling to accurately or adequately exercise her powers as a Senator--who refused to do her job at the most basic level--hasn't got much to offer as a Przntl candidate--except her own disqualification.

Joe Lisboa wrote on January 6, 2008 8:33 PM:

It was difficult at that time to realize just how stupid Bush was, that he would go to war for the fun of it.

Which is why one should bother to take the time to inspect the people a President selects to advise him. Pain in the ass, I know.

Dissembulator wrote on January 6, 2008 8:46 PM:

Clinton seems (to me) to be reacting to how Edwards cleverly re-introduced Iraq in the last moments before Iowa...he came out with a reminder of his plan to remove the troops from Iraq immediately.
Camp Clinton doesn't believe that she was beaten due to being less appealing than the others, but is convinced, rather, that she just hadn't submitted the correct sound byte. So they have inserted one pre-New Hampshire. Since her folks are in a bit of a disarray (they probably had thought Obama might/could possibly win...but never, ever anticipated Edwards' strength) they didn't think it through.
It was a bad move, and shows their panic regarding how to avoid a repeat.

Gregor wrote on January 6, 2008 8:54 PM:

When Hillary pulls out of the race some time over the next 8 weeks, she'll soon feel the same sense of peace that washed over Al Gore. It's the sense of calm that comes when you finally admit to yourself you were on the wrong path.

HRC will be one of the finest, multi-term Senators from NY ever, and she will influence domestic policy long after President Obama is out of office.

Not winning the Nomination will be a gift to HRC. It's very soul destroying to be manically pursuing a goal totally unsuited to one's talents.

I wish her well, in her coming transition.

Mike timmons wrote on January 6, 2008 9:16 PM:

If she loses NH, she should gracefully step aside for the good of the party, and help Barack, John, or Bill fight for the nomination. It would be obvious if she comes in third again, that she is a roadblock to a Democratic Party presidency.

But, since she is a Clinton, this is a fantasy. You can bet her team would have tried to shame the other candidates into quitting using just this argument if she had won Iowa and NH. That is the glowing hypocrisy of Team Hillary.

Stranger wrote on January 6, 2008 9:38 PM:

Anonymous at 6:29, her first campaign was against Rudy Giuliani who dropped out of the race and then against Rick Lazlo. It was not a pleasant campaign by any means - Lazlo was the leading light of the NYGOP at the time, I believe.

Lazio (not Lazlo) was a dim bulb and a lightweight, low-hanging fruit waiting to get his butt kicked by a strong challenger. He opened the door for Clinton's victory by 'walking into her space' and demanding that she sign some piece of paper in one of their debates.

Her response to Lazio's clumsy gimmick shaped her perception as a fighter - and I think that's the type of moment she was aiming for with her '35 years of change' bit in the last debate.

But let's be clear. Lazio was a dope, and Hillary walked over him - but any strong Dem could have kicked him from one end of Suffolk County to the other.

Anonymous wrote on January 6, 2008 9:57 PM:

From HRC's Iraq War Floor Speech:

"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.

And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction."

Now Compare to Obama's Statement
Here's the vid from 2002 and beyond
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid901176778/bclid900482168/bctid659820802

Who has the judgement? You decide

Fasdf wrote on January 6, 2008 10:12 PM:

"Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction."

I'm getting all misty eyed here about the bold leadership HRC showed in supporting Bush's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. Not only that, but in the years that followed she was unwavering in her support for the surge, for threats against Iran, etc. Right up until the polls showed a huge shift in the anti-war direction.

She lets the polling numbers guide her decision making in a time when "triangulation" has become a dirty word. That takes guts. Because making "triangulation" a dirty word is just Republican framing for you. What is triangulation, except being a servant of the people and doing what the people want?

When it really mattered, when President Bush needed Hillary's support "to lead our country ... in war", she was right there to support Bush's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction.

And if we have the wisdom to elect her President, she'll continue to show the same judgment about future efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction.

Fel wrote on January 6, 2008 10:29 PM:

Of COURSE Hillary would not have invaded Iraq had she been president. It took a true madman to do something so stupid, corrupt and evil. That's what makes her stated support of W's decision to go to war so calculated and cowardly.

Paulie wrote on January 6, 2008 11:20 PM:

Desider, I know that Iraq is issue #1 right now, my point in asking why hillary is bringing it up was to question her campaigns strategy. Her stance on Iraq, and particulary her refusal to apologize for voting for the war, are a BIG negative for her with the electorate so why bring it up. Defend your position, by all means, if an opponent brings it up but don't draw attention to it. She has morons running her campaign.

As for the issue of whether her vote was for the war or for giving the prez the bullets for his gun with which to threaten saddam, please, do me a favour and stop acting like hillary was unaware that georgie was going to invade.

Finally, it is EXTREMELY difficult in todays political environment to take a stance that the majority of politicians oppose. Obama stood up and announced his opposition to the war and along with anyone else opposed to it was painted as unpatriotic by our wonderful right wing. Today, his stance has been vindicated and his courage should be recognized. Instead, the hillary sycophants want to dilute his initial stance and portray their hero as courageous and forward-thinking. Well, the repugs tried and failed to rewrite history and this attempt won't work either.

Man Who Fell To Earth wrote on January 6, 2008 11:40 PM:

I would rather have David Bowie than any of these candidates, Democrat or republican, for president. I would even settle for a dead Jerry Garcia, or a completely doped up Trey Anastasio.

But given the top three frontrunners with which we have been presented for the Democratic nomination, I would rank them in this way:

1) Obama - This guy makes me the least nauseous. It's the kind of nausea where you keep thinking to yourself, "oh man, I really wish I would just throw up already. I'd feel sooo much better!"

2) Edwards - I'm feeling a bit worse. It's the kind of nausea where you keep running to the toilet every time you sit down, but when you get there you suddenly don't have to puke anymore. It's annoying and exhausting.

3) Clinton - Dude, I'm totally gonna hurl! This is the nausea that forces you to lie down on your bathroom floor next to your comode in the desperate suspense of "Waiting to Exhurl"

RonK, Seattle wrote on January 6, 2008 11:48 PM:

It's what she's always said, and what she's always meant, along with many others who voted for the resolution.

You can make an adverse case by pretending the context and import of the resolution was other than what it was, and you can get oppo mileage out of it ... but that doesn't make it true.

Wholly Rogue Emperor wrote on January 7, 2008 12:52 AM:

that *judgment factor* glaringly ringing all alarms in HRC's case does it for me too; not only in her war-supporting decisions (Iraq *and Iran*), but just think of the boobs she's apparently taking seriously in her campaign now, for instance!

golly, I'm glad this won't take very much longer now ...

I wish we were seeing a lot more of my real fav, trusty Dennis Kucinich though!

He not only got it right from the beginning, he's stayed on it and kept fighting the good fight all along, including working to get the evil-doing psychos out of office asap!

but our media, the rules made by the powerful rule-makers, etc won't allow our seeing or hearing much from him. and you can guess why, no doubt -- talk about *real change*!

maybe we can't handle so much so soon ... but we're beginning some urgently needed shifts, I guess ...

mj wrote on January 7, 2008 1:04 AM:

there must be ulterior reasons why people won't accept hillary's claim that she voted to authorize based on the evidence the administration shared. it's reasonable, the mistake she made. good for kucinich that he did not make it but i remember the mood of the country in those days and i understand why hillary erred. she's not my candidate but i move closer to her every time i see her getting bashed seemingly for no other reason than she is hillary clinton. (josh's original reason of not voting for hillary because of the legacy issue is fine.)

Wholly Rogue Emperor wrote on January 7, 2008 1:19 AM:

maybe some of those ulterior reasons have to do with what the Clintons did to us when they had the chance!

the 90s were not that sweet for lots of us, actually.

Desider wrote on January 7, 2008 1:31 AM:

Mike Timmons,

Thanks for telling voters of states that have the other 296.5 million people that they shouldn't get a chance to voice their opinion, that it should all be decided by 220,000 Iowans and the perhaps 250,000 voters who show up in New Hampshire.

Thanks, champions of democracy, I feel well represented already. 38%=mandate. Any of you brainiacs count the delegates out of Iowa? Obama 16, Hillary 15, Edwards 14. Feel the power, feel the surge.

Desider wrote on January 7, 2008 1:35 AM:

Paulie,

I suppose even if it's her most controversial point, maybe it's the one that needs to be addressed. If she goes down because voters didn't like her vote on Iraq, so be it. She has a lot of good reasons for why she did it, and she should express them and let people evaluate. It seems much more relevant to me than sending out abortion position papers or discussing immigrant drivers licenses.

Paulie wrote on January 7, 2008 1:39 AM:

MJ, it's a mistake that she has never owned up to. Yes, many others made the same mistake e.g. Edwards, but at least he apologized for it.
If you had been conned by georgie and co into giving them authorization for their war, wouldn't you feel remorse?
The real problem is that hillary can't admit a mistake since she thinks it shows weakness. In my opinion she would have actually gained support by admitting the mistake but her actions and words speak to her character.

She "gets bashed" because of her rightward leanings, her campaign strategy, her history, her double-talk and her insatiable thirst for power at all costs etc. so I suppose you're right, she gets bashed because she's hillary.

I've said this before, I would take her over any repug (Not much of an endorsement I know!) but she remains a highly divisive figure in our country. I'm not saying that Obama would have the right wingers over for tea and biscuits every day but the bottom line is that Obama is the dems best hope for the whitehouse. If hillary gets the nom, repugs will come out en masse to prevent her winning the presidency.

Wholly Rogue Emperor wrote on January 7, 2008 1:39 AM:

and besides that, mj, what about all the evidence that was self-evident! to so many of us -- quite apart, of course, from the garbage the liars were feeding everyone!

and this has been mentioned several times in many of the above messages.

as well as the fact that HRC was ready to repeat the same horror in Iran -- with that kind of committed conviction a person belongs behind bars (or bundled away in a straight jacket to a padded cell!

hey! even I knew W was totally warped and pre-determined to hit the Iraqi people with Rummy's shock and awe routine, and I didn't have all that 'secret intelligence' to ponder: I just used my own!

If I could get it right (even though I am completely 'inexperienced' in such matters), HRC should have been way ahead of me if her unique experience is actually worthwhile or *helpful* to her or any of us in any way ...

I heard her say that she was in it to win. Period. what a shame! there are lots better reasons for becoming prez!

moondancer wrote on January 7, 2008 2:08 AM:

You wouldn't have except for the fact that you did? If you were president no war. But as a senator you had no problem with it.

Reread the above a couple of times if you're curious why your ship is listing six degrees.

Wholly Rogue Emperor wrote on January 7, 2008 3:36 AM:

MJ --

altho I can appreciate your impulse to wish to deflect some of the HRC-bashing when it comes from the nasty and mean repug types!

They attack her out of twisted viciousness it seems to me, while I just cannot bring myself to support her candidacy; but I do not wish her ill, and I am not pleased to see her suffering either.

However, she seems to fool herself too much somehow -- way too clever, calculating in a merely, though perhaps not entirely, self-serving way ... not really what we actually need for getting ourselves back on track and moving away from lethal self-destruction.

So, I'll agree, there's bashing and there's bashing! Some of it is truly ugly: like (Deadeye Dick) Cheney's instructions to his unscrupulous operatives that Plame was 'fair game'! -- just real sick (and feloniously treasonous!).

I'll also agree that HRC has endured years of unfair and misguided targeted abuse from those creepy repug freaks out to get them for 'Whitewater' and earlier!

Which could be reason enough for some of her 'outrage' even now when it's seemingly provoked in response to reasonable and relevant challenges to her positions or record on issues etc.

Maybe she's even angry with herself for some of her past &/or recent choices or compromises brought on by caving to pressures from the gruesome nut-wingers always eager to clobber her at every opportunity!

That's truly sad and too bad.

But there are many now (more than I'd guessed!) who just simply won't buy what HRC is offering. (I'm among those.)

She's just not promising what we require: reliably trusty judgment, for one!

slouch wrote on January 8, 2008 2:01 AM:

Desider says:

"You can blame the American people for this predicament. "

What a vile thing to say. The public is constantly bombarded with calculated lies, our intelligence system is hijacked by a black-ops public affairs team, dissenters are strong-armed, and slandered, and you want to blame the people?

Then you turn around and berate people here for expecting our leaders to take responsibility for our actions?

Please, stop voting.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)