NY Times, Daily News characterized Clinton as having voted "for the Iraq war" in 2002
SUMMARY: In recent articles, The New York Times and the New York Daily News falsely characterized Sen. Clinton's vote for the 2002 resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq as a vote "for the Iraq war." However, prior to her vote, Clinton said that she expected the White House to push for "complete, unlimited inspections" and that she did not view her support for the resolution as "a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption or for unilateralism."
An August 19 New York Times article and an August 20 New York Daily News article falsely characterized Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) vote for the 2002 resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq as a vote "for the Iraq war." In fact, as Media Matters for America has previously noted, the 2002 resolution for which Clinton and a majority of her congressional colleagues voted gave the president the authority to go to war against Iraq; it was not, as the Times and Daily News suggested, a congressional declaration of war or a directive to the president to launch an invasion. Although acknowledging that the vote for the resolution could "lead to war," Clinton has noted herself that a vote for the resolution was not a "vote[] for" war. Prior to her vote, in an October 10, 2002, statement on the Senate floor, Clinton said that she expected the White House to push for "complete, unlimited inspections" and that she did not view her support for the measure as "a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption or for unilateralism."
From Clinton's October 10, 2002, floor statement:
CLINTON: Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible.
Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our Nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any United Nations resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.
This is a 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. Perhaps my decision is influenced by my 8 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 ensure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. Thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq our country will stand resolutely behind them.
My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose, all of which carry grave dangers for our Nation, the rule of international law, and the peace and security of people throughout the world.
Over 11 years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community.
Time and time again, he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot.
I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.
Finally, on another personal note, 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. I know I am.
So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our Nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President. And we say to him: Use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein: This is your last chance; disarm or be disarmed.
Moreover, the Times article, by reporters Patrick Healy and Michael Cooper, stated that "some of her [Clinton's] closest allies were shocked when, at a presidential debate in June, she used the word 'mistake' in an answer about her Iraq position, yet calibrating it carefully to say it was 'a mistake to trust George Bush.' " However, at the June 3 debate to which Healy was referring, Clinton made clear that she had said something similar in an earlier debate. From the June 3 debate:
CLINTON: Well, I have said repeatedly that if I had known then what I know now, I never would have voted to give the president authority. And in the last debate, I said that, you know, it was a mistake to trust George Bush that he would do what he told all of us he would do.
Indeed, at an April 26 debate, when asked to name a "political or professional mistake" she had made, Clinton said her mistake was "believing the president when he said he would go to the United Nations and put inspectors into Iraq to determine whether they had WMD." From that debate:
DAVID STANTON, WIS NEWS: The next question is a short-answer question -- one sentence, and I'm going to ask each of you, beginning with Senator Gravel. This is from Paula in Conway, South Carolina. What is the most significant political or professional mistake you have made in the past four years? And what if anything did you learn from this mistake which makes you a better candidate?
[...]
STANTON: Senator Clinton.
CLINTON: Well, I don't have enough time to tell you all the mistakes I've made in the last many years. Certainly the mistakes I made around health care were deeply troubling to me and interfered with our ability to get our message out -- and, you know, believing the president when he said that he would go to the United Nations and put inspectors into Iraq to determine whether they had WMDs.
Additionally, an August 20 Newsday article characterized Clinton's 2002 Iraq vote as "her 2002 vote to support the Iraq invasion."
From the August 19 Times article:
Some campaigns see the debates, which are more closely covered and dissected than many other campaign appearances, as opportunities to put across carefully planned messages.
Mrs. Clinton, for instance, has refused to say that her 2002 vote for the Iraq war was a mistake. So some of her closest allies were shocked when, at a presidential debate in June, she used the word "mistake" in an answer about her Iraq position, yet calibrating it carefully to say it was "a mistake to trust George Bush."
From the August 20 Daily News article:
Sen. Hillary Clinton assured Democrats yesterday she's the one who can whip Republicans on the right, even as she edged left by saying for the first time she regrets voting for the Iraq war.
The New Yorker's rivals who also voted for the war all have called their votes mistakes. She has said repeatedly she only regrets how President Bush used his authority to wage war.
Yesterday, she joined her party's chorus at a debate in Des Moines. "I, too, regret giving George Bush the authority that he misused and abused," she said. As recently as February, she told Politico.com she did not regret her vote. She also has refused to call her vote a mistake or apologize for it.
From the August 20 Newsday article:
For the first time, Clinton expressed "great regret" over her 2002 vote to support the Iraq invasion, but maintained that she and other pro-war Democrats had been misled by White House intelligence reports.
More parsing on this issue, yet again. Mrs. Clinton voted for authorization to go to war, in other words, she voted to go to war - no amount of spinning can change that fact. I believe she has owned it and said she now regrets it. That should be good enough, it is for me where she is concerned, but it's treated as misinformation by this website, who won't let it go.
Tommy I agree with you on this one. Senator Clinton and many others as we know voted for this. We all knew in 2002 that this was a President who was going to use force. They voted for this because of the 2002 midterm elections, and our nation has paid a severe price. I like Senator Clinton alot but this was her biggest mistake. It seems to be a play on words here. In effect she gave that President the ok to go to war and wage his war.
A vote for this resolution was either a vote for war, or was a vote foolishly cast in faith that President Bush would exercise any restraint in determining the measures necessary to defend the U.S. against weapons that don't exist.
Well put.
I agree Dems who voted for this resolution dont really deserve much slack. They knew what was going on.
Oh please. Everyone with a brain in their head knew what that vote meant. And if Hillary Clinton didn't know that voting to give the president "the authorization to go to war" meant that Bush could, indeed, start a war, then that makes Hillary Clinton incredibly stupid.
I think a lot of people are going to agree with you! Hillary's only defense is though she voted for the war, but she didn't concoct it, and would have avoided it were she president.
So, if Hillary thought Bush concocted the war, why in the world would she vote for authorization to go to a concocted war?
Are you saying Bush didn't concoct the war, question mark Tommy?
No, you said Hillary's "only defense is that though she voted for the war, she didn't concoct it".
If you care to clarify that statement, go ahead.
I'm only guessing, but I think what FMP is getting at is the difference between Shinseki's plan and Rumsfeld's.
Hillary didn't concoct the war, Tommy. I think that statement is pretty clear.
Or did she actually have a secret meeting with Cheney I am unaware of?
I think most here will agree with that. I know I do. This article is a pretty weak defense of Hillary.
Open, I also think that any authorization for war is just that you giving your approval to go to war. Anytime you asked someone to put their life on the line you better be damn sure of what you’re doing. No excuse. For Clinton to try to have it both ways is simply talking out of both sides of her mouth. If you cannot simply say, “I made a mistake” or "I regret my yes vote" then you are no better than the current nut job we have.
Her biggest mistake was not admitting her okay vote was a mistake sooner, and that could really hurt her in the end.
Democratic lawmakers were put in an unenviable position at that time. The entire government was controlled by an aggressive pro-war Republican party. The 9-11 tragedy was still very fresh on everyone's mind. The reports of Sadaam's possession and desire to use WMD's were rampant. The entire country was caught up in what we now know was bad information. She almost had no choice.
I have a lot of respect for the lawmakers that had the courage to vote no in that quite bizarre era in our history.
>>The reports of Sadaam's possession and desire to use WMD's were rampant.
But that's not really true. People who paid attention knew that Bush completely hyped the threat. That was more than obvious. Saddam clearly had no nuclear program, as the evidence showed at the time. Chemical weapons are hardly a threat to anyone. The evidence on the biological weapons was hypd.
No one with half a brain didn't understand that Iraq was no threat, and that Bush lied about his reasons for the war in an obvious way. It's like all of a sudden we wake up one morning and the Bush admin has signaled out Iraq, of all countries, as the threat.
So "no one with half a brain" would include those that voted for the authorization, by your definition?
Okay, one last time: yes!
(I posted a one-word response twice already, and it keeps not showing up.)
I thought I was paying attention at the time and had many deep and sometimes inebriated discussions with my political friends - both right and left - on the subject. Although I was highly suspicious, there was no concrete reason to believe the information they were giving us was inaccurate.
Silly me.
i'm sorry, but there was every reason to believe they were lying. For one thing, the evidence for going to war lies with those who want to execute it. It is against international law to go to war preemptively.
There was no evidence that Iraq had any working ties with al quaida. That was stated again and again by experts. Iraq was contained by sanctions, and although it might have had some chemical weapons, chemical weapons are hardly a threat to the US, and even to the world.
The IAEE had stated unambiguosly that Saddam had not nuclear program. They were the most knowledgeable agency in the world, being in Iraq.
Last, the war for Iraq was pushed by the so-called neo-conservatives who had wanted to wage war with Iraq for a decade, and who believed you could like to do so.
This was all documented and discussed before the war.
I can't deny it. I was on the fence and I sided with the President and his team, hoping beyond hope that they were giving us good information. That may be the last time I ever took him for his word.
Correction:
Last, the war for Iraq was pushed by the so-called neo-conservatives who had wanted to wage war with Iraq for a decade, and who believed you could like to do so.
Should read
Last, the war for Iraq was pushed by the so-called neo-conservatives who had wanted to wage war with Iraq for a decade, and who believed you could *lie* to do so.
I give Clinton and others the benefit of the doubt because I don’t believe anyone who voted for the authorization knew what lengths the Bush administration would go through to undermine the inspection process. A lot of those Democrats who voted for the resolution were telling Bush to let the inspectors finish their job but Bush was gung-ho for war.
And before I started reading blogs (towards the end of 2003), I didn’t know some of the info in your post. Who would think a president would lie about something as serious as war?
>>Who would think a president would lie about something as serious as war?
I have read a lot about the wars the US has waged since WW2, and the sad part is that almost *every* president, Democrat or Republican, has lied about war. Most American citizens don't understand the aggressive and illegal nature of US foreign policy, not as well as most foreigners do.
But true, you didn't get a lot of the info from the mass media about Bush's lies, unless you paid real close attention. Still to this day around 50 percent of people think WMDs were found in Iraq!
I think the bill should have been rejected outright on Constitutional concerns. It is the job of Congress to declare war. The way I saw it, handing over that responsibility over to the commander in chief is a blatant cop-out with regards to the balance of power. I'm sorry, but you would have to be nuts to hand over that kind of blank check to anyone and expect them not to abuse it. We all know the saying about "absolute power" and what it does. Why is anyone surprised at the outcome? Really?
Very good point. I agree completely
Actually there was if you read carefully. I was never convinced. For instance if you read the NYTimes article about the NIE while the tone of the article was we were certain of the WMDs if you read it carefully you noted that the only real FACTS in the article said we had no solid evidence. If you watched Powells speech you noted it was weak in many areas within a couple of days all the areas that werent weak had been blown out of the water now it is CLEAR they wanted a UN resolution a large majority at that time were saying in polling that we shouldnt invade without the support of our traditional allies or the UN. That HAD to be their A game intelligence and it was NOTHING. Now I cut my politicla teeth on the same kind of propaganda and false reporting with a smidgeon of actual facts contradicting it back in the Raygun/Sandanista days so I knew how to look for it but if you were careful it was pretty clear we had NO real hard evidence Iraq had WMDs and I was saying this all along.
FunnyManPants, what we knew in the fall when they voted for the resolution is different from what we knew in the Spring when Bush invaded. In the fall, we didn't know the extent to which the Bush admin had hyped the intelligence. We learned that throughout the fall, after the vote.
I think they should have voted to threaten Saddam without giving Bush explicit rights to invade without another vote. That was their huge mistake. Giving Bush the power to invade if he didn't feel like doing everything but invading first was a terrible misjudgment.
Sorry, but I disagree. Yes, we know more about how much Bush hyped the intelligence and lied now than before, but we knew a heck of a lot then.
It is against international law to attack Iraq the way the US did. The US could have gone back to the Security Council and asked for explicit action to attack Iraq. It did not because it had no case.
The burden of proof lies with the country that says it needs to attack. Bush was so dishonest even before the war, that non one should have done anything but laughed at him, as did everyone in the rest of the world.
"It is against international law to attack Iraq the way the US did."
Bush decided to attack Iraq that way. Do you think Democrats who voted for the authorization wanted Bush to attack Iraq in that manner (pulling the inspectors before the inspections were complete and without UN approval)?
>>Do you think Democrats who voted for the authorization wanted Bush to attack Iraq in that manner (pulling the inspectors before the inspections were complete and without UN approval)?
No, to their credit I really don't think they did. But they knew Bush would, and they voted for the war out of political expediency, so they wouldn't get portrayed as weak.
I agree that they voted out of political expediency but I don’t think any Democrat thought we would be at war if the inspectors weren’t finding any weapons of mass destruction.
I have respect for lawmakers who voted either way. Those that voted against it in good conscience - and those that voted for it, as long as they own their decision and not try and backtrack away from it now due to the unpopularity of the war.
While I do agree with you, I think it takes a lot of intestinal fortitude to buck the trend. In this case perhaps the one Republican Senator and six Republican Representatives deserve the most recognition because I'm sure the pressure was much higher on them.
I agree with that. I think those Republicans did the right thing and should be applauded for it.
I think the Democrats and Republicans who voted for the legislation should be ashamed if they have any conscience at all. I don't respect them for sticking to their guns when they were clearly wrong. They were either too lazy or stupid to deserve the trust their constituents placed in them.
I found it extremely interesting that Vladimir Putin, the former Cold War KGB officer was one of several foreign voices that assessed the situation perfectly a day or so after the authorization was passed:
"Russia does not have in its possession any trustworthy data that supports the existence of nuclear weapons or any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we have not received any such information from our partners as yet. This fact has also been supported by the information sent by the CIA to the US Congress."
backup link: [link to www.guardian.co.uk]
Then Tony Blair lied his country into war too. Why would he do that as well?
For the lobbying job after his terms were up. These guys make MORE cash outside government. They only do their time to set up the big deals then cash in.
The Downing Street Memos seem to suggest so.
Actually, I think the DSM demonstrates to the contrary:
"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action." -DSM
It is pretty clear that this is a concerned description of American Policy. The DSM doesn't address British Policy, but it seems to suggest a contrast between the two. Otherwise why would it even be worth mentioning?
There was some British policy:
“The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.”
I see your point, but it seems the British were trying to coordinate their policy with the Americans and not the other way around. American Policy was driving British policy to a noticeable degree and I believe the DSM supports that idea.
Of course, I don't really think that absolves the Brits, but it is mitigating information, IMO.
Just how "mitigating" is it when it's clear the British government knew the case was thin, as this memo shows, but is still trying to manuever an excuse to go to war? That's the way I read it. It's pretty clear to me that Blair, knowing the case wasn't there, still wanted to go to war, and continued after the events of the memo to press the case publicly about WMD, nukes, and al-Quaida. The Bush administration seems not to have cared one way or the other about any actual present threat from Iraq, but Blair did, and knew there was none, and consciously decided to publicly press a nonexistent case for a clear and present threat from Iraq.
Such a good little poodle.
I leave it to philosophers and religious types to decide which course is the most ethically and morally reprehensible. I can't distinguish.
You make a good point. I am really on the fence with this. There is evidence that Blair's administration acted improperly all over the place - from the sloppily put together "Dossiers" to the point you just made. It just seems to me that the underlying motivation was misplaced loyalty and faith in the Bush Administration by the Brits. That may prove to be false in the long run - I don't know, but it is my current assessment.
I think a lot of people falsely put their faith in President Bush and the integrity of our intelligence services. Apparently that integrity was compromised much more than anyone could think possible. Someone or some group had to know this was a lie or knew they were greatly exaggerating the case beyond credibility. I can only speculate as to who exactly that was.
Blair's actions seem to me to be that of a man who foolishly placed loyalty and friendship above his better judgment. I am not convinced Blair was really a choir leader here, but more like a star soprano, though.
Looking to ride the coattails of an imperial power, perhaps? So that the sun never sets on the Anglo-American Empire?
Anyone in congress who votes to authorize use of force should not be surprised when force is applied.
Dancing around and around will not win any support.
Anyone who voted in favor of the resolution should explain why they were willing to trust George W. Bush.
Amen.
This is really just MMFA's attempt at rallying the troops for their support of Mrs. Clinton......that's the reason they keep putting up this thread in a variety of ways. They want to appease those that question Mrs. Clinton's judgement on this; that she really didn't vote for the war, just the authorization.
It's admirable to see many liberals here not buying it and holding Hillary accountable for her votes, and not letting her equivocate on that vote.
I suppose it could be a rallying cry for Hillary support, if George called MMfH and said to do it. I doubt it, but it's possible.
But even if it is a call to arms, there's validity in calling out a report that states that Hillary voted for the war. Technically, she only voted to give the prez authorization. Which was dispicable in itself. But reporting anything else than her giving her vote for authorization is inaccurate, and sloppy. You know as well as I do that if the positions were opposite, the righties would be crying "liberal media bias!!!" at the top of their lungs, inferring that the media was trying to make people think that the republicans who voted for authorization were being more hawkish than they're willing to admit now.
A husband & wife need money.
They pull into the bank parking lot.
Husband: Honey I'm going into the bank to see if they'll give me a loan, but if they won't I'm gonna rob them. Is that ok with you?
Wife: Yes dear.
Husband doesn't even bother to try for a loan, goes directly to the tellers window & robs the bank. Runs out & tells his wife to step on the gas.
Wife later tries to tell police she's not as guilty as her hubby because it wasn't her idea to rob the bank and she didn't really think he'd go through with it, though she did tell her husband it was ok to do so if they couldn't get a loan.
Now even though the husband didn't even try to get a loan & simply robbed the bank instead, isn't she still culpable?
Hi Jeter, treating my Angels nice in Beantown?
The problem with your analogy is that going to war is not always illegal and is sometimes necessary, unlike robbing a bank.
Besides that, I just wanted to throw some chum out there for the MMFA= Hillary campaign site tinfoil hat crew. ;0)
Beach,I suck at analogies, but now & then I get daring & try another one out. And someone always comes along [tonight it's you] to shoot it down :-( I'm lovin the number 4...if we beat you guys tonight & the Sox lose...I'll be lovin the number 3Best part for me being here in Red Sox Nation is watching Sox fans getting more suicidal after every Yankee victory. Hehehe.
I forgot, your boys are out here, & tied at 6 in the 10th after getting Scioscia tossed out.
A husband & wife need to protect their home.
Husband: Honey I'm going into the pawn shop and buy a gun, but I'll only use it if I absolutely have to. Is that okay with you?
Wife: Yes dear. {So, the wife knows at this point that the husband thinks that using a gun is a potential option. She hopes and prays that he'll do everything he can to avoid using it, but he's the kinda guy that flies off the handle, and doesn't always think before he acts.}
The husband and wife are home late at night and someone knocks on the door. Rather than open it, the husband says that it must be someone bad, and they should get the gun out just in case they need to protect themselves. When the husband sees some "intruders" in his yard, he shoots first and asks questions later. Turns out it was the neighborhood kids trying to retrieve their puppy who had just gotten into the neighbor's back yard. It was a totally unjustified shooting, and if they had only answered the door, there would never have been a shot fired.
Wife later tries to tell police she's not as guilty as her hubby because it wasn't her idea to buy the gun or use the gun and she didn't really think he'd go through with it, though she did tell her husband it was ok to do so if they were really threatened.
Now even though the husband didn't even try to verify that the threat was real, and didn't try to just scare off the intruders, and instead choose to shoot to kill, isn't she still culpable?
No, she's not still culpable for the shooting. She was stupid for condoning the purchase of the gun when she knew the way her husband could be unreasonable, illogical, and could fly off the handle, but she's not to blame for him making the choice to shoot the gun. If she had put the gun into the hands of a minor, she'd be guilty, but her husband was supposedly an adult, and using a gun when deadly force wasn't necessary is something he had never done before, so she just couldn't imagine that he'd do it this time.
That's the problem with analogies. Your analogy makes Jeter's look silly. Jeter could then post one to make yours look silly.
This is why you can't reason by analogy, what Jeter did. I don't think we even need an analogy to understand this situation. Bush said "I need to go to War if Saddam doesn't comply," but every indication was that Saddam was complying, and that Bush was going to do what the hell he wanted. So Hillary said "Okay," and then acts surprised when Bush goes to war.
Can anyone seriously say that Hillary was surprised that Bush went to war, and didn't try to avoid the war?
Gee I just admited NoMo's was better than mine.
But that's ok Funnyguy, cause I think everything you post is silly
BTW funnyguy, I meant to add a ;-) which means I'm joking around, or trying to be funny. What I wrote sounded sarcastic--I didn't mean it that way.
I think I'm falling flat on my face tonight with analogies & jokes....
Time to remove myself from my computer for awhile
Okay, I see. I didn't see your post to NoMo, since it got posted *after* I posted.
For clarity, I'm just pointing out the problem with *reasoning by analogy,* that is, relying on an analogy as your whole argument.
(A canoe is like a motor boat, since they both support people in water; motor boats pollute; canoes pollute. Saddam is like Hitler because he is a dictator; we should have gone to war earlier with Germany; we should attack Iraq.)
In essence, I agree with your point that Hillary gave approval for Bush's war.
I believe Hillary shares some blame as does anyone who voted to give Bush that kind of power.
But I have to admit NoMo's analogy was so well written that it blew me away. And it does argue Hillary's side rather well. Stupid but not guilty of the actual shooting.
I love a good analogy, mine rarely work, but I keep trying.
But that's the problem with analogies, and why literary critics tend to look down on them in literature. (*The Faerie Queen* is considered weak compared to *Paradise Lost* partially for this reason. I know, kind of an aesthetic point.)
Let me tweak NoMo's analogy. The husband not only has a record of flying off the handle, but has bragged about it and says that if any SOB even approaches his house he will shoot them. She knows that people knock on her door, but she lets him buy the gun anyway.
Then she acts surprised when he uses it. That is in my opinion a more apt analogy. Still, the whole argument is weak whichever analogy you choose because, like I said, you shouldn't just use one analogy to present an argument.
Anyone who listened to Bush before the Iraq War and didn't think Bush would really invade Iraq doesn't seem possess astute political skills.
Well you might not think much of analogies, but yours was damn good :-)
I'm so jealous, wish I could have come up with that :-/
Bravo!
I may not like you much NoMo, but I'll have to admit that was a great analogy, a hell of a lot better than mine [I suck at them, but keep trying]
I think we all agree Clinton voted for the war. This line of defense is weak and I hope she pays for enabling these liars.
I agree that the Senators SHOULD have known that their vote authorizing the use of force, in the hands of BushCo, would mean that he would invade.
However, I do accept that some (like Sen. Kerry) really believed that his vote was to pressure Sadam to let the inspectors back in, which it did. Maybe Clinton also thought that. Washington D.C. pols & pundits live in a bubble...sometimes it's us folk out here that see through the propoganda better.
I really don't know the answer to this question, so I ask it.
When did John Kerry give that as his reason for his authoritative vote, at the time his vote was cast, or after the war went south?
Tommy, I remember even before the war the prez and pundits arguing that he needed that vote in order to exert pressure on Sadaam. So it's plausible denial.
But I don't think you need to go to that extent to find fault with what they did. Giving Bush the authority is no different than giving your pre-teen the car keys because he says he may need them to drive you to the hospital if you have a heart attack. It was irresponsible, and they caved to pressure and shirked their responsibilities - not the caliber of character I'd care to see running this country.
This is from Kerry’s floor speech just before he voted for the authorization:
“When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.
As the President made clear earlier this week, ``Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.'' It means ``America speaks with one voice.''
Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.
In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.”
That's very similar to Clinton's statement.
I believe they could have stood with one voice and not given Bush carte blanche power to invade whether he gave the inspectors a chance or not. Threatening Saddam was a good thing. Putting the power to use those threats in his hands, without restraint, was a bad thing.
Hillary kept voting to keep the men in Iraq after Bush was proven a liar. She ran her 2006 campaign on a pro-war platform against an anti-war challenger. Her saying "whoops" now is a bit too late to be believable.
I'm with PREDIX, I was fooled. I didn't investigate. The night before is one of the few times I've prayed. I can't comdem someone who may have been fooled as well. Certitude on this would seem to invoke mind reading skills.
I've got other reasons for a fish eye at Hillary. Some coments on sex education and caimpaign financing mean more to me than this. Given that, I'll still take her over any of the GOP candidates.
An entire year after the invasion, Senator Clinton was stating her lack of regret on casting the vote authorizing the president to go to war. She drew the distinction that she didn't like how that authority was used, but the misuse she was speaking of was not going to war in the first place, it was going to war without proper planning. Indeed, even a year after the invasion, the decision to bring a preemptive war against a country that didn't threaten the US or its allies wasn't (in the senator's mind) where the president went wrong; it was in not fighting the war properly.
I really hope Democratic primary voters remember how long she dragged her feet after the invasion to admit that the invasion itself maybe wasn't such a good idea.
Most won't. They'll see her face somewhere and cheer, the power of celebrity. They'll troop right into the ballots and mark her their fave. The crowd mentality is strong in the human ape.
I hope so, too. Hillary doesn't deserve a pass at all on this.
First, Hillary has expressed "regret" before for that vote but still won't say it was a mistake. Judge that anyway you wish but to me it says she'll say anything that doesn't include the word "mistake." Leaders who admit mistakes don't get elected President and don't like to see those words in an opponent's ad campaign.
Second, Hillary voted against a substitute law called the Levin amendment that would have REQUIRED Bush to do the inspections, etc... that she now claims she expected before he would actually go to war. It is little discussed but look it up and you can see for yourself.
Third, in my view, Hillary voted to authorize the war to protect the Dems from looking soft and protect her chances for the Presidency. Dems who vote against war are presumed soft. Many Dems voted against W's father's war and that worked out much better than expected. It was viewed as a win. She didn't want to be on record voting against a win.
So, she played politics with her vote. Few Senate Dems who had national ambitions voted against it. Still, that's not an endorsement.
Unlike us, she, Sen. Kerry and Sen. Edwards were so political they didn't even bother to personally read the critical 90 page report supporting W's justification for the war. Those that did, like the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Florida's Bob Graham, voted no.
Barack Obama wasn't a Senator then but he stated then that he wouldn't vote in favor of authorization. He was ambitious then and must have known opposing W was a risk but he had the right judgment and didn't let politics interfere.
If the choice is Hillary, Edwards or Obama, my choice is Obama!