When you give a 19 minute floor speech about going to war, it can not be called a mistake.

[madfloridian]

When we invaded Iraq in 2003 they played it out on TV. They called it Shock and Awe. It was meant to strike fear. It did strike fear in other countries, but the hours of bombing and bragging on America's TV caused more than that. It caused rebellion to rise up.

That was a sad day in our nation's history. I had tears in my eyes, had to turn off the TV to avoid the celebratory atmosphere.

Senator Bob Graham warned his fellow Democrats that they would have blood on their hands over Iraq.

"We are locking down on the principle that we have one evil, Saddam Hussein. He is an enormous, gargantuan force, and that's who we're going to go after," Graham said on the floor. "That, frankly, is an erroneous reading of the world. There are many evils out there, a number of which are substantially more competent, particularly in their ability to attack Americans here at home, than Iraq is likely to be in the foreseeable future."

He told his fellow senators that if they didn't recognize that going to war with Iraq without first taking out the actual terrorists would endanger Americans, "then, frankly, my friends — to use a blunt term — the blood's going to be on your hands."

On October 10, 2002 Hillary Clinton gave a floor speech in favor of authorizing the use of force in Iraq. Here are the two parts of that speech from You Tube.

Part 1

Part 2

Here is the transcript of her floor speech that day.

The ending paragraph:

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.

[TheNutcracker]

1. Let me know when to grab a fork....

[madokie]

54. She's done

Hillary will never be the President of these United States of America. If my money wasn't OUR money, my wife and me, I'd take bets on that.

[Caretha]

134. Nor should she be the President

[rtracey]

191. and my opinion, you would lose

Its very early in the process to say who is going to win or not. Question? if Hillary Clinton does get the nomination, will you vote your party or other?

[madokie]

194. I'm a true blue 100% Democratic Party member

and I've stated many times here on DU that I will vote for our nominee even if it was a yellow dog I'd vote for it. So yes I'll vote for Hillary if it comes to that but I will not vote for her in the Primary as I didn't the last time.
I do not, NOT VOTE. I vote every single time no matter what the election is I vote. its how a democracy works

[rtracey]

200. I am glad to hear that

[madokie]

202. Let me ask you

if Bernie is our nominee will you vote for him?

[Lochloosa]

250. ....

[HFRN]

2. her support for trade deals, outsourcing and h-1b visas, also a mistake

seems to make of lot of them, doesn't she?

[Live and Learn]

169. +1 nt

[Avalux]

3. Not a good day for Hillary, that's for sure.

"This is probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make" she said. Well, it was the wrong decision.

Thanks for posting this even though it made me nauseous. A reminder of one of the reasons HRC is not my first choice; if I have to vote for her I will but I'd rather not.

[roguevalley]

18. hard in the sense that like Eric Holder she didn't want to take an action that would

disturb her future well being and welfare.

[arcane1]

50. And yet I found it effortless to oppose it n/t

[malthaussen]

205. Be fair, now.

Was your every ambition and hope for future salvation dependent on that decision?

-- Mal

[rhett o rick]

154. Hard my ass. She had to make a hard decision? She had it easy comparied to the hundreds of

thousands that died horrible deaths because of that decision. She had it easy compared to those American troops that were killed and their families. She had it easy compared to the many, many vets that came home with injuries, some mental, and she had it easy compared to their families. 18 to 22 vets are committing suicide each and every day. And many people are willing to turn their backs on these statistics, turn their backs on the dead Iraqi's, dead Americans, families of those returning with wounds and PTSD, and support this person that made such a "mistake" and did never ask forgiveness of those whose lives were destroyed.

Not only did she put her trust in the Bush crime family, she gave a speech, repeating their lies.

[BeanMusical]

161. +1

[90-percent]

175. Reminds me of a great line from the movie Animal House

Paraphrasing

"I made a mistake. I trusted the George W. Bush White House."

-90% Jimmy

[rhett o rick]

215. Right on. nm

[jberryhill]

4. The ending paragraph accurately describes the dynamic at that moment

Saddam was not allowing inspections.

Even though he did not have WMD, he apparently believed that behaving as if he did was a deterrent. He also knew that Bush was not authorized to take any action.

The point of the vote was to authorize Bush in order to make a credible threat to get Saddam to back down and allow inspections.

What was not appreciated by many at the time was that Bush would not use the authorization for its "credible threat" value, and instead would just willy-nilly go to war.

Yes, it was a mistake to put that responsibility into Bush's hands, because the full extent of his utter irresponsibility was not appreciated. It was the wrong thing to do because, as she sums up:

"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."

Well, he did not use the power wisely nor as a last resort. That, however, is on him.

[Avalux]

9. "This is probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make" - HRC.

She said those words during the speech, and she made the wrong decision. So many of us were against it; we knew what would happen, we knew it was wrong to side with Bushco.

Hillary was correct in saying that voting for the resolution "puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President". She must have trusted him to do the right thing, which is mystifying to me. I can't get past it.

Sorry, try as you might, Hillary's yes vote can't be explained away.

[Scuba]

55. Millions of us knew it was wrong. Hillary was either complicit or really, really gullible.

Neither is acceptable for a presidential candidate.

[Voice for Peace]

68. complicit and ambitious.

[Divernan]

139. She was already planning a presidential run & had to get macho cred.

[Damansarajaya]

246. Ding ding ding ding! We have a winner, folks.

[shaayecanaan]

77. Exactly. She's either too nefarious to be president or too stupid to be president

Take your pick.

[peacebird]

101. ^^^ this!

[MissDeeds]

187. Agreed

[malthaussen]

206. Is there such a thing as "too nefarious to be President?"

I mean, obviously, in the ideal one might be too nefarious that we should want him to be President, but is there reason to believe that being nefarious makes one incompetent to hold the job or exercise its functions?

-- Mal

[hay rick]

79. ^^^

What he said.

[delrem]

105. Hillary was totally complicit. Hillary is not "gullible".

Nor are her supporters on DU.

[BlueStreak]

158. May I translate the Beltway-speak?

When the average person says "This is a really hard decision" that generally means they are having a real struggle with their conscience.

It is completely different when a Beltway politician says "This is a really hard decision." She had plenty of access to all the information needed to know this was a completely contrived act, an out-of-control ego dead set on plunging the country into a war under false pretenses. And she had plenty of experience to know this would be a disaster for our foreign policy. She knew all that. She had to. No excuse for not knowing that.

That isn't what she meant by "hard decision". What she meant by "hard decision" is:

* W has the bully pulpit. If I go against him, I calculate that the odds are that will ruin my career, forever painting me as weak on defense.

* Do I step aside and let Bush make a disastrous move for our country without objection or do I take a stand? If Bush makes a mess of things, I can probably win election in 2004. But a lot of people will die for my political ambitions. But what the heck, I probably can't stop Bush anyway.

* The people who back my campaigns, especially the AIPAC ones, really, really want us to keep the wars going in their region. If I don't play ball, I probably can't get the funding I need for a Presidential campaign.

She made her decision, and will have to live with it. Sadly, she isn't much different from 95% of the others in the Beltway from either party.

[hedgehog]

195. Excellent analysis! "Hard decision" is code for

"this is really going to hurt a lot of people, but I'm not one of them"!

[delrem]

280. Maybe. But her total history indicates a simpler reason: she likes war. nt

[fed-up]

289. spot on! which is why I will NEVER vote for Hilary-I will write in Bernie! if need be eom

[BlueStreak]

317. We have to go with our consciences. In Hillary's defense

that is exactly what our system is and has been increasingly for decades. Hillary is not the first to put political ambition and calculation over the good of the country and the value of hundreds of thousands of lives. Voting for Hillary is the same lesser-of-evils "choice" that we have every time. There are very few on the political scene who have the integrity and the guts to take principled positions.

Politicians like Obama want us to believe that there is a long game where the eventual ends justify the means of further catering to the 0.1% Maybe, but we see something completely different with Warren and Sanders.

And here is the point that we must remember always. The only reason Warren and Sanders can survive taking these positions is because the American public STRONGLY favors those positions. And I'm not talking 60/40 or even 55/45. On most of the issues, poll after poll shows support for the progressive position at 75%, 80%, sometimes even 90%.

The aristocracy may be able to keep one of their own (Hillary) in charge this time, but each passing year with such a divergence of interest between the 0.1% and the rest of us puts us that much closer to revolution. The 0.1% cannot maintain this stranglehold forever.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

302. And this is probably the EASIEST decision I've ever had to make...I'm voting for Bernie!

[blm]

15. He would have gone in with/without IWR or the Biden-Lugar version of IWR.

If it had been the Biden-Logar version of IWR, there would be MANY highly disappointed Dean supporters who based their primary support on his view of Iraq war.

HRC does deserve to be called on her failure to stand publicly against the invasion once the weapon inspectors were reporting back their findings - that is what changed everything. Kerry did, and was thus targeted by BOTH sides for his commitment to stand with weapon inspectors instead of Bush. Some on the left were so focused on the vote they refused to hear anything else. A huge shame all around.

[bvar22]

23. "he did not use the power wisely nor as a last resort. That, however, is on him!"

No its not.
The responsibility lies with the people who cravenly gave their permission for a WAR and OCCUPATION of a country that:
*Had NO WMDs
*Did not threaten us.
*Could not threaten us.


Anyone who signed a document entitled[font size=3] The Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq[/font],
and thought Bush wouldn't USE IT is a GD fool without the judgement to hold down a job a Wendy's, much less the Oval Office.


I would rather stand in front of the cameras and tell the truth.
"I signed the AUMF for Political Convenience."
At least, I would be looking at an honest person,
and that COUNTS with me.
LIARS do not.

[rbnyc]

224. No shit!

What did people think was going to happen?

The whole thing was so obtuse. It blows my mind that anyone wasn't able to see it for what it was.

[sulphurdunn]

256. The "it's on him" argument

is like giving the Maserati keys to your already shit faced, alcoholic uncle, telling him there's a fifth of his favorite booze in the console and then telling everyone you hope he has the sense not to drive.

[delrem]

282. She signed on for the same reason George W. Bush signed on.

Fat profits for self and for clients.
Not just fat profits, but because the USA is "the only superpower", totally risk-free and easy profits guaranteed largely by no-bid gov't DoD contracts. "Capitalism" at its finest.

The total lack of sympathetic humanity toward victims of the insane war is just a clue, an associated psychological condition - it isn't a reason. Greed and self-promotion to the exclusion of common values is the reason.

[Autumn]

38. Iraq. Nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq. Not a threat to the US.

Anyone who was paying attention at that time knew that Bush and Cheney were pushing a lie tying Iraq to 9/11 and pushing the lie that they had the capabilities to attack the United States. She helped give him that responsibility to kill and maim hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, thousands of American troops, destroyed a sovereign nation and helped give rise to ISIS. Any one who thought Bush and co would use these powers wisely and as a last resort wasn't paying attention. millions of Americans protested, called wrote letters for our elected leaders to say no and keep that power out of the hands of Bush and Cheney. We were ignored.

I'm not buying her summary. She knew better, being the Senator from NY she voted for that to avoid any fallout and possibly losing her seat. It was selfish and morally wrong and a lot of lives were ended and ruined and part of that is on her. She did not use her vote wisely.

[colorado_ufo]

40. I don't believe this is accurate. Saddam Hussein WAS allowing inspections,

but Bush refused to let the UN inspectors finish their job. They were pulled from their positions and brought home, while protesting strongly about that action. Please read about Hans Blix, who had much to say about this.

Hussein was "damned if he did and damned if he didn't," when it came to weapons of mass destruction. His fate was sealed.

[erronis]

45. Your recollection is correct.

Time after time, when the inspectors were making progress the US (and its lappies) found ways to interfere and to make up stories about non-compliance.

Saddam's cake was cooked when he told Poppa Bush to shove off. None of the major participants have clean hands.

[Stevepol]

81. Exactly right. The inspections were working and had found nothing,

mainly because there was nothing there. Hussein even let them inspect his own palaces or elite residences.

Bush and his gang of blustering, bumbling, lying idiots were intent on starting a war and blowing up things and nobody on God's earth was going to stop them.

It made me sick to my stomach watching and reading about all the stuff leading up to the war.

I think the war was probably already in the planning stages when the Supremes put their seal of approval on W and his crew's stealing of the election. I've often wondered what Gore, the actual winner in 2000, would have done as president. I feel certain he wouldn't have gone into Iraq. He might have gone into Afghanistan, but if so he would have done a much cleaner job of it I imagine. I like to think he would probably have gotten Ben Laden and then got the hell out.

I hate to say this, but after Vietnam and Nicaragua and Iraq, I am pretty much a fatalist. I believe there will be another leader just as idiotic and blundering as W who will make the same intentional error, using lies and subterfuge and outright bullying to get his way. He will probably come to power with the same kind of cheating and bluster that W and his crew did (and the Nazis did in Germany before them). I don't know who he will attack, but it doesn't really matter. The reasons for the war will all be based on lies anyway. When he's through, there won't even be a western civilization to speak of. When you completely de-stabilize the Middle East so that refugees by the many millions flee war and starvation, you essentially sign the death warrant of the European democratic governments that are so close. They really can't absorb so many immigrants, many of whom will naturally be a little put out about having their relatives and family members murdered, their countries ravaged, etc. Wars are already spiraling out of control in the Middle East today because of the Iraq blunder. Syria and Yemen are being fought over right now and the poor, as always, are the ones caught in the middle. I hope my fatalism turns out to be unwarranted, but that's honestly where I am right now after going through the things that happened during those W years. People aren't inherently evil, but they are very easily manipulated and they naturally have a tendency to trust their leaders who are presented by the media as honest and trustworthy and concerned about the well-being of the country and the world.

[Stardust]

157. I wonder what would have happened if the Supreme Court hadn't been in session during

Bush v. Gore. Would the country have had to wait until the following October for the (deplorable) decision to be made?

I guess I'm a fatalist, too. Witness the rise of Trump. Sigh...

[Geronimoe]

53. Now for the real history

In 1996 or 97, the WMD inspectors were not finding any evidence that Iraq had any. So Iraq wanted UN sanctions ended. The sanctions were so severe that medicine for children was not getting to the country. In order to prevent sanctions from getting lifted, Bill Clinton removed the inspectors. So he could claim they might exist but, we don't know.

Now had Bill Clinton allowed the inspectors to do their job, it is unlikely Bush and Cheney could use the propaganda that the next attack maybe in the form of a mushroom cloud.

If you support American Imperialism through military might and the extiction of the middle class, then Hillary is your gal.

[rateyes]

320. there it is!

Nail meet hammer!

[madokie]

56. If I remember right

the inspectors were there and doing their job when little boots ordered them out.

No Hillary did not make a good decision and that decision was one of grave consequences. One that we'll never live down. One that I'll never get over.

[peace13]

264. But what about the aluminum tubes? Yellow cakes...

...and cookies? Just remembering theses sad and disgusting times is exhausting. It was simple to see that Iraq had nothing to do with 911. Politicians have no excuses. My 75 year old neighbor knew it was wrong!

[Mnemosyne]

63. But Saddam did allow inspections, jberry, from Nov. 27, 2002 to March 18, 2003.

Here is the chronology:

http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/iraqchron

[heaven05]

66. nope

BS!!!! She's a hawk just like that idiot she gave the power to go "willy nilly to war" to.

[Voice for Peace]

67. HANS BLIX SAID DON'T GO TO WAR

that was good enough for me, regarding Saddam and inspections.

Was Hillary paying attention to anyone but her own ambition?

[Exultant Democracy]

231. Yup, when she listen to Bush over Blix, we learned everything we needed to know about her.

We need a POTUS who can tell the difference between qualified experts, ignorant cretins and evil assholes. Clinton failed that test.

[elehhhhna]

78. baloney.

[Rilgin]

83. inaccurate history

Before posting facts that would support your position should make sure its true.

Saddam allowed weapons inspectors. They were all over iraq and finding nothing. Google scott ritter who was one of the chief un weapons inspectors. Later he had bad legal problems but was the weapons inspector for the un in the leadup to the war.

Again with saddam, at first there were some issues with the inspection teams and some access points but towards the end he was publically begging for the inspections to continue because they wefe finding nothing. The inspections stopped because bush pulled them before invading. Google the history its easy to do.

Anyone who wanted to know the truth could have at the time including HRC.

[JoePhilly]

208. What was the date of the IWR vote, what was the date that

inspections restarted?

[Hoppy]

84. Did she ever hear of a guy named Hans Blix?

[valerief]

93. PNAC wanted war in 1997. This was what they wanted.

Not inspection but WAR. And its resultant war profiteering.

[rbnyc]

276. +1 nt

[delrem]

103. Everyone with two functioning brain cells knew that the Bush admin was gearing up for war.

The most massive anti-war demonstrations in the world happened at that time -- and they happened all across the world, because everyone all across the world could see the picture that you're trying so valiantly to deny.

It's like the "voting for fast track isn't voting for TPP, it's voting so we can get a glimpse of what's in the TPP..." denials. As transparent as glass, mendacious to the core.

[magical thyme]

106. Saddam was not allowing inspections? Really?

So along with W, you say that Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei were lying?

http://www.un.org/press/en/2003/sc7682.doc.htm
UNITED NATIONS WEAPONS INSPECTORS REPORT TO SECURITY COUNCIL ON PROGRESS IN DISARMAMENT OF IRAQ

"In his briefing this morning, Mr. Blix added that while cooperation could and was to be immediate, disarmament, and its verification, could not be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyze documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. That would not take years, nor weeks, but months. To address unresolved disarmament issues and to identify key remaining disarmament tasks, he would submit a draft work programme to the Council this month.

The inspections, which began on 27 November, were mandated by the Security Council in resolution 1441 (2002), which gave Iraq a “final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations” dating to 1991 and the end of the Persian Gulf war.

The Director-General of the IAEA, Mr. ElBaradei, reported that, after three months of intrusive inspections, the Agency had found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq. There was also no indication that Iraq had attempted to import uranium since 1990 or that it had attempted to import aluminium tubes for use in centrifuge enrichment.

Several speakers pointed to examples of tangible progress, including the ongoing destruction of Al-Samoud 2 missiles and interviews with Iraqi scientists. Peaceful means to achieving Iraq’s disarmament were, many stated, far from exhausted.

[JoePhilly]

185. What was the date of the Iraq war vote?

Was it before or after nov 27 2002?

[99th_Monkey]

107. "Yes, it was a mistake to put that responsibility into Bush's hands.."

If Hillary didn't have a clue that GWBush is not trustworthy ... that's kinda
difficult to 'splain away, especially since we've seen just how big a mistake
it was, to give Bush a pass to invade Iraq in the first place.

[Caretha]

138. Bush Knew Saddamn did not have WMDs

and so did Cheney & so did Colin Powell. You forget that we had overwhelming evidence that was all contrived and lies.


Me .....................


Me a fuckin' nobody in redneck Texas knew. We had flown over 1700 sorties over Iraq in the 10 years following the first war in Iraq.... instigated by lies by the his gawd damn father and the powers that be.

That is 1 sortie every 2 days, with the most sophisticated tech in the world. Please (rolling eyes) and Hillary who had the highest clearence and insight and resources one could have in this country didn't know?" Pull my other leg!!

We had UN inspectors that knew it was a lie the rest of the world knew it was a lie too, The UN knew it was a lie....the Cheney/Bush administration ruined our "insider" investigation and many many of our "spies" were killed because of such.

Read the friggin history, it wasn't that long ago. You just go ahead. Keep excusing a "woman" who is running for president of the US and who has to be stupider than me since she didn't know what everyone else did??????????

ell all of that is a God Damn lie, and if you have 2 brain cells rubbing together and causing friction somewhere in your brain, you have got to know too.

[pocoloco]

144. That's pure Bullshit!!

We knew what it meant!!!

She knew what it meant....

....or do you think she was so piss ignorant that she trusted *??

[Martin Eden]

147. Anyone who didn't know Bushco would abuse that authority was uninformed and/or stupid

The PNAC/neocon agenda was no secret, and by October 2002 it was quite evident the Bush administration was mounting a false marketing campaign to misrepresent Iraq's capabilities and ties the non-existent alliance with al Qaeda. A vote for the IWR as it was drawn up made war a certainty. I agree the 12 years of sanctions needed to be resolved and Saddam forced to admit inspectors, but Congress could have demanded the resolution include a 2nd vote be taken to authorize war -- taking the ultimate decision out of Bush's hands and placing it where the Constitution intended.

Let's remember the situation in Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, and that shifting focus and resources away from Afghanistan would take the pressure off al Qaeda and the Taliban. If the real objective was to defeat the terrorists and safeguard our country, going after Iraq was a bad strategy no matter how politicians try to spin it.

[LeftOfWest]

160. Horseshit.

That vote is on every asswipe who voted for the oily slaughter of lies.

[HereSince1628]

176. Anyone who had read Cheney's speeches from the previous summer or

who had read the Bush Administrations national security position paper, which clearly stated the NeoCon interest an American imperial century forged by military power, would have -at least- suspected that vote would be an enabling act to a devastating war of aggression that violated international conventions.

Memories fade, without the memories we re-write history to fit our current, often very subjective, beliefs.

What Congress did at the time, if now hidden by clouded memory was plain at the time as was the position of the NeoCons running the administrations national security policy. Those who voted aye, handed to the NeoCons the keys that unlocked the cage that housed the dogs of war.

[JoePhilly]

210. Have you noticed that many responding to you don't know

that the IWR vote occurred in Oct 2002, and the inspections restarted at the end of Nov 2002.

[Rilgin]

301. Very Misleading

Here is the CNN site on weapons inspections. As shown, there were inspections prior to October 2002 speech and vote including Iraq publishing a full disclosure in June 1992. It was an ongoing process.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/30/world/meast/iraq-weapons-inspections-fast-facts/

They did not find anything and there was in fact nothing as shown on the disclosure. During that period there were inspection issues which led to refusal of Iraq to allow UN inspectors on certain sites. This led to a confrontation in July of 1992. Please note that July comes before October.

Inspections were an ongoing process and pre-dated the October vote. Iraq had been subject to UN oversite for a decade. There were UN mandates and a UN office charged with Inspections prior to Hillary's speech and vote. You are only pointing to one date of the process when the UN consolidated the previous mandates in November of 2002.

You could make an argument that some of Saddam's cooperation with the UN inspections stemmed from the October US vote. However, you can not argue that inspections did not occur before the vote and did not find anything. Nor can you argue that we had a lot of evidence that the Bush administration was lying to us and there was no weapons program in Iraq before the October Vote.

This is totally separate from any other information and just common sense on the meaning of that vote and the fact that claims of weapons were a mere pretense. As has been said multiple times in this thread, simple people like me, knew what the vote meant. It was impossible for Hillary not too. She made here bet, just has refused to pay off a losing hand on the most important vote of that decade by not seeking further office.

[JoePhilly]

308. Saddam was blustering, stopping inspections,

Over and over.

If you are going to get indignant, you should at least know when inspections stopped, when the vote was, and when inspections restarted.

The details matter, particularly if one plans to run around screaming about the inspectors having claimed there were no WMDs, an event that occurred after the vote, by about 3 months.

Bush ignored the inspectors in January 2003. Which is well after the vote.

[Rilgin]

311. A Photo is not history

I gave a link to the timeline. Everyone and anyone can see that Iraq agreed to inspections before the US vote. Inspections first started in 1991 although the process was rocky. I assume you agree that 1991 is before 2002.

As you can see by the CNN timeline Iraq agreed to unconditional inspections in September of 2002. I assume that you agree that September comes before October. The claim addressed was a claim by JBerryhill that Saddam was not allowing inspections. As you can see by the time line
Saddam had agreed to inspections before the speech.

I believe inspections were actually taking place before the US Vote and finding nothing.

The timeline is all there. More important, it was clear that the US Vote was indpendant of the UN Vote. The Bush administration wanted war and did not want the UN to derail the drive to war. Hillary, should certainly be as aware of the desires of the Bush administration as the people like me who knew there would be war from that Vote.

[blackspade]

216. That flies in the face of reality.

"What was not appreciated by many at the time was that Bush would not use the authorization for its "credible threat" value, and instead would just willy-nilly go to war. "

Really? The Bush Admin had been beating the drums of war for a year to go into Iraq. And those that were paying attention knew that this resolution was a needed pretext to war. That members of Congress didn't beggars belief.

[MoveIt]

219. Because the nation was insane at the time we needed her to lead not follow

She failed her constituents by knowingly giving this warmonger his green light, and she hoped there would be no consequences of going along with the big lie.

[Exultant Democracy]

223. Hans Blix, inspected Iraq a number of times before Clinton voted for war, he said don't go to war

Hillary thought Bush was more credible than Hans Blix, tells you everything you need to know about the way she thinks about the difficult questions.

I prefer the person that trusts the experts over the rightwing assholes. I would expect a POTUS that would be able to think ahead about what might happen if she hands the town drunk the keys to her car. The vast majority of us on DU all knew exactly what would go down once Bush got his resolution. This internet discussion board called every aspect of that war including and up to the issues we have with ISIS today.

Not voting yes wasn't rocket science, it was just the right thing to do.

[Damansarajaya]

245. Could any Democrat believe what you wrote?

You wrote: What was not appreciated by many at the time was that Bush would not use the authorization for its "credible threat" value, and instead would just willy-nilly go to war.

I have to call bullshit--total bullshit--on that. GWBush is a man who practically declared war on Iraq BEFORE he was elected. He STOLE the election in Florida to make sure he got in power. Once in power, he immediately "gave back the surplus" to make sure that government ran huge deficits. TeamBush ignored the reports from Hans Blix and the UN inspectors.

No one who had half a brain could think that Bush would back down from the threat of invasion short of a solid rebuke from Congress.

Instead gutless Dems caved to war-hysteria and wealthy special interests.

A plague on them and the horse they rode in on.

[tonedevil]

258. I don't think that's true...

Saddam was not allowing inspections I'm pretty sure that when then Senator Clinton was delivering this speech Iraq had agreed to unconditionally allow inspectors in and those inspections were started within a month. I'm impressed by her turn as Secretary of State, but voting to give President Bush war powers and not expect him to use them in the worst way possible is world class dimwittery.

[LiberalLovinLug]

274. "Saddam was not allowing inspections"?

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/03/18_blix.shtml

The important thing to remember, Blix said repeatedly, was that Saddam was cooperating with the inspections, despite the difficulties they create for a leader. "No one likes inspectors, not tax inspectors, not health inspectors, not any inspectors," Blix chuckled.

Please don't help to push that false narrative that BushCo. wanted us to believe.

Its clear that Saddam never had WMD, but was trying to imply that he did for the sake of looking formidable to his neighbours as you say. But slowly and surely, Saddam was relenting, and Hans Blix and his team were discovering dead end after dead end. And they would have finally concluded that there were no WMD if left to complete their jobs.

And what is truly evil about BushCo. is that this is the reason they ordered out Blix. Because they knew they couldn't put out a false flag with him doing his job.

[Hissyspit]

297. Bullshit.

You've been here since 2006. You know that's not true.

[daleanime]

5. Turned my stomach then....

still turns it now.

[CTBlueboy]

6. no more wars

The number dead Iraqis means nothing to War Hawks

Their goals is to spread "democracy " by any means

Every person that voted for Iraq War failed to become the nominee

[delrem]

283. I disagree with one of your premises.

"Their goals is to spread "democracy " by any means" is false.

"Democracy", like "the flag" and "freedom" and "terrorism" and so on, is essentially meaningless in context of US wars. None of the US's recent wars have been for self-defence. Neither have the US sponsored military coups that happen regularly across the planet been motivated by self-defence. No stretch of the imagination could produce an argument that any of the USA's recent wars, proxy wars, coups and so on, have been "for democracy".
Further, that wasn't the pretext given to the world, when the USA stood before the world and brazenly lied to us.

So that's false.

All factual evidence suggests that the motive was war profiteering, pure and simple. A massive transfer of wealth, by means of military contracts, from the working/middle class to the 1%.

[FloriTexan]

7. Kick for the refresher...

Thanks Mad!

[madfloridian]

12. ....

Hi there...you are welcome.

[yallerdawg]

8. And the junior senator from New York said:

I also greatly respect the differing opinions within this body. The debate they engender will aid our search for a wise, effective policy. Therefore, on no account should dissent be discouraged or disparaged. It is central to our freedom and to our progress, for on more than one occasion, history has proven our great dissenters to be right.

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

Over eleven 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 to 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.

And 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 that I am.

I have no problem with her vote.

What Bush 2.0 and the Republicans did was the problem. No one else is responsible.

[Avalux]

11. Umm, the attack on our nation had nothing to do with Iraq or Saddam Hussein.

A lot of us knew that. Why didn't she?

[yallerdawg]

14. Did you read that in a history book?

Or did you watch her speech, and General Powell's at the UN, or Bush's State of the Union, or watch the planes fly into our buildings?

Did you think we were safe, we had an ocean between us and troubles? Did you believe our government would keep us safe? It won't happen here - again?

Did you believe Hussein was a misunderstood benevolent ruler who had never crossed us before? Who served his people kindly and gently?

And most of all - this was all Hillary Clinton's fault?

[Avalux]

16. Yes I watched all the speeches, they made me angry and disgusted.

I knew the Iraq war was based on a lot of lies for the purpose of invading a country so the war machine could make a lot of people rich.

Ever hear of PNAC?

I fault Hillary Clinton for not having the courage to stand up to the Bush Administration and do the right thing by saying NO.

[Fuddnik]

177. The best, most impassioned speech against it was by Sen Robert Byrd D-W.Va.

It was so moving and concise, I contacted his office for a copy of it.

Clinton, self-serving as ever, wanted to be seen as a tough war hawk. Also, in the book "Iraq Confidential", written way back when, said Bill Clinton was just itching to bomb Iraq, and had carriers and planes ready to launch attacks over inspections.

[roguevalley]

20. yes we did. he kept al qaida out of iraq and millions of people are dead because of what you outline

in your post, the words and justification of the bush/cheney lie machine. Its all bunk and she has blood on her hands. Period.

Do you remember that bush was warned about planes in August but went on vacation and ignored it.

[winter is coming]

21. I saw the speeches. I wasn't foolish enough to think we were safe *before* the attacks,

nor did I imagine the War Resolution would make us "safe". "Safe" was a bullshit talking point used to bulldoze people into accepting a war that didn't make sense, a war that's actually made us less safe.

Clinton either didn't know that at the time, or pretended not to know it. Whether she's a rogue or a fool, she's not fit for the Presidency.

[erronis]

47. +1: She was/is a smart person with incredible connections. Of course she knew that this was a lie.

[delrem]

284. $$$war-profiteering$$$

All the bullshit excuses, rationales, are bafflegabble.
It's about $$$war-profiteering$$$, about a massive transfer of wealth into the hands of the .01%

[PoliticAverse]

29. You know most Democrats in Congress voted against the Iraq War Resolution, right?

Most Republicans voted for it. Clinton voted for it.

[yallerdawg]

58. Most Democratic Senators voted for it.

Both NY Senators voted for it.

Since this was all Hillary's fault, nothing on Bush/Cheney?

I know who did the Iraq Wars, and it was Bush and Bush again.

How can you all forget that?

[PoliticAverse]

62. I don't. I'd never vote for Bush or Chaney. I blame them primarily

for the Iraq war, however they still needed the votes in Congress to make it happen.

[yallerdawg]

65. The vote.

House 297-133.

Senate 77-23.

Not even close.

[PoliticAverse]

69. So? The people who voted for it are still responsible for it passing - all of them. n/t

[yallerdawg]

73. So this substantial majority...

did not represent the will of the American people?

Or is it just "my particular will" didn't get served?

If everyone blames Hillary for the war, holds Hillary particularly responsible for the war, then they also reject our American political system, and of course would support 'anyone but' Hillary.

Viva la revolución!

[RufusTFirefly]

87. Bandwagon fallacy

Didn't your mother tell you that just because all your friends are doing it, that doesn't make it right?

A true leader has the courage of his/her convictions and swims against the tide when s/he has to. There were a lot of cowards and cold-blooded political calculators on both sides of the aisle, but only one is running for president as a Democrat.

Hillary Clinton voted for the IWR and for the PATRIOT ACT (sic).
Her chief rival in the primaries voted against both.

[PoliticAverse]

89. "Isn't this an indictment of our entire American society?"

[yallerdawg]

114. Yes, absolutely!

This inflexible rigid authoritarian view of a most reasonable vote by a New York senator who expressed her reservations but felt her constituents didn't want her to stand in the way of defending us from another attack in light of our recent deadly, earth-shaking failure - you expect she would be revered today if everything happened just as it did, but she could say "I voted no" and all is well with the world.

My butt!

[99Forever]

120. And there it is!

The ultimate warmonger lie.

Iraq DID NOT attack our nation, yet the neocons AND the neoliberals alike, conflate that lie as a justification for the blood on their hands.

Neoliberals and neocons, opposite sides of the very same coin.

[navarth]

207. Actually

...I would have exponentially more respect for her if she had summoned the courage to vote no. It was a craven political choice. No other way to explain it. We all knew it was bullshit. She went along with it. You just can't whitewash that. I wish she hadn't voted that way. I wish she wasn't pro-fracking, pro-TPP. But wishing doesn't make it go away. Sorry.

[heaven05]

226. ???????

geez....no clue and you don't want a clue. You're stuck. Fine.

[kenfrequed]

132. So...

I am supposed to give a pass to the Democrats that backed almost all of the Republicans in supporting the authorization?

There were plenty that didn't. The majority of those opposed were Democrats, why would I intentionally choose someone wrong the first time when I can support someone like Sanders who has been correct on almost everything for decades?

[frylock]

44. I believe this is a bunch of fear mongering bullshit.

[KoKo]

323. Democrats Share the Blame for Tragedy of Iraq War--Ignored the Evidence Against Invasion

Democrats Share the Blame for Tragedy of Iraq War
Sunday, 17 March 2013 06:59 By Stephen Zunes, Truthout | Op-Ed

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/15100-democrats-share-the-blame-for-tragedy-of-iraq-war

The Democrats who voted to support the war and rationalized that vote by making false claims about Iraq's WMD programs - a minority of Democrats, but much over-represented in Democratic leadership councils - were responsible for allowing the Bush administration to get away with lying about Iraq's alleged threat.

Here on the tenth anniversary of the Iraq War, it is important to remember that it was not just those in the Bush White House who were responsible for the tragedy, but leading members of Congress as well, some of whom are now in senior positions in the Obama administration. The 4,500 Americans killed, the far larger number permanently wounded, the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed and millions displaced, the trillion dollars of US taxpayers' money squandered (and the resulting cutbacks through sequestration), the continued costs of the war through veterans' benefits and interest on the national debt, and the anti-American extremism in reaction to the invasion and occupation which has spread throughout much of the world all could have been avoided if the Democratic-controlled Senate hadn't voted to authorize this illegal and unnecessary war and occupation.

On this and other web sites - as well as in many scores of policy reports, newspaper articles, academic journals and other sources - the tragic consequences of a US invasion of Iraq and a refutation of falsehoods being put forward by the Bush administration to justify it were made available to every member of the House and Senate (see, for example, my cover story in The Nation magazine The Case Against a War with Iraq). The 2003 vote authorizing the invasion was not like the vote on the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin resolution on the use of force against North Vietnam, for which Congress had no time for hearings or debate and for which most of those supporting it (mistakenly) thought they were simply authorizing limited short-term retaliatory strikes in response to a specific series of alleged incidents. By contrast, in regard to the resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq, Congress had many months to investigate and debate the administration's claims that Iraq was a threat as well as the likely implications of a US invasion. Members of Congress also fully recognized that the resolution authorized a full-scale invasion of a sovereign nation and a subsequent military occupation of an indefinite period.

-----snip------

Concerned Scholars

Members of Congress were also alerted by large numbers of scholars of the Middle East, Middle Eastern political leaders, former State Department and intelligence officials and others who recognized that a US invasion would likely result in a bloody insurgency, a rise in Islamist extremism and terrorism, increased sectarian and ethnic conflict, and related problems. Few people I know who are familiar with Iraq were at all surprised that the US invasion has become such a tragedy. Indeed, most of us were in communication with Congressional offices and often with individual members of Congress themselves in the months leading up to the vote warning of the likely consequences of an invasion and occupation. Therefore, subsequent claims by Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Biden, Harry Reid and other leading Democratic supporters of the war that they were unaware of the likely consequences of the invasion are completely false.

The resolution also contained accusations that were known or widely assumed to be false at that time, such as claims of Iraqi support for al-Qaeda terrorists responsible for the September 11, 2001, attacks against the United States. A definitive report by the Department of Defense noted that not only did no such link exist but that no such link could have even been reasonably suggested based on the evidence available at that time.

The Senate resolution also falsely claimed that Iraq was "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability." In reality, Iraq had long eliminated its nuclear program, a fact that was confirmed in a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency in 1998, four years prior to the resolution.

The resolution also falsely claimed that Iraq at that time continued "to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability." In reality, as the US government now admits, Iraq had rid itself of its chemical and biological weapons nearly a decade earlier and no longer had any active chemical and biological weapons programs. This likelihood that Iraq no longer had operational chemical or biological weapons was brought to the attention of members of Congress by a number of top arms control specialists, as well as Scott Ritter, the American who headed UNSCOM's efforts to locate Iraq's possible hidden caches of chemical and biological weapons, hidden supplies or secret production facilities.

No Evidence

Virtually all of Iraq's known stockpiles of chemical and biological agents had been accounted for and the shelf life of the small amount of materiel that had not been accounted for - which, as it turned out, had also been destroyed - had long since expired and could therefore have no longer been of weapons grade. There was no evidence that Iraq had any delivery systems for such weapons, either. In addition, the strict embargo, in effect since 1990, against imports of any additional materials needed for the manufacture of WMDs, combined with Iraq's inability to manufacture such weapons or delivery systems themselves without detection, made any claims that Iraq constituted any "significant chemical and biological weapons capability" transparently false to anyone who cared to investigate the matter at that time. Indeed, even the classified full version of the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, while grossly overestimating Iraq's military capability, was filled with extensive disagreements, doubts and caveats regarding President Bush's assertions regarding Iraq's WMDs, WMD programs, and delivery systems.

The House and Senate members who now claim they were "misled" about Iraq's alleged military threat have failed to explain why they found the administration's claims so much more convincing than the many other reports made available to them from more objective sources that presumably made a much stronger case that Iraq no longer had offensive WMD capability. Curiously, not a single member of Congress has agreed to allow me any access to any documents they claim convinced them of the alleged Iraqi threat except for one excerpt from a 2002 National Security Estimate released in July 2003 - widely ridiculed at the time for its transparently manipulated content. In effect, they are using the infamous Nixon defense from the Watergate scandal that claims that while they have evidence to vindicate themselves, making it public would somehow damage national security. In reality, if such reports actually exist, they are clearly inaccurate and outdated and would therefore be of no threat to national security if made public.

Democrats' Responsibility

The Democrats who voted to support the war and rationalized that vote by making false claims about Iraq's WMD programs were responsible for allowing the Bush administration to get away with lying about Iraq's alleged threat. For example, Bush was able to note how "more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate - who had access to the same intelligence - voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power." In a 2005 speech attacking anti-war activists, Bush noted how, "Many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: '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.'"

MORE and an Excellent Refresher Read at:
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/15100-democrats-share-the-blame-for-tragedy-of-iraq-war

[tularetom]

94. Oddly enough, very little of this was Hillary Clinton's "fault"

But she's running for president now and she's asking us to trust her.

I'm pretty sure she knew it was all bullshit, but she was trying to prove how "tough" she was and she thought this would be an easy way to do it.

So what happens if she is elected and feels the need to seem "tough" again?

Maybe you can trust her, but I can't.

[delrem]

146. Iraq, Lybia, and Syria, are all very much Hillary Clinton's fault.

Of course not solely HRC's fault, but certainly top level. There's just no reasonable ground for doubt on that score.

I don't get those Dems who pretend different.

Do they just not give a fart from a flying flounder that, if HRC is the Dem nominee and if she wins the GE, then HRC's entire past says that there'll be a continuation of US war extremism, of the PNAC war program? -- and probably accelerated because it'll be crystal clear that both parties, Dems and Reps, are into it up to their ears and nobody on either side will be able to excuse themselves with "but, but, how were we to know?" A HRC win will put an absolute end of any pretence otherwise - any pretence that Dems care in the least about "hope and change".

[GeorgeGist]

123. I laughed, I cried ...

[Duval]

277. This one broke my heart. nt

[Le Taz Hot]

279. Can you imagine if he would have

refused to go along, resigned, and gone on all the talk shows to tell the American people the truth? It would have been a game changer.

Hillary could have made an important difference as well but she chose to support the Bush Administration. Again.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

124. Yes. I was an adult in 2001, and I answer in the affirmative for most of your questions.

I watched that lying fuck at the UN with George Tenet sitting behind him. Were you duped by this dog and pony show?

I watched the planes fly into the buildings, and I very well understood that Iraq had nothing to do with it--that was Bush fodder for the dumbfuck crowd.

I never believed Hussein was a benevolent ruler. At the same time, I had no fear of him. Again, I was an adult at the time and I was able to process information like an adult.

And most of all, no, it wasn't H Clinton's fault, but she damn well deserves some culpability.

Go on and take a look through the archives. We were a lot more informed on DU back then than some are today. Sell the revisionist history to someone gullible enough to swallow it.

[yallerdawg]

133. Colin Powell was a lying fuck?

You saw the planes hit the buildings and said "Aw, hell, that ain't Iraq!"

Somebody living in a backward stone-age country like Afghanistan, up in the caves, he could pull off 9/11, but warmongering dictator of Iraq, no way! Nothing to fear here!

And not Hillary's fault, but of course she deserves culpability. More of that "higher standard" for Hillary.

No, you're right. No revisionist history for you.

I'll check these archives a year from now, in sha'Allah.

[truebrit71]

140. Give it up mate... you're apologia is beyond pathetic...

Now you're defending the lies that went into the Iraq war?

We knew it was bullshit then, just like we know the "everyone else voted for it" line is bullshit now.

She didn't have the guts to make a stand back then, but a certain Senator from Vermont sure did.

[frylock]

238. Yeah, Colin Powell is a lying fuck..

How is this even in question? How many more neocons are you going to go to bat for?

[Comrade Grumpy]

275. Do you not remember his UN speech? Total bullshit.

[A Simple Game]

182. I hve always been a skeptic but am now a true believer.

I never thought there were alternate or multiple universes.

After reading your post I now believe there are and think I have just read a leak from one of them.

[marym625]

190. There is so much wrong with what you are saying that it's unbelievable you're saying it.

Damn straight it's Hillary Clinton's fault, and every single Senator and Representative that voted for it.

How can you even put the illegal war in Iraq and 9/11 in the post? You are justifying the lies. You are justifying the murder of of our military and innocent Iraqi people. You are justifying the profiteering of so many corporations, especially corporations that the politicians pushing the lies had stake in.

Yes, many of us watched and read everything we could about this at the time. And those of us that did knew that we were being sold lie after lie after lie for profit.

I thought I had seen everything I could here. Never in a million years did I think I would see this

[hedgehog]

198. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

[Exultant Democracy]

225. Look at the old archived DU, the answer is we knew all of this in real time.

We watched General Powell at the UN and said "he is lying" which he was, because we bothered to listen to Hans Blix's reports on Iraq, and his urgent message that we were being duped into a pointless war.

We watched Bush and knew he wanted to finish his daddy's war in spite of the fact that we knew Iraq was the wrongest of wrong targets.

Many of us spoke of blowback saying things like, "wait until 2015 when the kids who's parents we blast away in our ground war grow up, cause then we will be in some shit (ISIS)" And based on these facts we knew that leaving Saddam where he was would cause less far reaching misery than an america force moving in to toppled his government.

So without any crystal balls we knew how stupid and evil those votes for war were.

[madfloridian]

243. "wait until 2015 when the kids whose parents we blast away in our ground war grow up"

We wrote a lot of stuff like that back in the DU archives. We even posted about the lies being told.

[roguevalley]

19. her vote enabled them. she has no excuse

[AtomicKitten]

22. The AUMF was precisely that --

-- authorization to use military force.

This vote is not amenable to the "oops" defense. Not when up to a million innocent lives were lost, many of those women and children. Not when its horrific repercussions still resonate.

[George II]

257. "authorization to use military force" with a large number of criteria to be met before...

...that military force is used. Those criteria were NOT met, but the bush administration went ahead and invaded anyway.

[Hissyspit]

296. You have no problem with her vote?

What a pile of shit rationalization.

[rateyes]

324. And that statement was made one month AFTER Hussein agreed to UN demands

for unlimited inspections.

[HFRN]

10. youtube of Hillary supporting increase of H-1b visas

[Agschmid]

17. Sort of off topic here...

But you go on with your bad self... Again.

This got alerted on?!?!

C'mon.

[OKNancy]

25. Yup

On Thu Jul 9, 2015, 02:45 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Sort of off topic here...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=433860

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

personal attack without explanation or substance

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Jul 9, 2015, 03:04 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I didn't think it was a personal attack
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Umm.. the post did seem to be off topic..
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The person he is replying to is a troll who won't be here much longer. MIRT is on him.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Its not a "nice" post, but come on, "not nice or not friendly" is not something that rises to the level of hiding (in my mind).
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It is not a personal attack. Geesh. People are alerting on anything.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Actually the substance is well-known if one is a reader here at DU. The poster posts the same thing over and over. It's almost spam. The remark is a mild poke.

Stop alerting inane stuff!

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[aspirant]

13. "use these powers wisely"

This advise was given to Bush Jr. and Cheney?

Trusting dumbbell Bush and Blood-thirsty Cheney, what a huge mistake

[bvar22]

26. A HUGE mistake,

and serious error in judgement....enough to DQ someone from Public Office for LIFE.

If you couldn't tell that Bush, Cheney, and Powell were LYING,
then you lack the judgement to work in public office.

[Enthusiast]

27. "Trusting dumbbell Bush and Blood-thirsty Cheney, what a huge mistake."

I like how you characterize Bush and Cheney.

"Dumbbell Bush" [URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[neverforget]

109. "use these powers wisely"....so Bush can invade a country that had nothing

to do with 9/11.

[Gman]

24. Isn't hindsight wonderful??

I mean it gives us real power to decide someone else made a mistake. Well, wasn't that person stupid or evil. Why couldn't they see then what we see now with this wonderful hindsight. We're so much smarter with our hindsight.

[Enthusiast]

28. Millions of us knew better. We knew better then. We felt it was a terrible decision at the time.

It didn't require hindsight. That is a fact.

I fully acknowledge Hillary was between a rock and a hard place.

[Skittles]

141. we knew better

and Hillary - she voted her career over the lives of soldiers and the Iraqi people......it will FOREVER disgust me....there was no rock / hard place - there was just RIGHT AND WRONG

[bvar22]

32. The MAJORITY of us here successfully identified the LIES,

...and knew that invading Iraq was a horrible mistake.

(popular post on DU pre-invasion)

No Military Objective + no exit strategy = QUAGMIRE

We marched in the streets, wrote Letters to Editors, and put stickers on our cars.
Some of us even listened to the Weapons Inspectors ....who found the truth....NO WMDs.


Are we all smarter than Hillary?
If so, then we are in REAL trouble.

We got it right.
She got it way wrong...and people are still dying from her lack of judgement, wisdom, and integrity.

I will NOT follow someone who shows such poor judgement into combat.

[ctsnowman]

186. Exactly!

[99Forever]

33. Hindsight?

I knew it was all lies and bullshit then, as did millions of other Americans. We were out protesting in the streets. Where were you and Hillary?

Hindsight? Just what the fuck are you yammering on about? But then, I am a whole BUNCH smarter than Dubya and his war criminal pals. Apparently Hillary isn't.

[GoneOffShore]

34. Everyone else who voted against the resolution had foresight.

They, along with a great many others both in the media and the general public, knew that we were being lied to.

And Ms Clinton didn't?

Or she did and STILL voted to go to war.

[frylock]

46. I'm guessing you were duped as well..

it's the only explanation for this apologist nonsense.

[RufusTFirefly]

48. Many of us took to the streets numerous times between October 2002 and March 2003

Including perhaps the largest protest in history on Feb. 15, 2003.

It wasn't hindsight that motivated us.

[PoliticAverse]

70. 'hindsight'? Most Democrats in Congress had the foresight to vote against the resolution. n/t

[Art_from_Ark]

110. Including this Senator:

[oasis]

183. Sen.Byrd is one of my all time Senate heroes. I forgave the "mistake"

He made earlier in his political career,and moved on. It enabled me to fully appreciate his political genius and his love for the U.S. Constitution.

[mike_c]

102. how will you diminish the foresight of those who stood up and voted no?

In that context, Senator Clinton's loopy triangulation in favor of crimes against humanity seem less forgivable, in hindsight.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

126. We saw it then. Weren't you here at the time? nt

[stopwastingmymoney]

162. Add my voice to the chorus

We knew, she had to have known.

I think your post is appalling

[LeftOfWest]

167. One Million slaughtered human beings, such hindsight.

sick post by you Gman.

Human lives.

[malthaussen]

211. It's not Monday-morning quarterbacking...

... if you're screaming at the TV before he even throws the pass.

-- Mal

[fed-up]

290. My whole family marched against the war-we paid attention, we knew, no hindsight needed.eom

[davidpdx]

304. I'm sure the men and women in the military that had their legs and arms blown off

would find your comment thoroughly amusing. Keep enabling the GOP.

[Motown_Johnny]

30. When claiming to dodge sniper fire is just misspeaking

then a 19 minute floor speech in favor of the Iraq War (the most forceful from any Democrat) can easily be called a mistake.

She can't be held to the same standards as everyone else.. you should know that by now.

[GoneOffShore]

35. ^This^

[immoderate]

131. She's "too big to fail."

--imm

[davidpdx]

305. Except her campaign imploded in 2008

[delrem]

285. Well, Brian Williams "misspoke".

The difference is that for Brian Williams words both spoken and misspoken have consequences, whereas for politicians they don't.

[Motown_Johnny]

303. For some politicians that is...

[Enthusiast]

31. Kicked and recommended!

[99Forever]

36. Thanks for refreshing some forgetful minds.

It was crystal clear to those of us without the glaze of heroine worship blinding our vision.

[George II]

37. Everyone - please note below!

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.

Specifically:

"It is NOT a vote to rush to war"

"It....puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President"

"Use these powers.......as a last resort"!

Maybe this will quiet the critics and their endless drone about Clinton (and everyone else who voted for the AUMF) "voting for war"!

It isn't her fault nor all those others who voted for that legislation that bush abused his power and lied to the American people and our allies.

[RufusTFirefly]

41. Yes. How could we possibly know that the gun we gave Dubya in Act I would be fired in Act III??

[malthaussen]

213. Props for Chekov allusion. n/t

[Autumn]

43. Anyone who believed Bush wasn't going to use that legislation to go to war

was a fool. It was right there for everyone to see. We knew it, Robert Byrd knew it, Bernie Sanders knew it others knew it No. When the war drums started and the lies were obvious and it was clear what Bush was going to do millions of us protested, called, wrote letters and we were fucking ignored. Bush abused that power and the ones who voted to give him that power abused their power.

[Fumesucker]

104. Hillary was hoodwinked by Dubya's cunning wiles, faced with a smooth talker like that who wouldn't?

[RufusTFirefly]

111. Perhaps she had a beer with him? I was told he was that kind of guy. n/t

[neverforget]

112. He was quite the smooth talker

[Stardust]

166. There are some real gems in there. Unbelievable. Eom

[delrem]

286. Yet he was elected TWICE. Think of that.

Talk about a low bar.

[fed-up]

291. NOT elected twice! black box voting-Supreme Court decision-please do NOT state he was "elected" eom

[delrem]

295. He was elected twice.

You might wince at the details, you might not LIKE IT, but he was elected twice.
And that tells us something about US voters, doesn't it? The population at large. Regardless of the details, all the whining from losers about how it isn't fair? About how the Republicans are just so much SMARTER than Dems, that they can game the system and win even if they don't "really" win, and the Dems can't even think of a way to officially protest? Or do anything about it? Right?

[GeorgeGist]

192. Sometimes it's best to remain silent and seem foolish ...

[corkhead]

218. Yeah, but she was handing that power to Dubya who used it to avenge his daddy

[Exultant Democracy]

227. The person that gives their car keys to the town drunk and thinks they are blamelesss

after he kills a few tens of thousands of Iraq civilians is worse than the town drunk that did the driving in many ways.

[Hissyspit]

298. Yeah, figured this from you.

Utter revisionist crap.

[RufusTFirefly]

39. Wait! Maybe she was sleep deprived?

There's just no good way to explain this.

Either she was completely duped, which makes her a dubious leader, or she gambled the lives of thousands for the sake of political expediency, which is even worse.

Senator Clinton and her supporters are hoping that the whole miserable 19 minutes is forgotten. Oh, if only Rosemary Woods were still alive!*





*And yes, I realize that was 18, not 19.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

42. Oh come ON. When are you going to let it go???

Never.

http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/galleries/2013/03/19/the-most-iconic-images-from-the-iraq-war-photos/jcr:content/gallery/9e015170-8824-43af-abfa-970948d05431/image.img.1280.1024.jpg/1363718817048.cached.jpg

[RufusTFirefly]

51. Jeez! Can't we just say "Whoops! Sorry about the dead people!" and move on?? n/t

[PoliticAverse]

118. Not until we at least pay off the trillion $ + debt from the war. n/t

[crim son]

57. You're serious, aren't you?

Speechless.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

61. Did you see the picture?

[marym625]

49. Amen to that!

Last edited Fri Jul 10, 2015, 09:39 AM - Edit history (1)

I don't understand how anyone can dismiss this. For god's sake, hundreds of thousands died because of it. A country is in ruin because of it. The warmongering politicians profited, an unbelievable amount, because of it.

We sent our children there for no reason and they sacrificed their limbs, their minds, their lives, because of it.

How the FUCK do you excuse this? How do you let it slide?

[SusanCalvin]

52. I have never understood

Why so many people were stampeded, while lil ol me knew, at the time, that it at least needed to be looked at long and hard.

Must be because I had experience with Dubya. There are sometimes sad advantages to being a Texan.

Stay away from our repug politicians, y'all.

[seafan]

59. Bob Graham warned his colleagues.

Most ignored him.

The truth was railroaded out of the way. Why should we support people who lack that kind of judgment? Hey, it's only our planet at stake.

Thanks for never forgetting about this, madflo.

[madfloridian]

64. Seafan, I remember that post. "Did you read it" Bob Graham read it all.

Your post was powerful.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/seafan/1888

[antigop]

197. "Clinton replied that she had been briefed, though she did not say by whom." nt

[orpupilofnature57]

60. Bernie gets to stand by his decision, Hillary has to stand in it, populace living .

[jomin41]

71. THE most disappointing time

as an American, and a vet, in my 74 years.

[zentrum]

72. She horrifies me.

The prospect of having to vote for her if she wins the primary, because I am a Democrat and because of the Supreme Court, fills me with fear and loathing.

Thanks for posting the video.

[ibewlu606]

74. NT

At best she's an idiot, at worst she's a warmonger. Either way she's not fit to be our next President.

[MisterP]

75. well there's always Hondu--never mind--Pakist--nuuupe--Liby--crap! Syria?

[donf]

247. The total lack of humanity

displayed in that first clip, is both terrifying and nauseating! How the hell is anyone with a conscience supporting this candidate?

[MisterP]

252. partisan politics maximizes "passion" while minimizing promises or anything else real

emotion that's carefully cultivated--and even more carefully separated from what usually *causes* emotions--is a great moral anesthetic, ain't it?

[Nye Bevan]

76. You donated to, and voted for, John Kerry in 2004, right?

Despite him also voting for the IWR?

[pnwmom]

85. Biden also voted for the IWR, along with other prominent Democrats. n/t

[madfloridian]

86. Yes, I did. And yes, I most likely will do it again...BUT

I guess I am 10 years older and at least that much wiser about the direction of both parties.

It's getting so ugly here. I have been told I'm lying, called names, and more.

So...at the end of the day....I'm not willing to vote for anyone in the clown car.

I can't forget the war vote, though. It changed our country forever. It changed who we are as a nation.

[frylock]

239. I've evolved.

[Uncle Joe]

80. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, madfloridian.

[pnwmom]

82. Of course it can. The length of the speech is completely irrelevant. She formulated her opinion

and based the speech on the false information provided to her by Colin Powell and others she trusted.

That was a mistake, regardless of how long her speech was.

[RufusTFirefly]

90. If you truly believe she simply made a mistake (I don't), she has appalling judgment n/t

[pnwmom]

96. Her judgement was shared by John Kerry and Joe Biden. n/t

[RufusTFirefly]

100. And that makes it right? Ever heard of the Bandwagon Fallacy?

Biden, Kerry, and Clinton aren't stupid. I give them more credit than you do apparently.

Unlike you, I don't believe they made a mistake. I think it was a cold-blooded political calculation. There was a powerful sense that the war would go quickly and successfully and that anyone who voted against it would doom any future presidential ambitions.

[pnwmom]

119. Intelligent people can be deceived. Ted Kennedy said he understood why they voted that way,

even though he voted against the IWR.

As a member of the Armed Services Committee, he had access to classified intelligence that he by law wasn't allowed to share with anyone outside of the Committee. So he knew Colin Powell and others were lying, but the others didn't. Up till then Powell had a reputation as a trustworthy person. BOTH parties had recruited him at times to run for office. (He had been an independent before he became a Republican.) So Clinton, Biden, and Kerry, among others, made the mistake of trusting Powell.

Ted Kennedy, because of his access to classified information, did not.

[RufusTFirefly]

121. "Up till then Powell had a reputation as a trustworthy person."

Oh really? You should read up on My Lai.

[pnwmom]

122. Regardless of My Lai

he was once very popular with politicians and the public on both sides of the aisle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Powell

Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[33] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[34] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.

[RufusTFirefly]

125. There you go again. His popularity makes him trustworthy, eh? n/t

[pnwmom]

128. No, he was popular because people thought him trustworthy, and he was an Independent

and a moderate who seemed politically aloof.

Till he wasn't.

[RufusTFirefly]

129. How do you know he was popular?

Thanks to our wonderful media, we are told time and time again that some people are popular, that some people are the kind of guy you'd have a beer with, that some are electable, that some are unelectable, and that some people are prone to angry Iowa rants. For the most part, it's bullshit. But people buy it and the myth is perpetuated to such an extent that it's almost impossible to undo.

Here's a perfect example. Long after he left office, Ronald Reagan was still touted as "the most popular president since WWII." This factoid was accepted as gospel. Too bad it wasn't true.

It's true that Reagan is popular more than two decades after leaving office. A CNN/Opinion Research poll last month gave him the third-highest approval rating among presidents of the past 50 years, behind John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton. But Reagan's average approval rating during the eight years that he was in office was nothing spectacular - 52.8 percent, according to Gallup. That places the 40th president not just behind Kennedy, Clinton and Dwight Eisenhower, but also Lyndon Johnson and George H.W. Bush, neither of whom are talked up as candidates for Mount Rushmore.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-ronald-reagans-legacy/2011/02/04/ABs1qxQ_story.html

Open your eyes. You're being manipulated and lied to. Daily. And it's obviously working.

[yallerdawg]

136. Colin Powell was popular and trusted.

That's what I remember.

Not in a book, article or Wiki.

[Fred Sanders]

142. You misremember. Powell was a lackey and a useful tool, some remember the infamous U.N. speech.

Appealing to amnesia is sad.

We got tape. Still no Niger yellowcake or a microgram of enriched uranium though.

[yallerdawg]

145. I misremember?

You, sir, are wrong.

I remember my memories quite clearly.

[bvar22]

260. ...don't forget the cartoon drawings that "proved" Saddam...

...had Mobile Weapons Labs.
I will NEVER forget the day that Collin Powell presented the UN with cartoon drawings as "proof" Saddam had Bio Weapons.
I was embarrassed for our whole country,
but Powell seemed to have no problem "catapulting" those Lies with cartoons.

[sarge43]

179. Or kneecapping Clinton about DADT

A commissioned officer, especially a flag, does not publicly disagree with the CinC. Either s/he salutes smartly, carries out the order or trots down to the personnel shed and puts in the retirement papers.

If a subord did that to Powell, he would have had a liver on a pole -- quite rightly, too.

Powell played politics

[delrem]

287. So that's your analysis?

You, a mod for the HRC group and so, I suppose, well informed about HRC, say that the explanation for her vote is that HRC was duped by Colin Powell and others in the Republican admin, that she trusted?

And that excuse satisfies you?

Can you explain why it took HRC so long to repudiate her vote?
That task might be a bit more difficult. No?

Can you explain why she hired Dick Cheney's advisor, Victoria Nuland, when she attained office of SoS?
Why would she go THERE?

Can you explain why it was a good thing that she redefined the PNAC program, the WoT, with a "leading from behind" strategy of promoting ME client countries to unite behind "Friends of Libya" and "Friends of Syria"?

And so on? Do you care? If so, show it. Don't try to excuse HRC as being a patsy to nefarious Republicans, because that excuse is ridiculous.

[pnwmom]

292. What are you talking about? I'm not a mod for the HRC group.

I haven't subscribed to the group and I don't even remember posting an OP in there.

Do you know something I don't? Is someone impersonating me in there?


As far HRC is concerned, I am satisfied with what Ted Kennedy said about the matter. That he didn't blame other Democrats who, lacking the special access to intelligence information that he had, trusted that the Administration wasn't blatantly lying to them.

[delrem]

293. Ah, OK. My mistake.

But I see that I got the rest of it right.

Pathetic.

[delrem]

293. Ah, OK. My mistake.

But I see that I got the rest of it right.

Pathetic.

[Cryptoad]

88. More Negative attacks on HRC,,,,,,

Red State dot com will be proud!

[madfloridian]

91. I look at it as posting her own words.

It was her decision, her vote.

[Cryptoad]

95. Bernie has asked yall to stop

it only helps the GOP..... then again you may already know that!

[magical thyme]

108. where has Bernie asked that DUers stop discussing issues we consider important?

I must have missed something.

[Cryptoad]

113. Ive posted the links

Its common knowledge,,,,, google is your friend.

[magical thyme]

115. don't know where you posted the links, but my google results didn't yield much

Here's the 1st page:


No results found for bernie sanders "do not discuss important issues".Results for bernie sanders do not discuss important issues (without quotes):

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Search Results





Issues Archive - Bernie Sanders



https://berniesanders.com/issues/


Do we continue the 40-year decline of our middle class and the growing gap ... most important questions of our time, and how we answer them will determine the ...


Bernie Sanders Speaks | The Nation



www.thenation.com/article/bernie-sanders-speaks/




The Nation




4 days ago - When Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders told The Nation last year ... “I do not separate the civil-rights issue from the fact that 50 percent of ... How do you discuss Ferguson and not know that, in that particular community, unemployment is off the charts? ... Sanders: Civil rights was a very important part of it.


Bernie Sanders' Issue Positions - Project Vote Smart



votesmart.org/candidate/political-courage-test/27110/bernie-sanders/



Urge Bernie Sanders to fill out the Political Courage Test. ... for Women attaches more value to those votes it considers more important. .... Did Not Check SUPPORT for: "If you are elected to Congress, how will you ..... Sanders said he was delighted that Secretary Duncan promised to personally discuss the waiver issue with ...


Here are Bernie Sanders' Stances on 5 Major Issues You ...



https://www.facebook.com/attn/videos/862574210444706/


JoAnne Romero I like much of what Bernie Sanders has to say. And it would be cool to have a pres. named Bernie. Not sure if he can win. We'll see how things ...


Here are Bernie Sanders' Stances On 5 Major Issues ... - attn



www.attn.com/stories/1551


Apr 30, 2015 - Here are Bernie Sanders' Stances On 5 Major Issues You Care About .... "What I do not support is, under the guise of immigration reform, ...


I side with Bernie Sanders on 89% of issues in the Vermont ...



www.isidewith.com/vermont-senate/214133999:166120847


Do you support affirmative action programs? Your answers: Yes. Somewhat Important. Do you support increased gun control? Bernie Sanders: No, only for ...


Bernie Sanders to Media: Talk About Inequality, Not ...



rhrealitycheck.org/.../bernie-sanders-media-talk-inequality-campaign-soa...


Apr 30, 2015 - Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who announced Wednesday that he will run for ... to discuss the important issues facing the American people, and let's ...


Why Bernie Sanders' Long-Shot Run for The White House ...



observer.com/.../why-bernie-sanders-long-shot-r...




The New York Observer




Apr 29, 2015 - Bernie Sanders will raise some important issues but will not be the ... Sanders will undoubtedly discuss important economic issues from a ...


Bernie Sanders on Hillary, 2016 and personality politics



www.latimes.com/.../la-pn-bernie-sanders-hillary-201...





Los Angeles Times




Mar 6, 2015 - Bernie Sanders, one of Vermont's U.S. senators, is mulling a 2016 run for ... is not a serious discussion about the most important issues facing America, ... Q: What do you think of the continued focus on Massachusetts Sen. .... 'Diversity doesn't just happen': Six women in film discuss the challenges ahead.


News Media Won't Cover Bernie Sanders Because News ...



www.boston.com/...bernie-sanders...bernie-sanders/.../sto...

The Boston Globe




May 1, 2015 - Bernie Sanders will be a “serious” presidential challenger to Hillary Clinton only ... “This is not the Red Sox versus the Yankees,” said Sanders. ... the media's help—allow us to discuss the important issues facing the American

[DisgustipatedinCA]

127. Post 'em again or you have nothing.

Want to make a little wager on this?

[Autumn]

116. Wait! I missed that. When did Bernie tell us we couldn't discuss the Iraq war and the votes

by Senators who gave Bush the authorization to wreck that country and kill and maim many thousands of people, their and ours? No, I don't believe he said that at all. I think 'yall' are not quite being truthful on that. Then again you may already know that!

[BeanMusical]

165. Never.

And I doubt that he ever heard of DU.

[bvar22]

312. Actually, Bernie does know about DU.

I do not know whether he reads DU, or has a staff member read DU, but I do know he knows about this site.

For years, Bernie has appeared on the Thom Hartmann show every Friday for an hour (or more) segment
called "Brunch with Bernie"Bernie even takes phone calls on this show.
IF you time it right, YOU can talk to Bernie.

Thom Hartmann regularly reads DU, and has posted here.
He reads posts from DU over the air,
and regularly gives props to this site....but not near as much as he used to.

[BeanMusical]

313. Thank you for the information.

[Puglover]

241. You have to love the

"it only helps the Republicans" side comment. Now why does that sound a tad familiar?

[Exultant Democracy]

259. One of these things is a lot like the other.

[Fred Sanders]

97. Purposely conflating and confusing an authorization for Presidential war powers as consent to a war is also Red State stuff.

No one, including Clinton, could have seen the evil depths to which Bush, Cheney, Rice, Wolfowitz, and company in the military/industrial media would then later go on to lie America into the actual war.

I am beginning to think mass amnesia has set in at DU.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

99. Us old guys should let our fellow Democrats sort it out in the primaries.

eom

[yallerdawg]

137. Bam!

Clear as a bell.

The rest is just Hillary-haters hatin'.

[latebloomer]

150. No one could have foreseen this?

I think the millions of us out on the streets in every country did indeed foresee this, and were very well aware of the evil that was Cheney et al.

People were sitting in at Hillary's New York office, begging and imploring her to vote against this, and she ignored them.

She was very well aware and she colluded with it anyway.

[marble falls]

181. How is authorizing war powers not a consent for war??????

[bunnies]

196. Anyone who knew about the PNAC knew EXACTLY what was going to happen.

The "mass amnesia" seems only to be shared by those who dont remember the writing was on the wall. And online.

[tularetom]

229. Oh, you're using the old Condoleeza Rice canard, "No one could have foreseen…"

Apparently you weren't around in 2002. A lot of people here on DU, as well as quite a few of her comrades in the Senate did in fact see those evil depths.

I believe she made a political calculation that the war was going to be over fast enough that nobody would remember that she supported it, and like many political calculations she has made, she was wrong.

How can you keep a straight face while you type something like that?

[Fred Sanders]

232. Not knowing history, combined with ulterior motives, twists everything. Twisted DU lately.

Amnesia and ulterior motive is the formula used by American politicians with success for decades.

Starting the Iraq war using bald faced in your face lies no one saw coming. No one saw the depths of the evil of Bush and company when war authority was given by Congress....hindsight is 20/20.

The Big Lie method worked...now folks are buying into the Big Lies again.....remember Ebola, another Big Lie the mass media perpetuated in the public, just to see if the masses could still be manipulated.

Another Big Lie folks are buying into on Clinton, as if she is some kind of warmonger anywhere near the kind of warmongers on the GOP side...recognize propaganda when you see it, or you become part of the problem, not the solution.

[tularetom]

234. Dude, I knew on 9/12 that Bush was going to start a war somewhere as a result of 9/11

Actually I knew he would start a war the day the Supreme Court appointed him president.

It's ridiculous to suggest that any US senator is naive enough to buy into some media created "big lie".

She voted for the AUMF so she would appear "tough" just like the reason she voted for the dumbass patriot act.

[Fred Sanders]

235. Seeing so much into the future with 100% accuracy - it is too bad you were not elected President!

[Fumesucker]

269. Hillary was hoodwinked by Dubya's cunning wiles, faced with a smooth talker like that who wouldn't?

[TM99]

230. Sanders and Byrd did.

As well as millions of citizens.

So if Clinton was not capable of seeing the evil depths then she should not be our Commander in Chief!

[bvar22]

255. "The Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq"

---signed Hillary Clinton

Neither you nor she can take that back.

[davidpdx]

306. No amnesia Freddy

Either Clinton was duped or she voted for it because she knew she'd eventually run for president and that would hurt her chances of winning.

Men and women have been coming home in body bags and missing limbs.

But good job on trying to label people freepers. It's so red state of you.....

[Fred Sanders]

309. Your crystal ball circa 2002 has amazing clarity...looks like lots of folks on the thread made a fortune in the stock market!

[davidpdx]

310. Do you think Hillary Clinton had a crystal ball when she voted for the IWR?

She knew she'd be running for president in the near future and if she voted against it that it would make her look weak. It was a blatantly political decision to vote for the war resolution and that resulted in the deaths tens of thousands of men and women and millions to be disabled. I totally understand why she and her supporters would want to dodge responsibility for that kind of thing.


After all this is the same candidate that used the 3 am commercial in 2008 to try to use the "fear factor":

[99th_Monkey]

98. Unlike some candidates, apparently Hillary isn't proud her Senate record.

That will be hella tough to sell in the General Election IHMO.

[Jester Messiah]

184. Usually it's Republicans who view their prior words as "negative attacks."

Not the first time that similarity has been applicable though.

[delrem]

288. I like your Bernie avatar!

I love it when Hillary's supporters on DU sport a Bernie avatar. It's... so RIGHT.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

92. That is why we have primaries

I trust our fellow Democrats will sort it out in the coming months.

[MuseRider]

117. Thanks madfloridian!

We all knew, we knew and we wrote and we protested and we screamed to anyone who would listen. So did the rest of the darned world. How could Hillary or any of the others not have seen this coming? We knew about PNAC and brought it out to the public. We knew about the inspectors and so did everyone else. How could she, in a position to be very very intimately involved not know this? Did she hold her fingers in her ears and yell, LALALALA? Good grief, wasn't this about the time when Poppy was calling Bill another son? These people are or at least were close, she could not have not known what we out here in the rest of the country and the rest of the world knew. Even with the media begging for a war we knew.

I will never believe that she did this for any other reason than as a political calculation for her future. I do not think she had any idea how badly they would muck it up or how badly and long it would go but still, that does not matter, she helped give him the means to do what he did and we will suffer for it for many years into the future and they will suffer more.

[madfloridian]

130. The Hill: Few senators ever read the NIE report.

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/12304-few-senators-read-iraq-nie-report

The Hill contacted all 69 sitting senators who voted on the war authorization in the wee hours of Oct. 11, 2002, as well as former senators who did so.

Twenty-two senators told The Hill that they read the document before the vote. The offices of 38 senators said they had not read the full report or could not recall, while six senators did not comment. Nine sitting senators and 21 former senators did not return repeated requests for comment (see chart).

Despite not reading the assessment, many senators defended their preparation to examine the administration's ultimately debunked portrayal of Iraqi weapons capability.

“A lot of people on both sides of the aisle are getting whacked around with this,” said former Sen. Bob Smith (R-N.H.), who voted for authorizing war but did not read the full report. “You have to understand that the briefings are so thorough that it’s common for members not to read entire reports.”

....Those who did not read the intelligence — which was available to all members, as well as aides with security clearances — often pointed out that they were not alone.

“Well, I don’t think anybody read the entire report; everybody gets summaries of it,” said Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), who voted to authorize war. “But I read certain parts of it that I thought were the most important.”

[blackspade]

237. Not only did they not read it but they didn't pay any attention to people who knew better...

“A lot of people on both sides of the aisle are getting whacked around with this,” said former Sen. Bob Smith (R-N.H.), who voted for authorizing war but did not read the full report. “You have to understand that the briefings are so thorough that it’s common for members not to read entire reports.”

So, I guess his admission makes it all better....

[Le Taz Hot]

135. Kick

because she can't run from it and she can't hide from it and the apologies on this thread are laughable.

If she knew they were lies and voted on it anyway, she has no soul, if she believed that W would act responsibly, she's had terrible decision-making skill. Either way, unfit for the White House.

[RufusTFirefly]

143. Bingo! Either alternative is a deal-breaker.

And yet I have this gut feeling that's hard to ignore that there's a Third Way I didn't think of.

[delrem]

148. When the best argument is "but my candidate was too stupid to know what W was about!"

What does that tell us?
What does it tell us when that candidate starts the primary race 3 laps ahead, and the best strategy that candidate has is to hide from the press, from questions about history?

It's going to be an ugly, ugly year as the $2.5billion that the candidate's supporters cheerfully trumpet as being the candidate's best (and only) argument is increasingly put into play to sell that "vision".

[donf]

244. Exactly!

nt

[TheFarseer]

149. I think

She has a tendency to want to prove that even though she's a woman she's still the manliest man in the room and I'm afraid it could get us into a bloody and pointless war.

[Old and In the Way]

153. Being a paranoid person that I was in 2010, here is how I viewed the IWR vote.

1. There was no public accounting of 9/11 at this point. For all we know, Bushco LIHOPed the whole thing. We know they had grand plans for the MidEast and we had no public investigation prior to the IWR vote.

2. Lets say, rightfully, every Democrat votes against the IWR....and we still don't know if this adminstration LIHOPed 9/11. What would happen if another terrorist attack happened -this time by Iraqis are fingered? Can you imagine how the media and the Republican Party would have played this? We would have been the pro-terrorist party.

3. Bu sh was on a roll after 9/11. Somehow his total incompetence on not paying attention to the warnings in 2001 gave him political capital to push his bullshit IWR vote. Most Americans supported it.

4. Kerry and Clinton, understanding 1-3 made a conscious decision to support the office of the Presidency. With the caveat that the reason to war must be based on real intelligence and they alone had to deal with the consequences. Turns out Bush/Cheney lied about the intel and Iraq was a total fucking disaster for the US. It is not Clinton or Kerry that is responsible. It is Cheney/Bush who made this happen....it was Bush/Cheney who are totally responsible for our monumental fuck-up in the region.

[sabrina 1]

151. I remember that speech well, I believe it was after Sen Byrd's incredible historic speech.

[madfloridian]

152. I just found a treasure by an old friend DU Sept 19, 2001. Brought tears. No longer with us.

One of my all time favorites. Never knew why he was made to leave. I don't even know how to contact him now.

Excellent front page DU that explains it pretty well.

No Excuses

We should be profoundly grateful that so many legitimate leaders are filling, with such heroic ability, the holes Mr. Bush has left gaping. To assign him their attributes at this time when they are wholly unearned is an insult not only to these true leaders, but to our intelligence and the truth.

Chief among Mr. Bush's many, many failures in this awful week was his evident inability to raise the level of his game above P.R. When this city and the nation were suffering the real consequences of last Tuesday's terror, the Bush administration was on the defensive, protecting the figurehead at its center with elaborate excuses for his failures of action and communication.

It may seem churlish, unpatriotic, even seditious to cast stones at Mr. Bush in this time of great crisis when, after years of ludicrously petty partisanship, the nation has been thrust into apparently sincere unity. But I fear that excusing Mr. Bush - especially in this moment of crisis - from responsibility for actions that, to my mind, threatened the very life of American democracy would be a grave error, the consequences of which could be as devastating to the body politic as the terrorists' improvised bombs were to the Twin Towers.

Hey BW if you still read DU contact me at Twitter. You are still remembered.

[Enthusiast]

171. +1 a huge bunch!

[SoapBox]

155. Kick!

...she's toast, for a lot of things.

[davidthegnome]

156. A whole lot of people supported that decision.

Of course, a whole lot of us were against it, too. From the beginning, I didn't think we had any business getting involved in Iraq. (Afghanistan I was a bit more uncertain about.) We did not have enough evidence to confirm that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. As it turns out - there were not. Had this been confirmed beforehand (that yes, there certainly were WMD) - and had it been confirmed that they were either capable, or nearly capable of using them, I might have felt differently. Then perhaps, a pre-emptive strike might have made more sense.

The inspectors asked for more time - it was not given. It seems to me that there was this great rush to get it started right away, without allowing enough time for the inspectors to finish their jobs - or enough time for the government officials to review the information available and make an informed decision. I do not believe that Clinton made an informed decision in this case - I believe that Obama did, which has a lot to do with why I supported him in the first place.

Basically, we launched an invasion of a Nation which our bombs and our sanctions had ALREADY crushed militarily and economically. A Nation that did not want to fight us - a few lunatics and extremists do not count. True, it was a Nation ruled by a cruel, brutal tyrant, but if that were truly our concern, we would have toppled the Saudi government long ago as well - not to mention several other "friendly" Dictators.

Any way we look at it, she made the wrong call here. The only real consolation is that so did many, many other Americans. Including John Kerry - voting in favor of war authorization was a terrible call in this case. Perhaps some expected that diplomatic efforts would be exhausted first, I don't know.

They should have done better - I do not believe the American people wanted the Iraq war. I do not believe our military was prepared for it and I do not believe the Nation was prepared for the massive debt, the loss of life, the thousands of injured service members coming back home... this was the wrong call.

I believe it is therefor our responsibility, our obligation, to ensure that this sort of thing does not happen again, by electing those who will not be arm twisted, manipulated, threatened, or bullied into supporting an illegal war. If, however, Clinton wins the nomination, she will have my vote for three reasons. I will not vote for a Republican. I will not vote third party (for obvious reasons - mainly - they cannot win). Thirdly, if Clinton actually secures the nomination, then she will indeed be the nominee that we deserve, regardless of what I think of her personally.

With that being said... hundreds of thousands of lives is a huge fucking price to pay for ignorance, manipulation, deception - and simple, stupid greed.

Our people and the people we share this world with all deserve better than this.

[Stardust]

159. What arms? Please don't tell me you believed that cock and bull story about WMDs, Sec

Clinton.

[BeanMusical]

163. We came, we saw...

hundreds of thousands died horrible deaths.

[sheshe2]

164. ...

[rpannier]

168. Mixed feelings on this

She's running for President and she's the only one running right now that voted for it
But there were a lot of Democrats in the House and Senate that voted for it

Kerry/Edwards 2004. Curious how many here voted for the ticket
Or supported either in the primaries.
For the record, I will admit I supported Edwards in 04 and 08
Biden voted for it
Schumer voted for it.
Along with a favorite of DU Max Cleland of Georgia. The Vietnam War hero who lost limbs in the war
Harkin also voted for it

Sanders, of course, voted no

[pansypoo53219]

170. i believe Kerry ALSO voted yay, & he was nominated.

[Ken Burch]

172. And ran a godawful fall campaign that stood for nothing, and lost by three million votes.

Whereas, if he'd run as an all-out opponent of the war (rather than on that stupid, pointless, meaningless "we can do it better" plank) and an anti-interventionist position on the Middle East, a platform that honored the hero he was in 1971 rather than apologizing for the courage of his youth, he'd have kicked Bush's ass.

There was no support for such a creature as a "liberal hawk" (in reality, a paiinfully centrist hawk) in 2004.

[hedgehog]

201. You put my reaction into words - I voted for Kerry but wasn't

excited by him - more a vote against Bush than a vote for Kerry.

[bvar22]

315. I will never forget John Kerry,

walking up to the podium at the Democratic Convention,
saluting,
and then saying, "John Kerry reporting for duty"


I cringed with embarrassment, and his campaign went downhill from there.
I wondered why they didn't just put him in a flight suit and hang a Mission Accomplished Banner over his head.

I attended 3 Campaign Events for Kerry,
and all 3 were snoozers,
but his running mate knew how to energize a crowd.

I had remembered him and loved him from his days as a War Protestor,
and his appearance before Congress was spectacular....strong, concise, confident, powerful.
That was not the same man that campaigned for the Presidency in 2004.

[WilliamPitt]

173. This thread is remarkable.

People defending the Iraq War in order to defend the Clinton campaign.

Utterly fucking shameless.

[Ichingcarpenter]

178. Its torture but I guess

Last edited Fri Jul 10, 2015, 10:19 AM - Edit history (1)

there's a loophole for torture too, like when Hillary wanted to play 24 with torture.

http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/mccain-team-mocks-hil-torture-loophole-article-1.632278

[BeanMusical]

188. Yes, it's puke inducing.

[WillyT]

189. + 1,000,000,000 What You Said !!!

[Enthusiast]

193. +1 You nailed it.

Fucking shameless.

[Damansarajaya]

249. +1000 No kidding.

[fed-up]

299. could be long time trolls! eom nothing else makes sense!

[Zorra]

322. ^^^What Will Said^^^. There's no place, and no way, to hide from this, and no

amount of spin can make it go away or change it.

[Babel_17]

174. I opposed the resolution but could understand the hard choice it represented

I opposed the resolution but could understand the hard choice it represented. I was dismayed however when those who voted for it did not rise up and in a chorus denounce Bush when he ignored the premise of the resolution.*

The inspectors said that there were no WMD's and that Iraq was complying. The inspectors said "let us do our job". For Bush to ignore that was to ignore the limits on his authority proposed by the resolution. The resolution was sold to the Senate, and to the public, as having conditions.

Bush violated them and our Senators didn't rise up to call him out. Being hoodwinked by shoddy intelligence isn't good, but it's somewhat understandable. Cowering while Bush acts like a usurper from Roman history is something much different. That's what I don't forgive. That was a crime and all that "keeping our powder dry", and "looking forward, not back", was done in error.

Historical revisionism keeps compounding the error. Things are what they are, and a travesty was committed. And because we never fully faced up to it we now get to see it rear its head up again.

*Our people should have let the administration know that if they voted for the resolution there would be hell to pay if it was abused. That the Bush administration evidently correctly saw our party as too beaten down to manage that, was reason to not vote for the resolution. We at home didn't know this, so we perhaps were more tolerant of the resolution passing. Seeing later that it amounted to a rubber stamp is why those who voted for it still have to answer for it.

[arely staircase]

180. Bernie still stands by his pro gun votes

wish he could admit mistakes

[imthevicar]

209. Let me put this to you,

How about we have the house expand to its Constitutional level, This web site will explain what I mean By "Constitutional level" (http://www.thirty-thousand.org) And be able to Hold them to it In perpetuity, IE Forever! Then, My friend, we can have a vote on a constitutional amendment ether Nullifying or Modifying the Second amendment. and before you respond to me with that "Well regulated" argument, it would suit You to look up what "Well regulated" meant 250 years ago when the Constitution was written.

[Damansarajaya]

248. The question of gun control is very complex, not least because of

the 2nd Amendment, which has been interpreted by highest courts in the land as insuring constitutional right "to keep and bear arms."

I favor some new gun control myself, but to compare this issue to giving Bush authority to go to war over a pack of lies is in no way comparable.

[NRaleighLiberal]

199. A very revealing and informative thread in so many ways.

And incredibly depressing.

[malthaussen]

203. Setting aside issues of chickenhawkdom and evolution

She's summing up by saying she is in favor of putting awesome power and responsibility in the hands of George W. Bush... and expects him to use it wisely.

Rhetorical flourish or not, that just makes her look stupid.

-- Mal

[liberal N proud]

204. You have never regretted anything and called what you did a mistake?

Good for you!

[TheSarcastinator]

214. Errrr....

NONE of my mistakes ever resulted in the loss of millions of lives, hundreds of billions dollars and the respect of the international community. Nor did I ever make a mistake that allowed a radical extremist group to control an entire nation.

[malthaussen]

217. The OPer is not running for the highest and most important single job in government.

So different standards apply. And when a "oopsie" causes the kind of fallout that voting for the AUMF did, it counts a bit more as an evalutation of judgement than, say, buying the wrong flavor of ice cream.

On edit: as for me, I was intending to reply to the poster above. Guess I made a mistake. There's a moral there somewhere.

-- Mal

[PoliticAverse]

281. "hundreds of billions dollars" - it's at least a trillion dollars in total costs.

Last edited Sat Jul 11, 2015, 07:43 AM - Edit history (1)

(Edited to add link to the Iraq war debt wikipedia page)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War

[fed-up]

300. try about 7 trillion-including care for returning vets-won't talk about neglected infatsructure eom

[Le Taz Hot]

236. Never involving the death of millions,

no.

[yellowwoodII]

212. Creepy!

I don't know how she can live with herself, given the way things have turned out.

I think that if she is our candidate, Democrats will lose in the next election.

[Demonaut]

220. 16 minutes would have been a mistake...19..OH NO!

[malthaussen]

221. Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution...

... provides that Congress, and Congress alone, shall declare war, but very conveniently leaves out any strictures as to what form such declaration must take. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled in 2013's Doe v Bush that the AUMF (and presumably similar resolutions, such as the Tonkin Gulf resolution) constitutes the equivalent of a formal declaration of war.

Setting aside for the nonce the question of whether or not Congress has attempted more than once since WWII to cravenly resign the authority placed in it by the Constitution, it is clear that since only Congress can declare a war, anything that authorizes a war or military action is the responsibility of Congress, and that the well-known ethical principle "What I do through the hands of another, I do myself" applies. Simply put, Congress does not have the sanction to pass the buck on this issue, how ever much they may desire to.

The only way around this for the supporters of anyone who voted for the AUMF is to say that the Administration criminally abused their power and acted against the wishes and authorization of Congress. If this be so, where are the indictments? Surely it would not be in the best interests of Congress or the nation to allow such abuse of power to go unpunished.

-- Mal

[CrispyQ]

222. From Wiki:

58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution. Those voting for the resolution are:

Lincoln (D-AR)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Dodd (D-CT)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Biden (D-DE)
Carper (D-DE)
Nelson (D-FL)
Cleland (D-GA)
Miller (D-GA)
Bayh (D-IN)
Harkin (D-IA)
Breaux (D-LA)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Baucus (D-MT)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Clinton (D-NY)
Schumer (D-NY)
Edwards (D-NC)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Hollings (D-SC)
Daschle (D-SD)
Johnson (D-SD)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Kohl (D-WI)

42% of Democratic senators (21 of 50) voted against the resolution. Those voting against the resolution are:

Boxer (D-CA)
Graham (D-FL)
Akaka (D-HI)
Inouye (D-HI)
Durbin (D-IL)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Levin (D-MI)
Dayton (D-MN)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Conrad (D-ND)
Wyden (D-OR)
Reed (D-RI)
Leahy (D-VT)
Murray (D-WA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Feingold (D-WI)

I voted for Kerry in '04 cuz I thought he would be better than Bush. I'll probably vote for HRC if she gets the nom, cuz she'll be better than any of the freaks the repubs put up. So our country will continue its slide into fascism & the rich will get richer & the planet will get hotter.

"We're not as bad as the other guys," does not mean a change in course, just that we won't go over the cliff as quickly, although climate change could be a game changer there.

I don't know how much longer dems can count on people like me to keep playing this game. It's a depressing, fucked up mess.

[davidpdx]

307. What is interesting is how few of those senators are still around

Lincoln (D-AR)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Dodd (D-CT)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Biden (D-DE)
Carper (D-DE)
Nelson (D-FL)
Cleland (D-GA)
Miller (D-GA)
Bayh (D-IN)
Harkin (D-IA)
Breaux (D-LA)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Baucus (D-MT)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Clinton (D-NY)
Schumer (D-NY)
Edwards (D-NC)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Hollings (D-SC)
Daschle (D-SD)
Johnson (D-SD)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Kohl (D-WI)

[onecaliberal]

228. Hard is 4 deployments to the middle east.

To control and destroy people who did nothing to you. Hard is coming home to a government that will not honor their commitment to you whether it's healthcare, jobs or anything else.
I knew this would be a disaster. I don't have access to any of the intel she did, being a senator at the time. The life and treasure lost and exploited cannot be dismissed as a mistake. It's amazing to me she can blow it off so simply.
It's NOT hard to send other peoples children to fight and die for illegal wars. Apparently, the hard thing is growing intestinal fortitude to stop this shit once and for all.

[olddots]

233. If I ever expressed my feelings about Hillary here I would be banned in minutes

I will not but the more I learn and remember about her the more I am embarrassed to consider her what I ( thats just my opinion ) think a Democrat is .Maybe I shouldn't be here anymore because this primary is not like the rest that made so many people leave ,this isn't sports this is real .

[LeFleur1]

253. Banned in Minutes

If I ever expressed my feelings on here about other hate filled jerk posters who refuse to discuss issues, base their opinion on one vote, refuse to acknowledge that Bush was supported by a good many Americans, right or wrong, call our candidates names and belittle their intelligence, refuse to admit that they were in the minority (as was I), I'd be banned for sure. FYI I never did trust Bush or Cheney, and I was against the invasion of Iraq.

If those of us who want to look at the issues and the candidate's support of each instead turned into raging puddles of anti Bernie, we could write hateful things about his support of gun owners...those rural hunters? Sometimes they turn their guns on innocent people and shoot away, killing innocent children. There is no reason at all they shouldn't follow any gun regulations we can get passed that would help save innocent people. Where is the disgust, name calling, hatred for Bernie on that issue? The death of innocent children, and he supports it. (just looking at things the way the Hillary haters look at things). And how about his disrespect of women? What person who supports women's issues could vote for a person who disregards women the way Bernie did in his article? What suffering he caused for many women. See? That's what these raging haters do. They pick and choose what deaths and inequalities they will be so self righteous about. If you don't know the smart, good and thoughtful things Hillary has done as First Lady, as Senator, as Secretary of State, you don't know nothin.
I've never seen anything like it since I visited a far right wing forum to see what they were saying. Their words were so garbled and senseless I just left. Which is what I am going to do now because senseless and garbled does not offer a reasonable discussion of anything.

[Puglover]

240. I don't hate Hillary at all.

Some do on this site. I do not.

That said, I cannot support her due to her vote. As someone said above, even me a little nobody know Iraq WMD were trumped up bullshit by a giggling murderer and his evil side kick.

And Hillary had to have known better than I.

So no. Her vote was (to me) a deal breaker.

[Damansarajaya]

242. Any Democrat who trusted Bush after he STOLE THE FUCKING ELECTION

became an enabler of this terrible man and terrible president.

Bernie Sanders never did that.

[jalan48]

271. Absolutely.

It's like Democrats collectively forgot about the 2000 election immediately after 9-11. However, there was a blood lust going on in the country and in the media (Phil Donahue found out just how much). It was either support the troops or shut up. We were played.

[Damansarajaya]

319. Couldn't agree more. And the appalling thing is that a lot of us

KNEW it was BS and lies from the same guy who shut down the recount in Florida.

To see everyone get played when you know they're getting played same as they got played before, and not be able to stop it. It's the ultimate nightmare.

[jomin41]

251. Circular firing squad....DISMISSED!

[Angry Dragon]

254. I do not trust Hillary

[Herman4747]

261. LIKE MANY OTHER DEMOCRATS, SHE WAS STUPID...

...Doesn't mean she's stupid now.

Most importantly, she's our best chance for victory next year.

Please, I don't want to have to deal with another President Bush!!!

[MisterP]

265. running the candidate that perfectly represents the fact that the party's becoming a gaping vacuum

with nothing to run on other than "we hate the Republicans but not their policies" will *guarantee* us another Bush in the WH

and she's been "stupid" in Honduras, Libya, and Syria

and she'll never love you back

[SCantiGOP]

270. Thanks, Herman4747

You may be outnumbered but some of us here agree with you.

[uwep]

262. Going after Hillary with old arguments

Shame. I hope that you get what you want. Sanders, if nominated, will not win.

[peace13]

266. They may be old but they are valid.

If you think these things are not going to be front and center come election time, you are kidding yourself.

[Indepatriot]

268. What's a little slaughter amongst friends?...

[HFRN]

263. she did what was best for her at the time

and she knew her apologists would whitewash it and bully anyone who tried to make anything of it later

[840high]

272. "best for her" says it all

[Indepatriot]

267. Maybe she "MISSPOKE"

You know like with the whole Bosnia sniper fire tale...

[Aerows]

273. It's advocacy.

Not a "mistake".

[BeanMusical]

314. +1

[YOHABLO]

278. You have to admit that The Bush/Cheney/CIA/Pentagon Intelligence apparatus was manipulating.

We know now that Saddam had no WMD etc. but the administration was feeding them false information. I do hope that during the debates that this "predicament" for Hillary is brought to the fore. It's just so obvious that Bush was determined to invade Iraq even if Bush/Cheney and Poodle Blair would have to lie their way into it. So they did.

Why does Hillary use the pronunciation of Saddam/ intertwined with Sodom? Bush senior and junior said it that way as well. As if it were Sodom and Gomorrah. Whatever. I'll stick with Bernie.

[sabrina 1]

316. It wasn't a mistake. However either way, a mistake of what she actually believed, that she could

trust Bush/Cheney, the decision proves a total lack of good judgement, judgement ordinary people were capable of without all the information that was available to her.

So it really doesn't matter. It was a devastatingly bad decision, and no leader should make such a bad call and expect to be given the awesome power to make such an error of judgement again.

[Indepatriot]

318. MILLIONS of us knew the case for AUMF was lies. Millions.

I marched in a half dozen HUGE protests in L.A. They were happening all over the country and the World. I believe it was pure Political Expediency. Mrs. Clinton is very smart and I would think knew exactly what she was doing. From a practical standpoint she made the "prudent" political decision. Unfortunately for her the Invasion of Iraq was of course an unmitigated disaster. She's now up against someone whose record shows him to have been on the right side of several major issues that Sec. Clinton made the wrong discision on.

[Adrahil]

321. Sure it can.

I've been very passionate about stuff I later decided I was mistaken about. It's called being self-reflexive.

That doesn't mean you can;t hold her responsible for it, if you want.

I was raised in a reasonably conservative family, and went my own way starting in college. But some issues were a journey for me. I wasn't "right" on all the issues throughout my life, and I don't expect other people to be either. I do expect them to learn, and admit mistakes however.