Would Hillary have voted for war if her daughter's life was on the line?

[Clarkie1]

Poll question: Would Hillary have voted for war if her daughter's life was on the line?

[knight_of_the_star]

1. I vote maybe

Because it depends on if she thought it would be politically beneficial to her or not to vote for it with her daughter in harms way.

[SaveElmer]

2. She didn't vote for war...your poll is a POS...nt

[Clarkie1]

5. Byrd says she did.

SENATOR BYRD: ELOQUENTLY RESISTING THE RUSH TO WAR -- (Senate - October 10, 2002)

GPO's PDF
--- Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome this opportunity to commend our outstanding colleague, Senator ROBERT BYRD, for his thoughtful and eloquent op-ed article in The New York Times this morning. In his article, Senator BYRD rightfully condemns the failure of Congress to take adequate time to exercise our all-important constitutional responsibility in deciding whether or not America should go to war with Iraq.

Instead of fairly assessing the full consequences of the administration's proposal, Congress is allowing itself to be rushed into a premature decision to go to war. Many of us agree with Senator BYRD, and so do large numbers of Americans across the country.

We owe the Senate and the Nation a more thoughtful deliberation about war. Senator BYRD'S article is a powerful statement urging Congress not delegate our constitutional power to the President, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:



Congress Must Resist the Rush to War

(By Robert C. Byrd)
WASHINGTON.--A sudden appetite for war with Iraq seems to have consumed the Bush administration and Congress. The debate that began in the Senate last week is centered not on the fundamental and monumental questions of whether and why the United States should go to war with Iraq, but rather on the mechanics of how best to wordsmith the president's use-of-force resolution in order give him virtually unchecked authority to commit the nation's military to an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation.

How have we gotten to this low point in the history of Congress? Are we too feeble to resist the demands of a president who is determined to bend the collective will of Congress to his will--a president who is changing the conventional understanding of the term ``self-defense''? And why are we allowing the executive to rush our decision-making right before an election? Congress, under pressure from the executive branch, should not hand away its Constitutional powers. We should not hamstring future Congresses by casting such a shortsighted vote. We owe our country a due deliberation.

I have listened closely to the president, I have questioned the members of his war cabinet. I have searched for that single piece of evidence that would convince me that the president must have in his hands, before the month is out, open-ended Congressional authorization to deliver an unprovoked attack on Iraq. I remain unconvinced. The president's case for an unprovoked attack is circumstantial at best. Saddam Hussein is a threat, but the threat is not so great that we must be stampeded to provide such authority to this president just weeks before an election.

Why are we being hounded into action on a resolution that turns over to President Bush the Congress's Constitutional power to declare war? This resolution would authorize the president to use the military forces of this nation wherever, whenever and however he determines, and for as long as he determines, if he can somehow make a connection to Iraq. It is a blank check for the president to take whatever action he feels ``is necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posted by Iraq.'' This broad resolution underwrites, promotes and endorses the unprecedented Bush doctrine of preventive war and pre-emptive strikes--detailed in a recent publication, ``National Security Strategy of the United Staets''--against any nation that the president, and the president alone, determines to be a threat.

We are at the gravest of moments. Members of Congress must not simply walk away from their Constitutional responsibilities. We are the directly elected representatives of the American people, and the American people expect us to carry out our duty, not simply hand it off to this or any other president. To do so would be to fail the people we represent and to fall woefully short of our sworn oath to support and defend the Constitution.

We may not always be able to avoid war, particularly if it is thrust upon us, but Congress must not attempt to give away the authority to determine when war is to be declared. We must not allow any president to unleash the dogs of war at his own discretion and for an unlimited period of time.

Yet that is what we are being asked to do. The judgment of history will not be kind to us if we take this step.

Members of Congress should take time out and go home to listen to their constituents. We must not yield to this absurd pressure to act now, 27 days before an election that will determine the entire membership of the House of Representatives and that of a third of the Senate. Congress should take the time to hear form the American people, to answer their remaining questions and to put the frenzy of ballot-box politics behind us before we vote. We should hear them well, because while it is Congress that casts the vote, it is the American people who will pay for a war with the lives of their sons and daughters.


http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r107:2:./temp/~r1... ::

[papau]

57. In the excerpt you posted Byrd did NOT say IWR was a vote for war - he said that

the IWR gave Bush the power to make the decision of war, or no war.

FYI - Bush claimed he had that going to war power/right without the IWR - and the IWR was just a public demonstration of support for his chasing Saddam. I know the Constitution says otherwise, but short of impeachment, the President does his own interpretation of his powers.

Which is why we should not be bashing Hillary - we should be pushing for the Bush impeachment.

[pocoloco]

10. Really hard to erase a public record!

[SaveElmer]

12. Which you have apparently not read...nt

[knight_of_the_star]

13. Read the text of the resolution

Like that part about whatever he may deem necessary

[SaveElmer]

15. Read Hillary's statement...and the first clause of the IWR...

Which specifically states the purpose of the resolution...

Bush has violated the IWR itself

[PurpleChez]

25. Yes, he did...but what thinking person DIDN'T know ahead of time

that * was going to use the resolution to legitimize his war. If she didn't see what was coming she's as stupid as * is.

[Zhade]

66. Indeed. What kind of person trusts a man who stole his way into office?

A dumb or uninformed one - and NOT one fit to be president.

Thankfully, she likely won't win the primaries.

[knight_of_the_star]

27. I could care less what spin she gives

No sane person under ANY circumstances should EVERY in ANY Democracy vote for a piece of legislation that gives ONE person the power, within any scope or sphere, the power to act as they see fit. That is the antithesis of democracy and is what lead the way to men like Caesar, Mussolini, and Hitler.

[PurpleChez]

29. RIGHT ON!!!!!!!!!!

She enabled the chimp, plain and simple. I still like her, but I don't think I could ever love her.

[SaveElmer]

34. Now you are spinning...

Even in the context of the IWR he was not given unlimited power...

The first clause clearly spells out under what circumstances the IWR was provided for...Bush violated both of them...

Last, it is delusional to believe Bush would have let a no vote on the IWR stop him...he believed, as he said then, and says now, that he had the constitutional authority to act...

[PurpleChez]

41. So... it doesn't matter that more people didn't vote against *

since he'd have started the war anyway? Good gawd.

[SOS]

60. Section 2 is nothing but hot air

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the
President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

There were NO CONDITIONS. The Congress merely "supported the efforts" to enforce UNSC resolutions. It's empty, meaningless rhetoric.
Bush didn't violate anything, since Sec. 2 requires nothing of him.

[SaveElmer]

63. Section 3...

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

Neither 1 or 2 were applicable...and he knew it...I read it as he has exceeded the authority given him

[knight_of_the_star]

68. That's still very flexible

(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

First he managed to convince the people and the Congress at least for a short while this was true. Not to mention how easy it is to say any actions to defend American interests in relation to Iraq could be seen as defending national security or perceived as such.

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

How would that stop him from attempting to get another resolution to justify the war without need for WMDs?

Also, where does it say in IWR that he will be in serious trouble if he violates the terms of the resolution?

[SaveElmer]

71. ...

"How would that stop him from attempting to get another resolution to justify the war without need for WMDs?"

He could try, but I guarantee the vast majority of the Democratic "Yes" votes (probably all but 1...and we know who that is), would not have voted for it...

"Also, where does it say in IWR that he will be in serious trouble if he violates the terms of the resolution?"

This is not a law, which usually proscribes action and authorizes punishment. This is a resolution authorizing action...I do not recall ever seeing a resolution which included punishment for violating it...not that a Republican controlled Congress would hold him accountable anyway

The fact remains, neither the security of the United States, nor the enforcement of UN resolutions required a military response according to this authorization...and Bush knew that...

He did exceed his authority...

[knight_of_the_star]

77. But she did nothing to limit the scope of it

She voted for IWR which gave no means of holding him accountable, did not present any alternatives, and does give the means for him to act as he saw fit. She didn't exceed the scope of the authority granted, but she did nothing to prevent it and spend too much time defending an immoral war and policy.

In the eyes of the law, when a man commits murder, and you provide him an alibi to the police that is later discovered to be untrue and assist him in his escape then you are an accessory before and after the fact and just as guilty as the man who pulled the trigger.

And as one thing to leave you with to think about,

"There is a special place in hell for those who remain neutral in times of moral crisis." Dante, The Divine Comedy

I wonder if that place has room for those who try to fight for both sides?

As far as I am concerned, a leader has to be flexible to a point in their decisions, but there must come a time when they plant their feet, draw their sword, and shout in a loud, clear voice, "I will NOT let this injustice pass and will fight to my last breath to keep it from happening!" Until Hillary stops pandering to both sides and makes a clear, principled stand for what is right, she will never get my vote in the primaries and will only get my vote in the general because she isn't a Republican.

[SOS]

75. Section 3

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

There were no conditions, period. The Congress authorized him to use the Armed Forces as he determined to be necessary.
In 3b, Bush is given 100% sole authority to determine whether his non-existent "efforts" had met with success.

[SaveElmer]

76. ...

in order to

If this was a blanket authorization...why include the two specifics...

Bush exceeded his authority

[knight_of_the_star]

65. Thank you!

How can you say someone violated you giving support? That is for all intents and purposes a total abdication of Congressional authority.

[knight_of_the_star]

62. Now you're spinning

And accusing me of the same. Go ahead and tell me that the clause I cited is NOT in IWR with a straight face.

"The first clause clearly spells out under what circumstances the IWR was provided for...Bush violated both of them...

Last, it is delusional to believe Bush would have let a no vote on the IWR stop him...he believed, as he said then, and says now, that he had the constitutional authority to act..."

That is contradictory in and of itself to say in one breath the circumstances were provided and yet then to say he would have acted without and its delusional to ignore that. So why did she vote for IWR if it is obvious to anyone he would have acted as he saw fit anyway? That gave him moral authority to act as he saw fit. And how does that jibe with voting for legislation that gives a clause that says one man has the power to "act as they see fit?" How does that fit into democracy as a whole? How does that ensure the man being given the power will actually act responsibly and not violate the terms of the resolution? And how can you tell me with a straight face it is ok to give someone such broad and open-ended authority then complain about him violating other terms of the resolution? How do his actions not fit under the category of acting as they saw fit?

[SaveElmer]

67. Clause 3

I misspoke...

This clause is the Authorization to act


(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

He violated it...

What makes you think a no vote would have been any different...

[knight_of_the_star]

70. How about she could have shown some principles for a change

She could have said, "No I am not voting for this capitulation of Congressional responsibility, I am standing for checks and balances and rule of law" and then she would have actual credibility to speak on the issue now. Not to mention if the IWR was defeated then it would have made it difficult for Bush/Cheney to drum up support for the war, Congress would have said no we're not in on this and that would have made it harder to convince the people. Hillary could have stood against it, she could have worked to defeat it, but she didn't. She took the approach that made her look tough and then spent the next three years defending her vote until just after the recent elections. She still has yet to apologize to my knowledge.

[SaveElmer]

73. There was more than one principle involved...

There was the principle that a country that had used WMD's on its own people should not be allowed to retain that capability...

There is the principle that a country that threatens and invades its neighbors should not be allowed to have weapons which make those threats more credible...

There is the principle that the world has the right to demand a mechanism for making sure those capabilities are not retained....through rigorous inspection and destruction of that capability

That is what these 28 Democrats were voting for...

[knight_of_the_star]

80. Totally groundless

"There was the principle that a country that had used WMD's on its own people should not be allowed to retain that capability..."

Except it was well-proven by the time of the vote that Saddam HAD no WMD capability, so half of that argument is flawed. The other half is how about other countries that do that and get a pass? Does genocide need WMDs to be considered bad? How does that fit with the US keeping a nuclear stockpile that can destroy the entire world?

"There is the principle that a country that threatens and invades its neighbors should not be allowed to have weapons which make those threats more credible..."

Yet he was no threat and not making any threats in 2002 to his neighbors. Why punish a country that was already beaten nearly to death already for their attempt to do so? What about Israel? They have nukes and one of the most powerful military forces in the world and HAVE used theirs for invasion, look at what happened recently in Lebanon.

"There is the principle that the world has the right to demand a mechanism for making sure those capabilities are not retained....through rigorous inspection and destruction of that capability"

But those capabilities were demonstrated by our own and foreign intelligence not to exist, so how is Iraq a threat again?

"That is what these 28 Democrats were voting for..."

Those Democrats will all rot in the eternal ice and cold of Hell with only Loki for company for their lack of courage and virtue as far as I am concerned. At least to their credit Kerry and Edwards have tried to make amends and admit they made a serious mistake. Hillary hasn't. That does not absolve them of responsibility, but at least they aren't trying to perpetuate the disaster.

[SaveElmer]

81. ...

Except it was well-proven by the time of the vote that Saddam HAD no WMD capability, so half of that argument is flawed. The other half is how about other countries that do that and get a pass? Does genocide need WMDs to be considered bad? How does that fit with the US keeping a nuclear stockpile that can destroy the entire world?

Wrong...in fact it was not proven...as the statements by IWR opponents acknowledging the intelligence on WMD's to be correct testifies too...the falsity of this intelligence was not revealed widely until after the war started...

You don't get a pass when you have used them

http://www.kdp.pp.se/old/chemical.html


"Yet he was no threat and not making any threats in 2002 to his neighbors. Why punish a country that was already beaten nearly to death already for their attempt to do so? What about Israel? They have nukes and one of the most powerful military forces in the world and HAVE used theirs for invasion, look at what happened recently in Lebanon."

I guess I missed the news that Israel had used nuclear weapons...gotta link for that

"But those capabilities were demonstrated by our own and foreign intelligence not to exist, so how is Iraq a threat again?"

Wrong...here is a link to the NIE in October of 2002...stating explicitly the opposite...

https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.pdf

Now this is clearly bullshit...but was not so known at the time....

"Those Democrats will all rot in the eternal ice and cold of Hell with only Loki for company for their lack of courage and virtue as far as I am concerned. At least to their credit Kerry and Edwards have tried to make amends and admit they made a serious mistake. Hillary hasn't. That does not absolve them of responsibility, but at least they aren't trying to perpetuate the disaster."

Yeah here is what Max CLeland's lack of courage got him...nothing like a keyboard jockey calling a war hero a coward...

[SOS]

82. They voted for "principles" that were not in the law?

No, they voted on the law as written.

It is impossible to vote for "principles" not contained in the text of the law.
How would anyone know?

[SOS]

79. Bush did not violate the IWR.

He was authorized to use the Armed Forces as he determined to be necessary.

Bush was given the authority to determine whether Iraq posed a threat and whether UNSC resolutions were being enforced.

He determined that Iraq was a threat and that UNSC resolutions were not being enforced. He did that on his own, because nothing else was required of him.

Iraq was no threat to the US, but Bush determined otherwise, as authorized in the IWR.

[Zhade]

69. You said it. The IWR was undemocratic to its core.

NT!

[bdrube]

20. Your denial of reality is downright Bushian. n/t

[SaveElmer]

23. Actually your refusal to look at actual evidence...

Is Bushian...

I take it you have abandoned the Wal Mart line of attack eh?

[PurpleChez]

28. Ah...ad hominem attacks invoking Wal Mart!

This battle of wits has been joined!

[SaveElmer]

32. Ah..take a look at the posters previous thread...

On Hillary and WalMart...for context

[mtnsnake]

31. Your idiotic anti-Hillary crusade is downright Limbaughian. nt

[PurpleChez]

36. I don't think it's idiotic. I think Hillary is an opportunistic hypocrite.

I'd still vote for her. I'd still be happy to have her as my president. But I've got no illusions that she's a tower of principle or anything of the sort.

[bdrube]

39. I doubt that Limbaugh supports Mike Gravel. n/t

[PurpleChez]

21. Yeah...she sort of did....

and she enabled * until it was expedient to do otherwise. Talking about "completing the mission," instead of asking WTF the mission was in the first place. I'd still be happy to have her as my president, but she ain't no beacon of principle in my eyes

[SaveElmer]

30. She really didn't...and made that clear...

In her statements...and though she expressed support for the troops, end toned down criticism of Bush after the start of the invasion, she has never been a supporter of the war itself, or of Bush and his handling of it...

There is a long-standing tradition that once war has begun you rally behind your leaders and the troops...

Republicans did not follow that tradition on Kosovo, but Hillary did at first...

Over time however as it became apparent that lies had indeed been told, she became harshly critical...

In particular she was particularly diligent in efforts to expose contract fraud relating to rebuilding contracts, and as time went by more harshly critical of the entire enterprise...

[PurpleChez]

33. The only statement that really matters was her vote

giving Chimpy carte blanche to carry out a war that a lot of us knew from the start was a sham. She's a politician...she ain't no hero.

[SaveElmer]

35. That is simply not true...nt

[PurpleChez]

38. How is it not? She cast the vote. Half of this country and most of the world knew

that Bush was lying. She read the mood of the country and didn't want to look bad. So she took the easy route. Too bad the easy route led to 100s of 1000s of dead people.

[SaveElmer]

40. You are mistaken...

I have read the statement of every Democrat, pro and con IWR...virtually to a person they believed Saddam Hussein had WMD's...

Were they lying when they said this?

And of course...you trot out the tried and true catch all criticism of all politicians that they were playing politics...no evidence required...

I suppose you believe the same of Max Cleland, John Kerry and Tom Harkin as well eh? Their war experiences notwithsatnding?

[PurpleChez]

44. What does war experience (in the 1960s) have to do with knowing

whether or not Iraq had WMD in 2003 eh?

"virtually to a person they believed Saddam Hussein had WMD's...Were they lying when they said this?" -- do you seriously think that they're gonna sit down and say "Yeah...I knew the chimp was full of shit...but I voted for his war anyway." And you say "virtually" -- how does one explain away venerables, such as (if I'm not mistaken) Edward Kennedy, who KNEW it was bullshit and said 'NO'? Eh?

[SaveElmer]

46. Quotes from IWR opponents...

There is no question that Saddam Hussein is ignoring the will of the United Nations and that he has not honored the agreements he made following the Gulf War. Saddam Hussein is a dangerous force in the world.” -Kent Conrad

“Saddam Hussein’s regime has chemical and biological weapons and is trying to get nuclear capability.” -Bob Graham

“Saddam Hussein’s desire to obtain weapons of mass destruction is of grave concern.” -Jim Jeffords

“…I commend President Bush for taking his case against Iraq to the American people…and I agree with the President that Saddam is a despicable tyrant who must be disarmed.” -Ted Kennedy

Iraq has grim and ghoulish weapons to carry out its evil plans. As part of the Gulf War cease-fire agreement, Saddam Hussein committed to destroying its chemical and biological and nuclear weapons programs…instead, Saddam Hussein is trying to add nuclear weapons to an arsenal that already includes chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missiles.” -Barbara Mikulski

Saddam must give arms inspectors unfettered access. And, if he does not comply with this new U.N. resolution there will be consequences, including the use of appropriate military force.” -Paul Wellstone

“With regard to Iraq, I agree, Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological, and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the President argues. And I support the concept of regime change.” -Russ Feingold

[PurpleChez]

48. Good reading, but the fact that others felt the same way doesn't make it right.

Making a statement such as Mikulski's, Jeffords's, or Graham's, however grim, is quite different from actually voting to give the idiot bush a blank check that they all knew he would misuse. eh?

Almost everybody at DU would agree that, over the last six years, the Congress absolutely abdicated its role in the traditional system of checks and balances, and when * said 'jump' many of Democratic Congresspersons asked only "how high?". They were not an opposition party. They were a party of enablers. I imagine many of them thought first and foremost: cover your ass. So did Hillary.

[SaveElmer]

50. The IWR vote took place 18 months into the Bush Presidency...

People did not feel as strongly about him as they do now...

Any success in getting Iraq to disarm between 1991 and 1998 was at the point of a gun...the threat of military force was all that had worked...

That is what these Democrats were providing to resume inspections...as they made very clear.

Read the entirety of John Kerry's statement. It lays out the arguments in a very clear and persuasive way...


I agree that Congress has abdicated its role in reigning in Bush, but until one month ago that Congress was in Republican hands...

Even in the context of the IWR, Bush has exceeded his authority....

And I am sorry...but I will NEVER be convinced a man like Max Cleland, after what he had been through, would willingly throw away soldiers lives for political convenience...

[Clarkie1]

3. I think this question is a relevant to ask of all our representatives.

Since so few have sons or daughters in the military.

But since Hillary's in the spotlight now...well, she gets the spotlight.

[Erika]

9. They are all in the spotlight

Do you gain some pleasure at singularly attacking Ms. Clinton? If not, why do you choose to do so?

[Erika]

4. Why gang up on a democrat?

You're short of republicans or what?

[MrSlayer]

6. Under the same conditions as her previous vote I say yes.

It was politically expedient and she always does what is politically expedient.

[journalist3072]

7. Would John Edwards have voted the way he did if Cate's life was on the line?

I get so sick and tired of all the dumping on Hillary when people like John Edwards cast the same vote, and people don't ask these questions of him.

[Clarkie1]

8. Good question. nt

[knight_of_the_star]

14. Because Edwards doesn't play the games Hillary does

He doesn't try to position himself on the popular side of the hot-button issues.

[journalist3072]

19. I disagree. eom

[A Simple Game]

22. So Edwards is for the war, and Hillary is against it?

That's what I get from your post.

[MannyGoldstein]

47. Edwards is Sticking to the Clinton Playbook

Although he's not nearly as skillful.

[Erika]

11. Let's throw hate darts at the democrats

and not the GOP. And call us true dems...wink...wink...

[kikiek]

16. One after another. It is so old and predictable.

[MethuenProgressive]

17. "She voted for the war" is a Republican talking point

echoed by those who can't think for themselves...

Gore/Clark '08!

[bdrube]

18. Actually, it's an Antiwar Activist talking point. n/t

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[amandabeech]

72. It was clear to many of us that invading Iraq would be a huge mistake

from the moment that it was reported that Rummy wanted to invade that benighted country in response to 9/11.

Anyone who paid attention to the reasons why George Bush I didn't take out Saddam Hussein and who listened to the Saudis this time around would know that taking out Saddam, as despicable a dictator that he was, result in a civil war in Iraq and might destabilize the entire Middle East.

It is particularly appalling that someone old enough to remember what problems our conventional army had in fighting Vietnamese guerrillas in the Vietnamese civil war would do anything to subject present-day soldiers to the same fate.

How dare you accuse those of us who refuse to reward folly with a presidential nomination of being Republicans? How dare you?

Gore/Clark my foot. Neither one of them wanted to go into Iraqnam. Do you think that they're Republicans, too?

[Miss Chybil]

24. God, I'm getting so sick of the hate Hillary b.s.

Can't you find some Republicans to bash?

[bdrube]

37. I don't hate Hillary...I just want some of these Kool-Aid drinkers to wake up. n/t

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kikiek]

45. Interesting reply you received. Who posted this? Is there one doubling up?

[Erika]

58. I wonder why these so called "Dems" bash Hillary

I think their home pages are at free republic.

[A Simple Game]

26. Did Hillary do something to you personally?

This is your third thread against Hillary in about two hours.

You did feel the same about Kerry/Edwards in '04 didn't you?

On edit: I'm going to bed in a few minutes, should I check under the bed to see if Hillary is under there?

[KingFlorez]

42. What's done is done

Unfortunately, she voted for it, but she has since said it wasn't a good idea to vote for the war knowing what she does now. It's the GOP who refuses to admit the war was not a good idea and have kept it going.

[bdrube]

43. Then why doesn't Hillary support defunding this immoral debacle? n/t

[Erika]

51. Because she cares about troops W put in harms way

Understand?

[bdrube]

61. Defunding won't hurt the troops.

It would be done in such a way as to ensure that they are
withdrawn as safely as possible.


I'll refrain from adding a condescending
"understand?"

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KingFlorez]

78. Bush is in charge

Trying to defund the war with such a reckless President in office could place the troops in danger. Bush will do anything to keep this war going, we don't know how he would react to such an action. This war will not end as long as Bush is in charge.

[PresidentObama]

49. OP is out of line.

Hillary shouldn't be asked to put her daughter in harms way because of her vote for war. I think it's out of line when people ask why the Bush daughters aren't in Iraq based on Bush's support for this war, and it's certainly inappropiate to suggest Chelsea Clinton should be in harms way so her mother would vote a certain way.

Agree with Hillary or not, I just don't agree with this question. Hillary may or may not be our future nominee, and possibly the President. It's out of line to ask of her to put her daughter in harms way. People like Jim Webb's son are in Iraq because they want to serve their country and volunteer to do so!!

[mtnsnake]

52. Hey, Clarkie, if Hillary becomes President are you gonna be pissed or what

:evilgrin:

[Erika]

54. Good question

He was so vitriolic.

[PresidentObama]

55. Rarely do we agree....

...But mtnsnake, I agree!!

Take a chill pill, Hillary shouldn't have to put her child on the line. It's a war with an all volunteer army.

[Tellurian]

64. I don't care about Clarkie1 but flush this thread..

Shame on anyone that calls themselves a Democrats to think this way-
I'd like this thread deleted- it's way below the belt of decency!

I'm hitting the alert button..
Everyone else is welcome!

[amandabeech]

74. I think that this is a fair question for anyone voting to send our young

men and women off to war.

I wish that more of our representatives and senators had asked themselves this question back in 2003. Maybe a few would have changed their votes.

Possible death of a loved one focuses the mind amazingly well.

[Imagevision]

83. Hillary voted in popular fashion , how many did vote against the war? 2-3??

[The Magistrate]

84. Locking

Flame-Bait.