Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Let's Compare Senator Sanders and H. Clinton on some key issues. [View all]think
(11,641 posts)109. Yes it is good to take care of veterans, make sure emergency funding got passed for Katrina victims,
and making sure funding was made available to get our troops OUT or Iraq under Obama.
He voted against funding 6 other times. Score it however you want. But to take it out of context and dismiss the reasons behind the votes and the fact he voted against funding it 6 times is somewhat disingenuous.
That's my best reasoning for his votes. Votes that helped our men & women who were forced to fight that war and to help get funding to one of America's largest natural disasters in modern times.
Perhaps you'd like to give your reasoning for this speech:
Full text:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2667891
October 10, 2002
Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
As Delivered
Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.
I am honored to represent nearly 19 million New Yorkers, a thoughtful democracy of voices and opinions who make themselves heard on the great issues of our day especially this one. Many have contacted my office about this resolution, both in support of and in opposition to it, and I am grateful to all who have expressed an opinion.
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.
Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.
In 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait, losing the support of the United States. The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab states, and threw Saddam out after forty-three days of bombing and a hundred hours of ground operations. The U.S.-led coalition then withdrew, leaving the Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to Saddam's revenge.
As a condition for ending the conflict, the United Nations imposed a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to do the work. Saddam Hussein agreed, and an inspection system was set up to ensure compliance. And though he repeatedly lied, delayed, and obstructed the inspections work, the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities.
In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated "sovereign sites" including the so-called presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.
In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.
Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?
Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.
This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.
However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.
If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?
So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.
Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it. This too has great appeal for different reasons. The UN deserves our support. Whenever possible we should work through it and strengthen it, for it enables the world to share the risks and burdens of global security and when it acts, it confers a legitimacy that increases the likelihood of long-term success. The UN can help lead the world into a new era of global cooperation and the United States should support that goal.
But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto, on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act. In Kosovo, the Russians did not approve NATO military action because of political, ethnic, and religious ties to the Serbs. The United States therefore could not obtain a Security Council resolution in favor of the action necessary to stop the dislocation and ethnic cleansing of more than a million Kosovar Albanians. However, most of the world was with us because there was a genuine emergency with thousands dead and a million driven from their homes. As soon as the American-led conflict was over, Russia joined the peacekeeping effort that is still underway.
In the case of Iraq, recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve force against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons.
So, Mr. President, the question is how do we do our best to both defuse the real threat that Saddam Hussein poses to his people, to the region, including Israel, to the United States, to the world, and at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations?
While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.
If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.
If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.
If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls for Saddam's compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving some nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose any Security Council action. They will say we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only support the United Nations when it does exactly what we want.
I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein's biological and chemical weapons. Today he has maximum incentive not to use them or give them away. If he did either, the world would demand his immediate removal. Once the battle is joined, however, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and to give what he can't use to terrorists who can torment us with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed by this possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it. And according to recent reports, the CIA agrees with this analysis. A world united in sharing the risk at least would make this occurrence less likely and more bearable and would be far more likely to share with us the considerable burden of rebuilding a secure and peaceful post-Saddam Iraq.
President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.
Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.
This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.
And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them.
My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of 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.
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.
Thank you, Mr. President.
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
264 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Let's Compare Senator Sanders and H. Clinton on some key issues. [View all]
rhett o rick
Sep 2015
OP
True. But relying mainly on your opponents' stupididy is not good strategy n/t
eridani
Sep 2015
#116
If he was a pacifist who swore off all military action, always, they'd try to clobber him with that.
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2015
#18
Going in initially & timely to get 911 perps, is not the same as escalating perpetual war
99th_Monkey
Sep 2015
#168
How do you hold her responsible for her war voteS, plural, and her advocacy for the Iraq War?
merrily
Sep 2015
#184
No, he voted for ONE war. And that objection is a HOOT coming from a supporter of Hillary.
merrily
Sep 2015
#183
I would assume from your posts that you didn't support going into Afghanistan. Am I right?
A Simple Game
Sep 2015
#221
Which would be relevant to the OP if it were part of it, but it's not.
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2015
#16
Lets put your insult aside and say the dead in Afghanistan would not see the distinction.
hrmjustin
Sep 2015
#28
Its an insult to say that I know you're smarter than the argument you seem to be putting forth?
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2015
#36
Yeah, but I think the IWR is widely recognized to be a far worse call than the Afghanistan vote.
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2015
#57
Actually, as good as the FTW shows were, I do think some fundamental flaws in that old proposal
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2015
#122
Oh, please, Neither would civilian dead in any war. There WAS a distinction between
merrily
Sep 2015
#185
Of course he did. He supports American soldiers who were sent on foreign adventures by neocons and
Ed Suspicious
Sep 2015
#186
Perhaps it's not clear to you, but those things that servicemembers get are called ORDERS.
MADem
Sep 2015
#219
The economic benefit that a base offers a region has to do with PERSONNEL and JOBS.
MADem
Sep 2015
#229
Every soldier that goes to a base somewhere in the country is leaving another area of the country.
RichVRichV
Sep 2015
#253
I never said that. My point is Sanders supporters like to glaze over the vote.
hrmjustin
Sep 2015
#76
Are you conflating the invasion of Afghanistan in 2002 with the Afghanistan surge
Admiral Loinpresser
Sep 2015
#134
The minute you see cherry-picking, it makes one suspicious of the veracity and the intent.
MADem
Sep 2015
#220
Yes it is good to take care of veterans, make sure emergency funding got passed for Katrina victims,
think
Sep 2015
#109
Interesting. Hillary did not meniton one of the major reasons that Bernie voted against
JDPriestly
Sep 2015
#172
That's ugly. Once troops are put in harm's way, voting against funding is reprehensible.
merrily
Sep 2015
#192
And he loves drones now. Funny how he'll vote to help veterans in HIS state, but screw those
MADem
Sep 2015
#248
You have that wrong. He did not in the Senate. However Hillary Clinton did...
MrMickeysMom
Sep 2015
#106
No, voting to go to war in Afghanistan does not equal supporting war. Typical.
merrily
Sep 2015
#180
OK, but not because of Bernie. Obama's the POTUS who's kept troops there. -nt-
99th_Monkey
Sep 2015
#38
The problem with Hillary supporters is trying to make Sanders supporter the issue
99th_Monkey
Sep 2015
#45
He sure is. And he showed good judgement in this vote, as he most typically does
LondonReign2
Sep 2015
#151
He thought, like most of us did, that we were going to go in there, get Bin Laden and bring him to
PatrickforO
Sep 2015
#42
Sure he does. But the fact remains that he voted AGAINST three wars and for one. What this tells me
PatrickforO
Sep 2015
#96
Bernie also just proposed a war tax on millionaires... Where does Hillary stand on that?
cascadiance
Sep 2015
#51
He voted against the invasion of Iraq. Afghanistan is totally distinguishable.
merrily
Sep 2015
#177
It is essential that a presidential candidate has an opinion on an issue
Rosa Luxemburg
Sep 2015
#12
It is literally a "Hate Chart" filled with "Crazy Hate Facts"! HDS! HDS! It's an "HDS Chart"! nt
Bonobo
Sep 2015
#15
It makes it rather obvious which one is the most progressive and anti-war.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Sep 2015
#44
I think you should research where some of these "ratings" or narratives come from....
George II
Sep 2015
#48
There are two ratings listed, one from NARAL and one from the ACLU. Which do you disagree with?
LondonReign2
Sep 2015
#62
I would think it incumbent on the person who posted this to provide background...
George II
Sep 2015
#102
There are many, many threads here that get into detail as to what Sen Sanders
rhett o rick
Sep 2015
#110
Once again you are way wrong. There are lots and lots of issue related threads in GD: P.
rhett o rick
Sep 2015
#157
They are hoping that if they fling enough poo at the wall, some will stick. Anything to avoid
rhett o rick
Sep 2015
#203
Actually, he's a candidate who believes social programs like Medicare for All can improve capitalism
merrily
Sep 2015
#196
We get that you don't like capitalism but what do you support? Socialism? nm
rhett o rick
Sep 2015
#204
It's my opinion that both Karl Marx and Ayn Rand suffered from a similar dislusion.
rhett o rick
Sep 2015
#240
Extremely enlightening article - perhaps every Sanders supporter should read it.
George II
Sep 2015
#71
VEry interesting outlook. I don't say you are wrong. But we must do something.
rhett o rick
Sep 2015
#153
Why? To convince us Sanders is not as far left as his would be detractors claim?
merrily
Sep 2015
#197
sanders first support out loud of marriage equality was 2009. because he was silent, and never
seabeyond
Sep 2015
#145
FALSE. And, even if true, he was better on this issue than Hillary, on this issue and most other
merrily
Sep 2015
#193
no it isnt false. but really, cute. yell false and then, even if true. ha ha
seabeyond
Sep 2015
#223
gay rights. not marriage equality. find one quote from him on marriage equality before 2009. 1 quote
seabeyond
Sep 2015
#231
Full equality is full equality. If it's good enough for gay publications, it's good enough for me.
merrily
Sep 2015
#232
ONE mention of marriage equality before 2009. when you cant find it you might ask yourself why.
seabeyond
Sep 2015
#233
What part of voting against DOMA in 1996 do you not get? What part of full equality do you not get?
merrily
Sep 2015
#234
His votes count but keep pretending they don't, it speaks volumes about what really matters to you.
beam me up scottie
Sep 2015
#237
Because voting against banning same sex marriage PROVES he didn't support marriage equality!!!
beam me up scottie
Sep 2015
#230
They are. On most issues they agree, and where Bernie is further left, his plans don't stand
DanTex
Sep 2015
#142
LOL. "From the OP chart". Yeah, if you make decisions based on propaganda charts,
DanTex
Sep 2015
#259
Address the facts (the content) not the format, not the source. Her own words, her own votes.
senz
Sep 2015
#260
You claim to care about issues, but then you cite some nonsense chart in order to criticize Hillary.
DanTex
Sep 2015
#261
It's impossible to be ok with Glass-Steagall repeal and still claim to support financial reform.
Ken Burch
Sep 2015
#174
" Climate change is much broader than a carbon tax." Wow is that Clinton's official
rhett o rick
Sep 2015
#207
Thank you. You don't how hard it is to get anyone to defend Clinton's support for fracking.
rhett o rick
Sep 2015
#215
Fracking is destroying billions of gallons of our precious drinking water yet H. Clinton and Chevron
rhett o rick
Sep 2015
#256
And yet Hillary folk tell us they are virtually identical on most votes... But she is more electable
peacebird
Sep 2015
#133
I believe it's an authoritarian problem. Many Americans were raised to be good little authoritarians
rhett o rick
Sep 2015
#242
DU is full of phonies. "Socialists" for Hillary, Rightwinger "progressives", Drug Warriors named
Romulox
Sep 2015
#251
We know both candidates very well. Clinton hiding isn't going to say her. We
rhett o rick
Sep 2015
#252
I only find I disagree with Bernie on Snowden, I can deal with that......
4bucksagallon
Sep 2015
#241