Clinton: Goal Is Ending War; No Voting Regrets

[jefferson_dem]

Clinton: Goal Is Ending War; No Voting Regrets

(AP) Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton told New Hampshire voters Saturday that ending the war in Iraq is more important than whether she repudiates her 2002 vote authorizing President Bush to use military force there.

<SNIP>

One of her rivals, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, has disavowed his vote. Another, Sen. Barack Obama, has opposed the war from the outset. The Illinois senator was not in Congress at the time of the war vote.

On Saturday, Clinton was asked by a University of New Hampshire professor why she refused to apologize for voting to give Bush the authority for the March 2003 invasion.

"I take responsibility for my vote. It was a sincere vote based on the facts and assurances we had at the time. Obviously I would not vote that way again if we knew then what we know now," she said, her oft-repeated explanation.

She then added in a clear reference to her rivals: "I have to say, if the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from. But for me, the most important thing now is trying to end this war."

<SNIP>

http://wbztv.com/local/local_story_048071142.html

[mike_c]

1. well Hillary, HOW WILL YOU END IT? Kucinich has a real plan....

Hillary has rhetoric.

[papau]

4. Clinton legislation to end war link below

February 17, 2007

Clinton Plan to End War: Reject the President's Escalation; Protect U.S. Troops in Iraq; Begin Redeploying Our Troops; Enables President to End War Before Leaving Office

Introduces the Iraq Troop Reduction & Protection Act of 2007

WASHINGTON, DC - Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton renewed her call on President Bush to reverse course and endorse the plan she outlined several weeks ago that would cap the level of U.S. troops in Iraq at the number prior to his escalation plan, and begin the long overdue phased redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq beginning in 90 days. Senator Clinton outlined her plan when she returned last month from her third trip to Iraq and is formally introduced the legislation yesterday.
http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=269481&&
http://clinton.senate.gov/issues/nationalsecurity

[Dhalgren]

11. I don't like her bill, it is too weak. But it is a start.

Now if she would go into conference with Feingold and Kucinich and Edwards and anyone else who has a viable plan for ending the US occupation of Iraq and the group would come out with a unified plan that the whole party would get behind - that would be progress. There are several plans out there (some better than others) but there needs to be a unified plan that the whole party backs. It doesn't need to be a political tool for a candidacy - it needs to be a complete plan that could be voted on, if not right now, then very, very soon...

[papau]

22. In 30 days The House bill will be crafted - then attached to the defense supplemental.

If any Dem votes against Murtha I suggest we make sure they are toast.

These Senate Bills are stating out positions and wording that might be added by the Senate.

But it is in conference that the last minute wording will be agreed to - and if any Dem refuses to keep Murtha in that conference bill, or if any Dem Senator votes against it - votes against funding our troops just because Murtha demands that our troops be trained and equipped - again I suggest we make sure they are toast.

[Zhade]

46. It's not even a start - it's a feint.

From the link:

"The Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction Act that I proposed last month and introduced this week caps the number of troops in Iraq..."

then

"Finally, the legislation would prohibit the use of funds to send troops to Iraq unless they have the proper equipment and training."

In other words: no new troops, unless they're trained and properly armed - which this also proposes.

You don't put an "unless" clause in if you really mean "NO MORE TROOPS".

[ohio2007]

24. She wants her voting record to be "removed from the record"

People like living in the past. Many monday morning armchair QB types will never forgive and forget.

[BigDDem]

39. Do you think

Kucinich is going to get the nomination?

[David Dunham]

2. She's right. Ending the war now is more important than why someone voted in 2002.

[RiverStone]

9. They both are important.

Ending this damn war is critical - recognizing the link between cause (Shrub's authorization to pull the trigger with the IWR) and effect (over 3,100 American dead and 15x that in Iraqi civilians) is also critical.

The question of cause is valid, it will continue to be asked, and deserves a legitimate answer from HRC.

[oasis]

38. Hillary's answer is legitimate. The constant chirping carping choir can choose

another candidate. As she has invited them to do.

[RiverStone]

43. The choir will keep singing...

Loudly and boldly - and I'll be part of the effort. An effort to put forth a candidate that was against the IWR from the get-go. I'll never see HRC's answer as legitimate when so many of us saw unequivocally that Shrub's intent was to start an immoral war of aggression. Giving him that authority was one of the worst mistakes the legislative branch has made in the history of our country.

I'll hope and work for Obama, Clark, Kucinich, Feingold - and number 1 on my wishlist - Gore. Alas, 3 of those 5 have not declared intent or probably have no intention to run. During the primary process, I'll politely yet vigorously argue that we don't need another Washington insider with DLC/Corporate connections on the Hill. IMHO, we can do much better then her. Yet, the Clinton funding machine already has very deep pockets, so it will be an uphill fight for most of the other players.

And when the dust settles - if HRC is our party's nominee - I'll reluctantly vote for her and focus my efforts on defeating any rethug as her opponent.

[oasis]

44. Sung like a loyal Democrat.

:toast: :hi:There's no way they can keep us out of the White House as long as we have fiesty Dems such as you.

[RiverStone]

45. On that point we agree...

We are on the same side afterall oasis :)


peace~

:kick:

[Zhade]

47. Her proposal isn't. It pretends to cap troop levels, while calling for the conditions to add more.

NT!

[SOS]

57. Invitation accepted

:)

[mix]

3. the human factor

is she wants an issue to make her more 'human' and maternal

admitting she was wrong would do wonders

[leftchick]

5. and as far as Iran? "All options are on the table"!

Redeploy 'some' US troops, not admit a MAJOR error in sending them to Iraq, No funding cuts for war AND Iran is still on the table? Hil...... still a warmonger. :puke:

[mix]

6. this is distressing

eom

[RiverStone]

7. As long as HRC continues to deflect...

admission of any culpability for her vote on the IWR - she feeds the perception that she is arrogant.

This question will not go away because it IS VERY RELEVANT. Why she can't "get that" remains a mystery. :shrug:

In October of 02, she and many other DEMS/rethugs put political expediency ahead of personal conviction. 23 Senators, 133 Reps, and millions of protesters (myself included) around the world knew that giving Shrub authorization to go to war was crazy -hence, the NO vote - because look what Shrub went up and did! We all could see egomaniac BushCo was bent on moving forward with the Iraq insanity. Why does she pander to the right by NOT admitting she was wrong?

[paulk]

41. why is admitting she was wrong "pandering" to the right?

There are a great many Americans, of all political stripes, that believed Bush's "evidence" and initially supported both Bush and his war.

The only thing HRC (and any of the Dem Senators who voted for the IWR) are "culpable" for is believing that that an American President was telling the truth.

[RiverStone]

42. I said --NOT--admitting

she was wrong. Her obvious unwillingness to do so seems either to be outright arrogance, or attempting to play both ends of the fiddle in an inept attempt to say look how tough I am/was.

I'm afraid paulk, this discussion is one of those lets agree to disagree. Cause how the hell anyone believed Shrub's evidence boggles my mind. It was so very apparent to so many of us as well - that his evidence was based on lies and deluded desire for power and oil. I'll never understand how someone as bright as Hillary (or John Edwards) believed Shrub's obvious bullshit. The result of giving him the go-ahead have been utterly disastrous as we all know.

Oh, I'd vote for her (reluctantly) over any rethug in 08 - but I REALLY hope she's not the nominee.

[Placebo]

8. She's right.

We need to shift the focus from the same tired old debate about who voted what, and really concentrate on who can end this war.

[Pastiche423]

14. She's wrong

Her warmongering vote helped put us where we are today.

She is nothing more that a warmongering DCLer!

[Placebo]

16. Do you say the same about Senator Kerry?

Or John Edwards?

Because if you don't, then you're just anti-Hillary.

[Pastiche423]

17. Yep and Yep

[Placebo]

18. No offense, but anyone who thinks Kerry...

or Edwards, or even Clinton is a warmonger just can’t see the forest for the trees.

[Pastiche423]

19. They voted FOR the IWR!

some people truly are agianst war. I am one of them. If a candidate for president votes for war, I will not vote for them.

[leftchick]

21. and worse she has said she is for an Iran Attack!

AIPAC/DLC warmonger. :puke:

[BigDDem]

48. Please provide a link

to where she said "she is for an Iran Attack."

Ill be holding my breath.

[Critters2]

26. I'm with you on this!!

I'm not fully decided yet, but leaning toward Obama because his opposition to the war has been long and consistent. Won't even consider supporting HRC or Edwards in the primaries.

[ShortnFiery]

33. I'm 100% with you - those who voted for the IWR will not get my vote for even dog catcher n/t

[Ladydawnelle]

37. I don't trust any of the 3 you mentioned

MOSTLY because of their votes but also because of things like the Patriot Act!! The Hypocrisy of their words versus their actual actions and/or votes and also because our narrow margin in the SENATE (to me) means we NEED every last Senator in their Senate SEAT not campaigning.

Kerry at least had the good graces NOT to add his name to the list of Senators currently running!

We need someone MOSTLY with DIPLOMACY skills (besides ending the Iraq MESS) and the only Woman I can think of right now that could fill that postition already has a BIG seat as Speaker of the House!

So I'm all for WES CLARK first and foremost (for intellect and experience) and 2nd Richardson as he also has much experience in diplomacy. And neither of those guys has past voting records to draw them down. OR half of the country against them from the get go.

Obama is cool but I still think there are way too many bigots in this country that would never vote for him. Sadly. Maybe if he is VP for a while he can earn his street cred! Clark/Obama sounds good to me.

[keopeli]

10. If I get to choose, I wouldn't choose the candidate who made a mistake and won't call it that.

I applaud Hillary attempting to end the discussion by simply saying that, if the 02 vote is important to you, you should consider a different candidate.

If I'm to choose between

a) Obama who opposed the Iraq war in 02, but was not in Congress
b) Edwards who voted for the Iraq war and has since said it was a mistake
c) Hillary who voted for the Iraq war and has equivocated that decision ever since

then I have to say I would not choose Hillary. I remember the 02 vote. I'm just an average citizen, yet I knew with confidence that Bush was cooking the evidence. I knew of Cheney's repeated visits to the CIA (unprecedented). I knew of Ritter's criticisms. I knew the vote for war was rushed for the election. I tend to expect Senators to know more about a war vote than I do, and yet they didn't. Edwards has acknowledged his error. Hillary continues to say "if I knew then what I know now." The fact is, she could have known it then but didn't.

Peace

[RiverStone]

12. I believe she did know...

what millions of us around the world back in 02 shouted in marches, meet-ups, forums, town halls, and protest rallies - we KNEW Shrub would take us into a reckless and immoral war.

Sadly, Hillary and others knew that too - but chose to place political expediency ahead of personal conviction.

[MasonJar]

13. Please remember that we did not see the evidence that the lying

Bush/Cheney prevaricators presented to Congress. Neither did Obama; Edwards did and voted for the resolution. He now denounces it, and Hill says she would never have voted yes if she knew then what she knows now. What is the difference? It is W and his lying scum which are culpable, not the dem senators. If I were Bush I could not sleep at night, but the piece of white trash who lives in the WH sleeps quite well, thank you very much.

[OKNancy]

15. She is obstinate about it because the Repubs will call her

a flip flopper and a woman who can't make up her mind. She is thinking ahead to the general election IMO.

[Critters2]

27. She's not electable because of this. She made a poor decision

and we need to nominate someone who's wiser than this.

[BeyondGeography]

20. I hope this costs her the nomination

So that Democrats NEVER again authorize a war for the sake of perceived political expediency. "Perceived" because it turns out there was a heavy price to pay for IWR. It almost cost Kerry the nomination (his military background and perceived electability compared with non-vet Dean after Iowa was what pulled him through). It enabled Dean to soar to the head of the pack in 2004. Opposition to the war pre-IWR helps Obama and would obviously help Gore if he comes in, because, guess what, the war is still raging! And this is as it should be. Invading Iraq is the biggest foreign policy blunder in history, and how is that the slightest surprise? Those who supported the mere thought of an invasion in October of 2002, especially supposedly wise, experienced people like Hillary (that's what she's selling, right?), were either temporarily incompetent or terminally cynical. Let them suffer the consequences.

[Seabiscuit]

34. It WILL cost her the nomination.

She should have repudiated that vote years ago - at the very least, before she tossed her bonnet into the ring.

By now she's looking like a sleazy politician playing dishonest word games. "Taking responsibility" means admitting to mistakes and wrong choices. The voters can connect those dots, why won't she?

This all makes her sound like her husband playing word games, pretending that getting a blow job from Monica isn't "having sex with that woman". No one fell for that, and no one's going to fall for Hillary's equivocation about Iraq either.

That disconnect will dog her throughout her campaign - the same questions about it will never stop, and she will utterly humiliate herself on this issue if she makes it all the way to the debates next fall.

By "staying the course" on this point, this one issue will take her down.

[NaturalHigh]

23. Typical politician.

She's trying to change the subject now that it's politically expedient.

[DemCam]

25. Don't care who voted what then.

But I do care about what we do now. Bush has screwed the proverbial pooch, so to speak, and we're all in it now. So...that was then and this is now...

So what now? my friends. I hate apologies. Meaningless and just as meaningless to force our candidates into a wouldacouldashoulda mold.

What do we do to create as much stability in the region as possible and get our troops out of there? The answer must lie with diplomacy and sharing the burden with other nations who all have an interest in a stable Middle East.

Good for you, Hillary. Don't apologize. But we do need to know what you're going to do. I want more than hope and more than rhetoric.

[rodeodance]

28. (HR) Clinton urges start of Iraq pullout in 90 days

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2007-02-17T220954Z_01_N17363761_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-USA-CLINTON.xml

Clinton urges start of Iraq pullout in 90 days
Sat Feb 17, 2007 5:11pm ET146

By Jim Wolf

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the early front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, has called for a 90-day deadline to start pulling American troops from Iraq.

Clinton, the wife of former President Bill Clinton, has been criticized by some Democrats for supporting authorization of the war in 2002 and for not renouncing her vote as she seeks the U.S. presidency in next year's election.

"Now it's time to say the redeployment should start in 90 days or the Congress will revoke authorization for this war," the New York senator said in a video on her campaign Web site, repeating a point included in a bill she introduced on Friday.

................

In offering what she called a roadmap out of Iraq, Clinton said a visit there last month had made her more determined to start what she called a long overdue withdrawal.

Clinton's bill would cap the number of troops in Iraq at the January 1 level, prior to Bush's decision to add 21,500 to the approximately 130,000 soldiers already there. Continued...

[pinto]

29. This is good to hear. Dems are coalescing on a repeal of the 2002 Iraq war resolution.

[rodeodance]

30. yes. it is good news.

At a January 17 news conference after visiting Iraq, Clinton repeated her call for a phased redeployment as a way of pressing the Iraqi government to shoulder more responsibility for security. But she stopped short then of proposing a deadline for doing so.

[youngdem]

31. Good to hear. We need to have our nominee for quick withdrawal

whomever the nominee ends up being. The public is anti-war. The Repukes are gonna nominate a pro-war, pro-escalation wingnut. This should be an 'easy' win for us, as long as we don't equivocate on Iraq. OUT NOW !!

To me, it is a great sign that a moderate like Clinton thinks this is a popular move. Their polling must support it, and show it trending well.

[DeepModem Mom]

32. K&R!

[AnOhioan]

35. 3100+ dead Americans have a serious regret

[susanna]

54. As well as their families and friends. Extrapolation.

I watched a friend buried in April, 2003, killed in the very beginning of the war she helped vote into being. Most of the world seemed to understand * was lying, and for such a vaunted "smart" attorney, I found her incredibly stupid to buy into the entire boondoggle.

Pardon me if I first vote against her, and then sit out her eventual DLC-arranged primary victory (yes, I think it's foregone). She is nothing to me, or those who loved my friend. He's now long dead, thanks in part to her IWR vote.

Actions matter.

on edit: self-policed fairness doctrine

[muryan]

36. having an anti-war candidate get the democratic nomination is not my priority

my priority is having someone get the nom that can beat the repub candidate. Its unfortunate that clinton and edwards voted for this mess but if they plan to bring the troops home as soon as they can, then they have my vote.

[Clarkie1]

40. She is right and she is wrong.

Of course ending the war is more important that who voted for it, but who voted for it is important in determining who deserves our support.

[EndElectoral]

49. What the hell does she mean it was not a mistake? Read the wording of the IWR!!!

She's a lawyer for god's sake.

Have you read how loosely worded the IWR is,, and she is not going to apologize for that?!!!

She convoulted a bill with a "war on terror" within an Iraq bill leaving GW open to create a personal war and a perpetual war.

She gave blanket power to GW w/o further requiring UN action.

She didn't review the intelligence thoroughly despite knowing you've necons like Feith running his own private OPS out of the Pentagon with Wolfowitz.

Anyone who thinks she doesn't owe an apology to the american people is daft!

This poorly worded resolition directly ties action on Al Queda into action taken in Iraq. Go read the IWR.

SHE MUST apologize for this. It is a disgrace. It isn't just about not looking at intellgience.

It is abrogaating your responsiblity in passing power to the President to create a perpetual war based on what he deems necessary.

How can you NOT apologize for that bill and it's construction?

[ShortnFiery]

50. When you listen to your dumb-a** advisers who tell you that you

must exude more bravado and testosterone laden rhetoric than the male of the species.

Hint: We want a strong and compassionate leader who owns up to mistakes, not a Mr. or Ms. President *Know-It-All.*

Bush: "Hey Rocky! Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat!"

American Public: "Again?"

Bush: "Northing's up my sleeve! Presto!" (bombing of Iran)

The Iranian Populace and Iraqi Guerrillas: ROAR - Kill the Invader! <The Gates of Hell Swing Wide Open>

Bush: "Maybe I should get another hat?" :shrug:

-------------------
Another Know-It-All Unitary Executive is NOT what we need. :grr:

[IndianaGreen]

51. And Hillary has a secret plan to end the war in Iraq, just like Nixon did in Vietnam

If the best thing that Team Hillary can come up with is a rehash of Nixon's Vietnamization, then we are facing many more years of needless and wasteful war in Iraq.

[Zhade]

52. But not by capping troop levels, even though she pretneds her plan does that.

See upthread.

(Yes, I'm pushing this, because too many people are saying she wants no more troops, and that's simply not what her plan calls for.)

[EndElectoral]

53. She votes for an open-ened resolution that includes Iraq and Al Queda and cannot call it a mistake.

[PBass]

55. It may cost her the primary... this isn't the last word though...

She's going to have to elaborate on her position, during the primary campaign. She's still got plenty of 'splainin' to do.

I thought this post was an interesting observation, and something I've been wondering about too:
"She is obstinate about it because the Repubs will call her
a flip flopper and a woman who can't make up her mind. She is thinking ahead to the general election IMO."

If you compare the way that the last 2 Democratic candidates campaigned, and even how Bill Clinton acquiesced under pressure on many issues, and compare that with how Bush Jr. conducts himself, it's a pretty stark contrast. I wouldn't want a Democratic president to do what Bush does (break the law) but I wish like hell that the Democrats would refuse to back down when there was a conflict. I have written many posts on DU complaining that Dems need to "get a backbone". This may be Clinton's way of drawing a line in the sand, early on.

One possible escape for Hillary on the 'no apologies' issue... if she blasts Bush for lying to Congress about the intelligence, and the meaning and intent of the IWR. And this IWR was still sort of early in the Bush presidency... after 911 Bush/Cheney took it as an excuse to start ramrodding their policies, if my memory is correct.

Ultimately I think she's damned if she does (apologize) and damned if she doesn't (IMO).

[depakid]

56. Ultimately I think she's damned if she does and damned if she doesn't

And that in fact is the Republican strategy, based on something which is either going around by chain e-mail or in RNC mailings.

As posted on another board (by a person who's known for posting this very kind of thing- and couldn't have written the body of this themselves if their life depended on it):

"Seems that Hillary just can't make up her mind about her position on the war in Iraq.

"Hillary Clinton on War & Peace
Democratic Jr Senator (NY)

Critic of Iraq war, but won't recant 2002 vote in its favor ;Source: People's Daily (China), "Contenders views on the war" Nov 23, 2006

Regrets Bush's handling of war, but not her war vote :Source: NY 2006 Senate Debate, moderated by Bill Ritter Oct 22, 2006

On March 21, 1999, Hillary expressed her views by phone to the President: “I urged him to bomb.” The Clintons argued the issue over the next few days. what-ifs: What if bombing promoted more executions? What if it took apart the NATO alliance? Hillary responded, “You cannot let this go on at the end of a century that has seen the major holocaust of our time. What do we have NATO for if not to defend our way of life?” The next day the President declared that force was necessary. Source: Hillary’s Choice by Gail Sheehy, p.345 Dec 9, 1999

When crimes against humanity rear their ugly heads, we have to send such a message as an international community. Source: Remarks at The Sorbonne, Paris, France Jun 17, 1999

Voted YES on requiring on-budget funding for Iraq, not emergency funding.Reference: Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act; Bill S.AMDT.464 to H.R.1268 ; vote number 2005-96 on Apr 20, 2005

Voted YES on $86 billion for military operations in Iraq & Afghanistan.Reference: FY04 Emergency Supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan; Bill S1689 ; vote number 2003-400 on Oct 17, 2003

Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq.Reference: Bill H.J.RES.114 ; vote number 2002-237 on Oct 11, 2002

Wow......pretty scary stuff. Makes me wonder if this is what the majority of the ppl really wanted to vote into office this time around? Someone who can't make up their mind what they want to do?????"