Hillary Clinton Seeks New Iraq War Vote

[pnwmom]

Source: Washington Post

Sens. Clinton, D-N.Y., and Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., announced they would introduce legislation that would require the president to seek a reauthorization from Congress to extend the military effort in Iraq beyond October 11, 2007.

SNIP

Clinton noted on Thursday that in 2002 she had also voted for an amendment offered by Byrd that would have limited the war authorization to one year. The measure was defeated, and Edwards voted against it.

"I supported the Byrd amendment on Oct 10, 2002 which would have limited the original authorization to one year and I believe a full reconsideration of the terms and conditions of that authorization is overdue," she said.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino derided the proposal and attributed it to posturing for Democratic primary voters.

SNIP

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/03/AR2007050301683.html

[StarryNite]

1. Wasn't she just saying that war with Iran is

an option? :shrug:

[liberalnurse]

7. If she can pull this off..........

We will be saying "President Clinton" all over again.:kick:

[w4rma]

27. Pull what off? If it's not attached to a bill Bush *has* to sign it's just a photo-op.

Bush won't hesitate to veto this. He'll probably just pocket veto it, even.

She knows that's the result of this. It's just cover for her support of a no-oversight war funding bill.

This does nothing at all to get the troops out before Bush leaves office. It only helps win against Republican Congressfolk who will vote against this bill and support the war's continuation.

I fully expect a Republican President in 2008 if Obama or Hillary win the nomination.

[William769]

8. Why would it not be an option?

[Zhade]

23. Uh, because Iran's not a threat?

Jesus, did you buy the WMD bullshit too?

[William769]

26. Oy vey.

So your saying Iran could bomb us and we can't do anything? Thats what it sounds like to me. Your holier than thou attitude won't work buddy, By saying there it's an option means just that. By saying no war to anyone is just stupid! Anyone can be a potential threat, but you knew that already. And your snarky coment about WMD"S just makes you look bad.

[Chemical Bill]

28. No, he is saying that since Iran can't bomb us...

we should not invade it.

Bill

[William769]

29. I know what he was saying, it's what he always says.

[Zhade]

30. Yeah. I have this funny need to stave off cowardly propaganda with the truth.

Silly me.

[Zhade]

31. Indeed. I fail to see how "they're not a threat" is hard for some people to understand.

It's a pretty straightforward comment, after all.

[LetsThink]

11. Hillary has been advocating DIPLOMACY.....

....energetic REGIONAL DIPLOMACY as one of the major pieces missing from the contemporary American military response in the middle east. Difficult to leave that region (get our young men and women home again) without creating a stable regional political coalition with all major stakeholders pulled into that process....So, we need to *incentivize* and push and shove to get the diplomacy process started. To get our troops home -- right away! Even sooner than soon! Part of the process might be *saying* something like 'no option should be taken off the table....' Then working to push diplomacy, so pulling troops out doesn't leave a vacuum, destabilizing the region.

[rodeodance]

16. YES, she has!!

[stevedeshazer]

2. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Lame

This just pits two Dems who voted for the war against one another.

[pnwmom]

4. If we were to pass a nullification of the IWR, it would be an open and shut

case for impeachment if Bush chose to ignore it.

[Zhade]

24. We've got a number of such cases already.

Yet only Kucinich and his cosponsors have tried to bring impeachment forward.

Why would b*s* breaking this law make the process go forward, when things like illegal wars and spying on American citizens (among so many, many other crimes) still won't get most of the Dems off their asses to uphold the Constitution and rule of law by impeaching this criminal administration?

[Rose Siding]

3. This sounds like a good idea -It's a creative way to rebut the veto

I don't know how they'd enforce it, but Jr's deer-in-the-headlights gape would last a VERY long time.

My preference would be a bill to hand out every American in Iraq plane tickets for an hour from now, but I doubt that's very realistic.

[pnwmom]

5. They could enforce it with the power they have to impeach.

And ignoring the withdrawal of a war authorization certainly would be clear grounds for impeachment and conviction.

[Doctor_J]

6. This new version would haev to pass first

probably 1,000,000-1 shot, given the way the funding bill went.

[IndianaGreen]

9. Well, I can't believe my ears! If this is true, I will have to applaud Hillary

This is better than that pukie "benchmarks" appeasement some of the House members are now mulling over.

[mancandy]

12. Applaud her for what???

playing the political winds game?? She had the chance to vote no when it really counted. Sorry, but nearly 3000 troops dead later I'm not willing to let her off the hook that easily in ordser to help her campaign

[Big Pappa]

20. Exactly.

If their was public support for Iraq (like when she voted for IWR) she would never be doing this. Do any of these damn politicians besides Kucinich have any integrity left?

[VegasWolf]

10. I'm shocked! This is far better than the indeterminate bullshit benchmarks some DINO's like Nelson

are proposing. I actually agree with Hillary on this.

[rodeodance]

13. see this Greatest thread also:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x815342

[rodeodance]

14. Link to her Press Release here:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=1525

[rodeodance]

15. "the president will not bring himself to accept reality, "

I believe this fall is the time to review the Iraq war authorization and to have a full national debate so the people can be heard. I supported the Byrd amendment on October 10, 2002, which would have limited the original authorization to one year and I believe a full reconsideration of the terms and conditions of that authorization is overdue. This bill would require the president to do just that.

The American people have called for change, the facts on the ground demand change, the Congress has passed legislation to require change. It is time to sunset the authorization for the war in Iraq. If the president will not bring himself to accept reality, it is time for Congress to bring reality to him.

I urge my colleagues to join Senator Byrd and me in supporting this effort to require a new authorization resolution, or to refuse to do so, for these new times and these new conditions that we and our troops are facing every single day. Madam President, I yield the floor.

[rodeodance]

17. "Dana Perino derided the proposal " from the IP. Dana --GET A LIFE!

[Telly Savalas]

18. Won't Bush just veto this too?

While it's certainly encouraging to see her taking a stronger stance against the war, I don't quite understand what this bill would achieve.

[Zodiak]

21. A spectacle.

And a spectacle is good when you are trying to save lives and end this madness. Americans like those that fight hard for their principles and make a lot of noise about it, and also do not necessarily always reward winners. Sometimes losers who fight like hell are deeply-appreciated and supported. The weak-willed and the risk-averse inspire no one.

I think that Clinton might have smelled a wind blowing in the electorate, as this is risky and can work (Americans love that). Perhaps she is as politically savvy as her supporters assert. I'm open-minded about it.

[Zodiak]

19. This is a proposal I can get behind

not the others. Putting benchmarks on the Iraqi government is, by definition, non-binding, and if not, it might violate international law.

I do not put any stock in voting for the Byrd amendment, though. I sincerely believe that too many politicians know which way the wind blows, they know how to vote for doomed amendments and procedural votes so they can point to it and proclaim thmselves a "true believer" later. They do not vote the same way on bill passages at all. I am not accusing Hillary of that, though, but I am only saying I discount amendment votes when determining support.

Clinton, by and large, is a middle of the road Democrat (not a leftie, and not a Ben Nelson). If she pulled this off or made a BIG stink about trying to get this passed but failed to do so, she would move up my primary support list (probably past Obama).

I vote results, not personalities. This bill seems like an attempt to get results.

[Zhade]

22. What would happen if this were successful?

And what makes it more than an election-year ploy on Clinton's part?

I will listen to all answers, even from partisans. Don't be shy. Help me understand exactly what this would mean.

[Forkboy]

25. After fucking up the first one I don't blame her.