I'm Confused. Hillary Sends Thousands To Die In An Immoral,

[lligrd]

unjustifiable war but some here support her because she is a strong woman. Yet, these same people want to get another brilliant strong woman fired because of a comedy routine.

[MonkeyFunk]

1. No

Bush sent them to die in an unjustifiable war. Weren't you paying attention?

[anigbrowl]

3. OK, she just voted for it.

[jconner27]

8. He votes to keep funding the war

[anigbrowl]

14. They both do.

Do you really want to listen to Bush saying that the Democratic nomination candidates don't support the troops all through the election cycle?

[northzax]

69. oh, so that's ok

voting for continuing funding out of pure electoral calculus and cowardice is perfectly cool with you?

[krkaufman]

85. Hillary's a woman. I'll just assume that was a typo and not a sexist comment. n/t

[trueblue2007]

22. idiot people blaming Hillary for the Iraq war?

Must have flunked AMERICAN HISTORY and not been reading the news since Bush STOLD the election.


Read my lips: BUSH STARTED THE WAR!!!

[lligrd]

36. I See You Are Not Against All Name Calling

Hillary gave him permission to do it.

[JuniperLea]

74. And Obama gave him more money to kill even more people...

So what's your point?

[Cha]

82. The point is that you're full of red herrings

but not too much on defending hilary for sending those Soldiers to die and the Iraqis to be bombed.

[SOS]

57. If the war is unjustifiable

why vote for a bill entitled "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq 2002"?

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. George Bush sent them.

feel no pain blaming it on somebody else?

[Cali_Democrat]

5. Bush sent them with Hillary's approval

[The_Casual_Observer]

10. You pay taxes? Then your approval too.

[TLM]

23. No paying taxes...

amounts to nothing more than approving of the establishment and continued existence of the country.

Paying taxes is not voting for the war.

But nice try spinning the fact that Hillary has the blood of thousands of Americans on her hands... just like everybody who voted for the war.

[krkaufman]

88. Taxes have nothing to do with the war, as the war is not being paid for with my taxes...

... but with the taxes of future generations. My vote and my voice, the only measure of my "approval", have been against the Republicans and this war. Hillary's vote was in support of the war, and now nearly 50% of the Democratic Party supports one of the two remaining pro-war candidates.

[krkaufman]

87. So, if we're calling for Bush Administration accountability...

... exactly what accountability is warranted for those Democratic politicians who voted to authorize sending the troops to war in Iraq, especially given nearly all did so without doing the most basic of due diligence?

Or are we to now take the position that only Republicans are responsible, and only Republicans are to be held accountable? It's mulligans for Democrats, all around?

[leftstreet]

4. HRC thinks sniper fire is a comedy routine, so whaddya expect?

:shrug:

[lligrd]

12. Yep, Soldiers Being Killed Is Funny But Calling

someone a name deserves the ultimate punishment.

[krkaufman]

89. Yeah, that can't sit well with the military folk and their families.

It's akin to Bush's "no WMDs under there" cynical joke.

[Catherina]

6. Not just one but two. Don't forget Samantha Power n/t

[murielm99]

7. Bush sent them.

This is *'s war. We must never forget that it is *'s war.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

9. I don't think Randi should be fired but I do agree with the suspension.

And I can think they are both strong women while condemning one for voting for the war by deciding to support someone else in the Primary, while agreeing with the suspension of the other from her radio show for offensive comments. I think both stances are quite reasonable and proportional. :shrug:

[Liquorice]

11. I remember reading that Karl Rove said democrats

would ultimately be blamed for Iraq. I thought that was the craziest thing I had ever heard, and now here we are.

This is Bush's war, and no democrat should blame Hillary or any other dem for it. It's political suicide. It also makes Karl Rove very, very happy, which is a terrible thing for a democrat to do.

[GarbagemanLB]

13. We would not be in Iraq if more Democrats had done their homework and READ THE NIE.

YES, the Democrats who voted to authorize the use of force are partly to blame.

[Liquorice]

15. Well I guess old Karl was right then. And that is a shame because it is Bush's war. nt

[GarbagemanLB]

16. Way to ignore what I said.

[Liquorice]

18. You're ignoring what I said. Democrats are absolute idiots to lay blame for Iraq

on fellow dems. That is why it makes Karl Rove quite happy. Bush is 100% responsible for the war.

[anigbrowl]

28. Sorry, he got a boost from Congress

to my continuing embarrassment. Voting for the AUMF was a big fuckup, even though it may have seemed like political suicide to oppose it. Even Hillary Clinton said she wishes she could take that one back.

[ampad]

33. No it is fact

If we don't hold the politicians on our side accountable for their actions then we essentially become part of the dark side. All the Democrats that voted for this war should be held accountable. Hillary voted for a war and didn't even read the NIE report. There are people's lives we are talking about here. I could give a rats ass about Hillary's or any other Dem politician that voted for this war, political career. I expect more from the Dem leaders. I expect a Repig not to read the NIE report and vote for a war based on politics but not Democrats, we are better than that. I don't walk lock step like the dark side. Hillary was wrong, those other Dems that voted for the war are wrong and they have the blood of thousands on their hands. No amount of double talk or spin is going to ever change that fact. I think it's time we demand more from our leaders and clean house. Bush is 100T% responsible for this war. It doesn't mean that those that help enable him are not to blame because they are. To cover your eyes doesn't make that fact go away. Thousands have died and more will follow. Hillary of all people should of stood her ground because NY state was and is anti-war. I believe her constituents would of had her back had she stood her ground, but she did not. I'm not giving her or anyone else with a D after their name a pass. They are responsible and will continue to be.

[lligrd]

35. Well Said! nt

[Liquorice]

38. I'm not so sure about that. We do know that Bush and his pals

planned Iraq and there was probably nothing that was going to stop them. The climate of the time was incredibly pro-war because of 9/11. Bush could have gotten away with just about anything at the time. We do not know the extent of the phony and trumped-up intel congress was given before the vote for authorization. It is completely unfair to place Iraq at the feet of democrats. Bush did this horrible thing.

[JuniperLea]

75. There are a ton of GOP memes floating around DU lately...

I'm sure they are all laughing their asses off at us too.

[lligrd]

17. Perhaps Hillary Should Have Considered That Before

voting to give them the authority. She does share the blame and some of her supporters probably do as well.

[Liquorice]

19. I strongly disagree. nt

[krkaufman]

90. Sorry, but not buying. I don't hold Hillary solely responsible for the Iraq war....

... but there were Republicans who cast the right vote. If we want to hold the Bush Administration and Republicans accountable for their failings, then we must hold our politicians up to the same scrutiny -- and Hillary fails that test. Given two candidates of nearly equal credentials, my tie-breaker breaks for the candidate who can provide distinct contrast with the pro-war position.

[saracat]

20. Randi isn't "brilliant or strong". She is an insecure threatened

misogynist who is terrified that other women are better than her. No matter what her opinion of Clinton is, no woman with any self respect would publicly use such terms to describe another of her gender.
And I find it beneath contempt that some are still alleging Hillary, and it appears hillary "alone" is responsible for the war.Why don't you go nail some of those male Senators who are now busy kissing the OBombs butt.They voted exactly the same way and yet even the most egregious can be exonerated by an endorsement of the great "O" !

[anonymous171]

21. How can she be a misogynist? That is blowing my mind right now.

[saracat]

26. Women can be misgynists just as Blacks can be racist.

Randi is very clear what she thinks of women. She doesn't even value herself.

[anigbrowl]

31. In backwards land, everyone projects

But what do I know, I'm just a self-hating Eurotrash kinda guy. Probably uncomfortable with my masculinity as well.

[lligrd]

37. lol nt

[TLM]

27. Well it is clear....

that you are simply afraid of a strong woman having a voice.

Your sexist attacks on Randi shouldn't be tolerated here on DU.

[saracat]

29. LOL!

[lligrd]

30. Got A Link

to any of us exonerating any male Senators for their IWR vote simply for endorsing Obama? I won't hold my breath.

I find your statement, "describing another of her gender" quite perplexing. You make it sound as if women are their own species. I kind of thought we were all just people.

[Clintonista2]

39. I would K&R that if I could saracat!

[Beacool]

55. Oh, let me answer the last question, please!!!

It's very simple, Hillary and anyone who supports her are enemy Numero Uno on this board. Bush, et al. are saints compared to dastardly Hillary!!!

As for all those senators who voted for the IWR and are now supporting Obama, they get a free pass because by supporting the new Messiah they are now cleansed of all their sins.

As I keep repeating over and over, the HYPOCRISY on this board is absolutely galling!!

[mtnsnake]

24. Did you vote for Kerry in 2004?

[lligrd]

32. Only When He Became The Nominee

just as I will Hillary if she manages to. I was a Dean supporter until then.

[ProSense]

46. Sorry, you don't get to use Kerry as a defense for Hillary

Kerry, unlike Hillary, spoke out against Bush several times before Bush invaded, including this speech at Georgetown University on Thursday, January 23, 2003:

As our government conducts one war and prepares for another, I come here today to make clear that we can do a better job of making our country safer and stronger. We need a new approach to national security - a bold, progressive internationalism that stands in stark contrast to the too often belligerent and myopic unilateralism of the Bush Administration. I offer this new course at a critical moment for the country that we love, and the world in which we live and lead. Thanks to the work and sacrifice of generations who opposed aggression and defended freedom, for others as well as ourselves, America now stands as the world's foremost power. We should be proud: Not since the age of the Romans have one people achieved such preeminence. But we are not Romans; we do not seek an empire. We are Americans, trustees of a vision and a heritage that commit us to the values of democracy and the universal cause of human rights. So while we can be proud, we must be purposeful and mindful of our principles: And we must be patient - aware that there is no such thing as the end of history. With great power, comes grave responsibility.

<...>

Second, without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.

So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War. Regrettably the current Administration failed to take the opportunity to bring this issue to the United Nations two years ago or immediately after September 11th, when we had such unity of spirit with our allies. When it finally did speak, it was with hasty war talk instead of a coherent call for Iraqi disarmament. And that made it possible for other Arab regimes to shift their focus to the perils of war for themselves rather than keeping the focus on the perils posed by Saddam's deadly arsenal. Indeed, for a time, the Administration's unilateralism, in effect, elevated Saddam in the eyes of his neighbors to a level he never would have achieved on his own, undermining America's standing with most of the coalition partners which had joined us in repelling the invasion of Kuwait a decade ago.

In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing. But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war. As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.

The Administration must pass this test. I believe they must take the time to do the hard work of diplomacy. They must do a better job of making their case to the American people and to the world.

I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.

Kerry in 2003:

The way Powell, Eagleberger, Scowcroft, and the others were talking at the time, continued Kerry, I felt confident that Bush would work with the international community. I took the President at his word. We were told that any course would lead through the United Nations, and that war would be an absolute last resort. Many people I am close with, both Democrats and Republicans, who are also close to Bush told me unequivocally that no decisions had been made about the course of action. Bush hadn't yet been hijacked by Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney and that whole crew. Did I think Bush was going to charge unilaterally into war? No. Did I think he would make such an incredible mess of the situation? No. Am I angry about it? You're God damned right I am. I chose to believe the President of the United States. That was a terrible mistake.

History defends this explanation. The Bush administration brought Resolution 1441 to the United Nations in early November of 2002 regarding Iraq, less than a month after the Senate vote. The words "weapons inspectors" were prominent in the resolution, and were almost certainly the reason the resolution was approved unanimously by the Security Council. Hindsight reveals that Bush's people likely believed the Hussein regime would reject the resolution because of those inspectors. When Iraq opened itself to the inspectors, accepting the terms of 1441 completely, the administration was caught flat-footed, and immediately began denigrating the inspectors while simultaneously piling combat troops up on the Iraq border. The promises made to Kerry and the Senate that the administration would work with the U.N., would give the inspectors time to complete their work, that war would be an action of last resort, were broken.

link

Kerry has never wavered in calling out Bush on his immoral war , and he led the effort to set a deadline for withdrawal.

Hillary Clinton's problem has been not only her silence, but also her inability to explain her position with clarity and consistency.

Also, where was Hillary when Bill was "repeatedly" defending "Bush against the left on Iraq"?

"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life."

Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.

link

In the middle of the 2004 campaign to make Bush a one-term president (select) for his illegal invasion, Bill Clinton was defending him, and Hillary was silent.

[mtnsnake]

62. I don't remember you pissing & moaning about Kerry's IWR vote when he was running in the primaries

....so what was that were you just saying??

I also don't remember you pissing and moaning when Kerry went out on his campaign almost every day bragging how he'd make a much more efficient killer of terrorists than Bush would.

Your selective criticism, ProSense, tells it all about you.

[Cronus Protagonist]

25. Nice try... It's BUSH'S WAR n/t

[lligrd]

34. If I Gave A Child Matches To Play With And The House Burnt Down

who's fault would it be?

[JohnnyLib2]

42. Old mental health joke: When in doubt, blame the mother!

:sarcasm:

[Cronus Protagonist]

59. Logical Fallacy: Straw man argument.

Non correlative metaphor as well. Bush is a grown adult and ought to be able to make his own decisions about matches, and to be held responsible for the results.

Oh, and HIllary is not George's mother, George isn't a child, giving someone power is not the same as handing hem a weapon of destruction, and she didn't make the decision on her own.

Your critical thinking skills appear to be non-existent.

[lligrd]

81. Bush Is An Adult??

And you think my critical thinking skills are bad?

[emilyg]

40. Single handily

Bush had no war :sarcasm:

[DerekJ]

41. They are a cult ...She is the godess of peace you know.

[Erin Elizabeth]

43. Bush sent them, as others have said, BUT

I can't get past her vote for the war. It was inexcusable.

[Moochy]

44. Grief Swarm, Pop & Lock

The Hillary Shill Shuffle

[noamnety]

45. Calling women f'ing whores is not a progressive value.

funding genocide is not a progressive value.

Unfortunately, the process for suspending a talk show host is easier than suspending a senator who's been funding war crimes.

If that weren't the case, we'd have a fairly empty senate.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

47. "Aye" was just a "misstatement." She meant to vote "Nay." You know, millions of words and all that.

[Deep13]

48. You are a fucking liar.

You and those like you are the reason I will NEVER vote for Obama.

[GarbagemanLB]

53. So she didn't vote for the IWR? Please, provide a link to this awesome new info!

[rodeodance]

49. I only reason you are confused is that you chose to believe that Hillary wanted this war.

[GarbagemanLB]

51. She didn't read the NIE before voting. She even quoted her 'years of experience' in making the decis

ion to vote Yes. Looks like all that experience really paid off!

[Buzz Clik]

50. I'm going to avoid this flamefest for now. My suspicion is that it won't turn out well.

[still_one]

52. As AAR is a business, if 50% of its listeners are told their candidate is a "fuc*kn whore"

by one of their hosts, regardless of the unprofessional nature of it, IT IS BAD FOR BUSINESS

[Beacool]

54. Oh yeah, Hillary personally lead the attack!!

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld had nothing to do with this mess. Let's all blame mean Hillary.

Don't you people get tired of constantly spinning this old retread????

[lligrd]

80. Has She Claimed That Yet?

I wouldn't doubt it.

[DemGa]

56. What nonsense -- and compared with BO?

OBAMA: But keep in mind, I think this is a tough question and a tough call.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200711110004

[Shae]

58. She didn't actually send them.

She voted for the resolution, and I believe she did so because it was politcailly expedient.
She didn't start the war, but she, among others, supported George Bush's decision.

George Bush was the Decider. Give the devil his due.
It's George Bush's war.

[JVS]

60. It's like Kyle's mom says

"Horrific, deplorable violence is okay, as long as people don't say any naughty words."

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

61. Notice they also want Andrea Mitchell fired.

For only reporting on Clinton's race baiting.

Would they want Rhodes fired for calling, say, Ann Coulter a "fucking whore?" I doubt it.

It's not the words, it's who they chose to criticize.

[azmouse]

63. Well said.

[bobthedrummer]

64. Archived WillyT thread worth reviewing: "As War Neared in 2003--Hillary Was Silent"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5108062

[Milo_Bloom]

65. But she isn't a strong woman at all..

She is actually quite weak, which is why she voted for the war.

[mtnsnake]

66. What is she then? A strong house?

:wtf:

[Milo_Bloom]

95. She's quite weak and cowardly.

[paulk]

67. more stupid shit

You people are no better than Republicans - blaming Democrats for Bush's war.

[4dsc]

68. Show us where she voted for a PREEMPIVE WAR!!

Someone please show me where she voted to allow AWOLbush to launch a PREEMPTIVE WAR!! Anyone!!

[MethuenProgressive]

70. "Hillary sends"?

Yup, you're confused!

[11 Bravo]

76. Not confused, deliberately disingenuous. (That's nice-speak for "fucking liar").

[itcfish]

71. And Obama Votes to Support

the immoral war.

[Rockholm]

72. Hillary sent nobody anywhere.

[Rockholm]

73. Hillary sent nobody anywhere.

Weird double post. Man, I hate it when that happens.

[demokatgurrl]

77. Oh let's be honest

BUSH sent them to die, and was going to do it. Hillary's vote notwithstanding.

[Taxmyth]

78. Are Americans really this stupid?

A Corporation suspended an employee for conduct detrimental to that Corporation.

George Bush started this war.

Barack Obama has also sent thousands of troops to die in an unjustifiable war by approving continued funding.

Attacking Senator Clinton does nothing to promote Senator Obama. John McCain is the only one who benefits.

[GarbagemanLB]

79. Sort of like Hillary promoting her and McCain's experience over Obama...

[Lilith Velkor]

84. Yes, they are.

Really.

[Taxmyth]

94. God help us

uh oh.

[ecdab]

83. I doubt any Hillary supporter will say she cast the correct vote on the IWR.

She didn't. Did she start the war? No. Did she order the troops in? No. Did she make a terrible misjudgment that helped Bush to start the war and helped to stifle the voice of the anti-war movement and helped to increase the media circus that uncritically supported the invasion of Iraq? YES - yes she did. Does that make her evil incarnate? No. Does that lead many people to question her qualifications to run this country? Yes, and rightfully so.

Iraq and our economy are the issues of the moment - and they are tied together in many ways. The conflict in Iraq has been a major strain on our economy. They should be central topics in this campaign.

When comparing Hillary and Obama the similarities are many and the differences few - but the IWR vote certainly stands out as a major and critical difference. Obama didn't vote on IWR, but he did speak out against the war - he went on record at a time when it was not popular to do so. Hillary went on record as well. If she had voted against the IWR this primary season would have been over in early February and Hillary would be well on her way to being the next President of the United States. But, unfortunately for Hillary, that isn't what happened. Unlike John Kerry (who many didn't support in the '04 primaries because of his IWR vote), Hillary has never made amends with the anti-war left. She turned her back on them and really never looked back. The fact that she garners little in the way of support from them now should surprise nobody.

[joshcryer]

86. Practically everyone who cast that vote was up for reelection or a junior in the Senate.

This is an indisputable fact.

People are blind to politics.

They just *don't know* how it works.

But her speech when she voted for it illustrates her intent.

And everyone knew that Bush was going anyway due to the UN resolution and the fact that we were "still at war" with Iraq.

The GOP wanted to legitimize it.

The Democratic Senators who had much at stake, because they were the minority voted for it.

This is indisputable.

[ecdab]

92. Political cowardice isn't a trait I want in my President, how about you?

There were quite a few Senators that voted against the IWR, yes - they were in the minority, but they made the correct call and deserve to be credited for doing so. Do you disagree?

Going along with the IWR because it seemed like the safe political move at the time had some serious consequences. The media got to run unchecked with the idea that everybody supported the war. The anti-war left got pushed into a dark corner without any media attention because so many Democrats voted for the IWR. It stifled the public debate and that stifled public debate impacted the perception of the war for years. Voting for the IWR was an act of political cowardice. It is something that should be seen as a negative when Democrats look at who should be allowed to lead the party forward. Are you suggesting that it should not be viewed as a negative by the good folks that have opposed this war from the very beginning?

Many folks, just like myself, had to spend years fighting to change the perception of the invasion of Iraq. It was a massive uphill battle. The Democrats that voted yes on IWR made that battle many times more difficult than it needed to be. Hillary, unlike a number of other Democrats that screwed that vote up, did very little to help right the wrongs of the IWR vote. I'm not a rabid Hillary hater, but I certainly don't think she deserves to be rewarded with our parties nomination for the office of the President.

There are many of us that want to change "how it works" - because how it currently works doesn't really work at all. Not rewarding politicians that hide behind "that's just how it works" is a first critical step in that process. Hillary voted for the IWR because she felt her career would be damaged if she didn't. In doing so she really tossed the anti-war movement (and the common good) under the bus. She wasn't alone in doing that. But karma has a way of winning in the end - ultimately it was a cowardly act of political self preservation that is going to cost her the career she really wanted - if she had done the right thing, she would have been a shoe in for the Presidency. But she didn't do the right thing and because of that she isn't going to be the President. I'd call that an ironic case of justice being served up.

[redqueen]

96. Exactly... and 9 months into the war, she was STILL parrotting WH *lies* about Iraq.

:puke:

[Lilith Velkor]

91. ...

[OzarkDem]

93. You are confused. It was Bush and the GOP in Congress who sent them

But that's ok, we forgive you.