Clinton concedes role in authorizing war

DES MOINES, Iowa - New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton blamed President Bush on Saturday for misusing authority given him by Congress to act in Iraq, but conceded "I take responsibility" for her role in allowing that to happen.

(snip)

"I have said clearly and consistently for quite some time that I regret the way the president misused the authority," said Clinton. "He misled Congress and the country on what he was seeking and what he intended to do."

The responsibility Clinton said she accepts was helping clear the way for Bush's path in Iraq.

"I take responsibility for having voted to give him that authority," she said. "My focus is on what we do now. That is the proper debate."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070127/ap_on_el_pr/clinton2008

Li'l Bush will ever take...

Really, this is why it's of utmost importance to elect trustworthy, decent people to the presidency. We cannot bring back the dead, nor can we compensate for their lost wisdom and unrealized potential. War is a terrible thing, representing the utter failure of diplomacy, and we have embraced it as an acceptable answer to our national quest for resource control for far too long.

because it was already clear that the Repubs would have majorities in November? So some Democrats agreed to support a compromise IWR, that included language that they thought would limit Bush's actions -- because the alternative was to vote down the October version of the IWR - the compromise version -- and sit back in January and watch the new Republican majorities approve their own IWR that would include no restrictions at all.

Twenty-twenty hindsight proves that the Democrats put too much faith in the wording of the October IWR. But even if all the Democrats had voted no, it wouldn't have mattered. Bush would have gotten exactly what he wanted in January, with the new Republican version of the IWR, in plenty of time to go to war on his schedule.

Politically, its the only thing she can do.

This 'misled' stuff is getting a bit old, though. If we on DU knew prior to the IWR, I don't give senators or congresscritters a pass. And remember, over a hundred congress critter and senators voted against it, which leads to the question: "Why were some able to be 'misled' and others not?"

And, the answer is not pretty

some did not.

The most important thing is to have the guts to admit you were wrong. That's excellent.

least be tied in with achievable results in Iraq.

Tonight, Al Franken's guest (pre-recorded from earlier in the week) whose name I didn't get while driving home from a birthday party -- was talking about how the last two weeks have played out, and what could be coming up.

It was a very interesting discussion and I wish I could have heard it all.

see if there can be achievable results in Iraq.

Then Hillary will admit that was a mistake and we will admire her for her honesty, and her great ability to admit mistakes.

Another thousand or so Americans will be dead, many many more Iraqis will be dead, and of course many more Americans and Iraqis will be wounded.

But that's just the way it goes sometimes. Empire isn't really known for it's compassion, after all. It's better known for it's mistakes, if history is any guide.

Gamblers can be counted on to to throw good money after bad. And eventually, everyone will agree on what a human tradgedy it was.

Iraq. Those of us who live in the United States of Amnesia (with apologies to Gore Vidal) who actually do have a memory will not soon forget or forgive her for her cravenness.

Men!

Even if she has other weaknesses.

...Shame on her if she did.

Her being the "Queen of the World" is the most important thing to her.

(Liz Taylor backs Hillary...but then again Liz also backed Michael Jackson)

We need a patriot in office! :patriot:

He was the first one to get there sales pitch.

Who is Will Marshall?

Will Marshall is one of the founders of the New Democrat movement, which aims to steer the US Democratic Party toward a more right-wing orientation. Since its founding in 1989, he has been president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank affiliated with the Democratic Leadership Council. He recently served on the board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a committee chaired by Joe Lieberman and John McCain designed to build bipartisan support for the invasion of Iraq. Marshall also signed, at the outset of the war, a letter issued by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) expressing support for the invasion. Marshall signed a similar letter sent to President Bush put out by the Social Democrats USA on Feb. 25, 2003, just before the invasion. The SDUSA letter urged Bush to commit to "maintaining substantial U.S. military forces in Iraq for as long as may be required to ensure a stable, representative regime is in place and functioning." He writes frequently on political and public policy matters, especially the "Politics of Ideas" column in Blueprint, the DLC's magazine. Notably, he is one of the co-authors of Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy.

-snip
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Marshall

:grr:

Well said! Thank You!!!!

The IWR that was passed that October was a compromise effort. In order to get it passed, the Republicans needed some Democratic votes. So Democrats insisted on including language that they thought -- incorrrectly -- would require Bush to come back for further approval before going to war. They knew that the alternative -- if the compromise bill wasn't passed before the election -- would be even worse.

What would have happened if the Democrats had stood solidly against the October IWR? It would have been defeated. . . for the time being. But Bush would still have taken us into the war, and not a single life would have been saved.

Why? Because if the October IWR had failed, Bush would simply have waited for January, when he would have attained his majorities in the House and Senate. And then he would call for a new IWR without the compromise language. The new Republican-only IWR would have given Bush exactly what he wanted, without even the attempt at any restrictions.

Bush was in a win-win situation. The Democrats could help him by voting for a compromise IWR, or watch an even worse resolution pass -- without any input from them at all -- in January. This is the kind of reason our representatives often compromise -- because the political reality is that the only alternative is even worse.

could too but it wasn't politically feasible for her future career at the time. SIGH! So sad.

I think Ms Clinton and far too many others fell into that category.

I believe it was a systemic failure (to begin with). Everyone believed they were doing the right thing and that Saddam really represented a threat to begin with (I believed it for a little while). It becomes (and did become) a personal failure as the months passed and the deaths climbed and the volcano that is the tortuous and hate filled ethnic region known as Iraq flowered with violence. She is late however, and so I believe that for her there is a personal failure.

or both.

Hillary wants to have her cake and eat it too.

eom

The first time was her severely botched "HillaryCare" efforts.

it was such a mistake.

That's even worse horrible judgement or worse moral cowardicem or both.

The Congress seem to be doing a kind of slow-motion Chinese Fire Drill in the process of opening up and admitting the entire Iraq venture has beeen a horrid mistake, after which they will ever so gradually design a withdrawl plan that can be offered to quell the violent anti-foreign-occupation nationalists with promises that we'll be giving them back their country in carefully phased stages, while the oil companies can meantime be digging in at 21st Century speed, pending currently tabled legislation.

But they are the only ones benefiting from this criminal war.

10 points.

I remember the argument was that you can't let a President go into this with empty threats. Ifthe Prez must go back to Congress for authorization, the enemies will knowthat and they won't take him serious. I remember that so well, because I used to be a buyer for a large chain, and every salesman KNEW if you didn't have the spending authorityto negotiatefor what he was selling, he'd just ignore you and go to the one who did.

The fault is 90% Shrubsformisusing the power given to him, and 10% to those who didn't realize they couldn't trust him!

DeFazio and he is from Oregon. A politician who is a man with ethics. There were a hannful who voted against the war. edited for spelling

and House members who voted against giving Bush any such power. Only the unduly ambitious, idiots and Bush "pod people" would give George Bush and Dick Cheney that kind of power. And LOOK what they've done with it--used it for widespread torture, for killing tens of thousands of innocent people, for massive thievery, for installing a puppet government to sign oil contracts giving the profits away to US corporations, and now for threatening Iran! Totally predictable. But what the "cake and eat it, too"-ers DIDN'T know was, would the fuckers be successful? That they didn't know--just how incompetent the Bush Junta is, except at thievery and death; and just how much of a wrecking ball they were. But it really doesn't do much good railing against their two-faced-ness. I remember those days. FEAR stalked the land--and most especially stalked the halls of Congress. That was the Anthrax Congress. I pity them. And I don't particularly hold it against them. So they were scared, and hogtied to the "military-industrial" complex? What else is new? Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld are scary people. No lie. And our country is really run by war profiteers. That's the truth. True peace-minded politicians cannot get elected to the White House. They will be assassinated if they do. And their campaigns will be marginalized or sabotaged, or, now, Diebolded, to prevent that from ever happening. What is remarkable, in my opinion, are the politicians who resisted!

I'm going to post the list here--but I've got to go find it. What heroes!

23 Senate Nay votes

Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Robert Byrd (D-WV)
Kent Conrad (D-ND)
Jon Corzine (D-NJ)
Mark Dayton (D-MN)
Richard Durbin (D-IL)
Russ Feingold (D-WI)
Bob Graham (D-FL)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
Edward Kennedy (D-MA)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
**Paul David Wellstone (D-MN)** - May he rest in peace!
Ron Wyden (D-OR)

Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
James Jeffords (I-VT)

---------------------

U.S. House votes NAY (133)

DEMOCRATS (126)
Abercrombie (HI-01) Hastings, A. (FL-23) Neal (MA-02)
Allen, T. (ME-01) Hilliard (AL-07) Oberstar (MN-08)
Baca (CA-42) Hinchey (NY-26) Obey (WI-07)
Baird (WA-03) Hinojosa (TX-15) Olver (MA-01)
Baldacci (ME-02) Holt (NJ-12) Owens (NY-11)
Baldwin (WI-02) Honda (CA-15) Pallone (NJ-06)
Barrett (WI-05) Hooley (OR-05) Pastor (AZ-02)
Becerra (CA-30) Inslee (WA-01) Payne (NJ-10)
Blumenauer (OR-03) Jackson, J. (IL-02) Pelosi (CA-08)
Bonior (MI-10) Jackson-Lee, S. (TX-18) Price, D. (NC-04)
Brady, R. (PA-01) Johnson, E.B. (TX-30) Rahall (WV-03)
Brown, C. (FL-03) Jones, S. (OH-11) Rangel (NY-15)
Brown, S. (OH-13) Kaptur (OH-09) Reyes (TX-16)
Capps (CA-22) Kildee (MI-09) Rivers (MI-13)
Capuano (MA-08) Kilpatrick (MI-15) Rodriguez (TX-28)
Cardin (MD-03) Kleczka (WI-04) Roybal-Allard (CA-33)
Carson, J. (IN-10) Kucinich (OH-10) Rush (IL-01)
Clay (MO-01) LaFalce (NY-29) Sabo (MN-05)
Clayton (NC-01) Langevin (RI-02) Sanchez (CA-46)
Clyburn (SC-06) Larsen, R. (WA-02) Sawyer (OH-14)
Condit (CA-18) Larson, J. (CT-01) Schakowsky (IL-09)
Conyers (MI-14) Lee (CA-09) Scott (VA-03)
Costello (IL-12) Levin, S. (MI-12) Serrano (NY-16)
Coyne (PA-14) Lewis, John (GA-05) Slaughter (NY-28)
Cummings (MD-07) Lipinski (IL-03) Snyder (AR-02)
Davis, D. (IL-07) Lofgren (CA-16) Solis (CA-31)
Davis, S. (CA-49) Maloney, J. (CT-05) Stark (CA-13)
DeFazio (OR-04) Matsui (CA-05) Strickland (OH-06)
DeGette (CO-01) McCarthy, K. (MO-05) Stupak (MI-01)
Delahunt (MA-10) McCollum (MN-04) Thompson, B. (MS-02)
DeLauro (CT-03) McDermott (WA-07) Thompson, M. (CA-01)
Dingell (MI-16) McGovern (MA-03) Tierney (MA-06)
Doggett (TX-10) McKinney (GA-04) Towns (NY-10)
Doyle (PA-18) Meek, C. (FL-17) Udall, M. (CO-02)
Eshoo (CA-14) Meeks, G. (NY-06) Udall, T. (NM-03)
Evans (IL-17) Menendez (NJ-13) Velazquez (NY-12)
Farr (CA-17) Millender-McDonald (CA-37) Visclosky (IN-01)
Fattah (PA-02) Miller, George (CA-07) Waters (CA-35)
Filner (CA-50) Mollohan (WV-01) Watson (CA-32)
Frank, Barney (MA-04) Moran, James (VA-08) Watt, M. (NC-12)
Gonzalez (TX-20) Nadler (NY-08) Woolsey (CA-06)
Gutierrez (IL-04) Napolitano (CA-34) Wu (OR-01)

INDEPENDENTS (1)
Sanders (VT-AL)
NOT VOTING (3)

REPUBLICANS (6)
Duncan (TN-02) Houghton (NY-31) Morella (MD-08)
Hostettler (IN-08) Leach (IA-01) Paul (TX-14)

----------------------------------

GRAND TOTAL: 156 "NO" votes from the Anthrax Congress against the war! (--about 25% of Congress)

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

and those are the ones that should be rewarded. I don't care if your excuse is that it would have looked bad or that you were stupid enough to believe the lies. Neither one makes you a courageous or wise enough candidate to lead the country.

Btw, it wasn't just a handful, there were 156 members of Congress that voted NAY.

As far as Hillary goes...

Way too little, way too late.

As it is too all those who bucked the "traitor" propaganda and voted NO.

And it could have cost him the election, but his polls went up--and then he was killed in a plane crash. He was the only senator running for reelection that voted no. Hillary did not have courage.

And we don't need a quarter century rule by two families, bush and Clinton in this country.

I'm curious.

IIRC.

It was possible, at the time, to see it as a disastrous idea that was doomed to failure. To trust Smirk with a blank check, after watching him steal the 2000 election and jerk the Congress around for two years... ? After watching him almost stumble into a war against China, fer Chriminey sakes... ??

If your kid had a high fever and abdominal pain and you took him to a doctor who said "It's an ingrown toenail, nothing to worry about", and your child died of ruptured appendix within an hour... would you accept "My bad! I was fooled by the symptoms!" and continue to use this idiot as your pediatrician? I don't think so.

I would suggest everybody who thinks "I was fooled by Smirk" reread Gore's Sept. 2002 speech urging Congress to vote against authorizing the war to see how somebody who has a real understanding of foreign policy and defense could easily reach the right answer about the IWR.

legislation to repeal the authorization?

No, that would require moral courage and good judgement. Why should we expect Hillary to have that? bush doesn't and he got to be president.

Not all the Dems voted yes on the IWR.

Look it up!

Wouldn`t Bill have been getting those CIA reports that were refuting what bush was saying?? As a past president he is entitled to get them. I could be wrong but, I have always felt that she should have had more info than the other congresspeople. And if she had that info, then her vote was soo wrong.

just like GW - too little too late

DLC bubble doesn't care about the little guy/gal

Wes Clark is the only logical candidate for 08.

of course in THIS time in space........ not MUCH goin on seems logical to me lately!

Lesson learned: Never Trust a Republican With Your Blood or Treasure!

That's the fecund frame for IWR 'aye' folks, including don't forget: Congressman Murtha and Senators Kerry and Hagel, etc., i.e., "it's a sad day when we are forced to distrust the President of the United States".

Seems to me we hear this now and then from Bush, too: "I take responsibility" ... which consists solely of saying the words "I take responsibility." What she really means (as shown by the following words "my focus is on what we do now") is actually the opposite: "I want you all to forget about the past and not hold it against me."

The heart of the matter is that every vote for the Iraq War Resolution really was a minimum skills test for being trusted with the public interest. Those who failed it are the Yellow Brick Democrats: people who either lacked the brains to know there was no threat and that Bush couldn't be trusted, the heart to care, or the nerve to stand up on the record about those facts and "popularity" be damned; hence, they're either too gullible, too weak, or just plain too corrupt to be qualified for the White House.

What we do now, Hillary, is hand the reins of power to someone who won't make these mistakes. That's not you.

That's a great term.

Your post is spot-on.

It's one I've tried to float for a while, since I really think it captures the most essential point of the otherwise pointless post-war 'debate': the hawks were wrong from the start about a matter of life and death, and perforce can not be considered qualified as "leaders" regarding future matters of life and death. It's precisely because there are no do-overs in matters like this that we need people who get it right the first time.

HOW did he "misuse authority"?. By calling for the invasion itself?

For not committing enough troops to the initial effort?

For not calling for proper oversight? For not disbanding the Iraqi Army? For not anticipating the sectarian violence?

ALL of these things were warned about in G.H.W Bush (Bush the Smarter)'s opinion in 1991.



"Bush's Father Foresaw Costs of Iraq War"
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0825-08.htm

Surely, Hillary has read "A World Transformed"

authority to use as a stick, but he would keep the inspectors in Iraquntil they told him they had looked everywhere, he would ONLY use force as an absolutely last and only option!

I remember that! He was asked that very question. Of course THAT wasone of the FIRST obvious lies!

...and immediately started doing all the things he promised he wouldn't while running?

trust their Presidents on matters like this, most people just did.

I will even admit that I, skeptic that I am, understoodand accpeted his argument. If you're going to swing a stick, you must have the power follow through. I'm not sure why I believed him at the time, and it didn't take very long to realize how terribly wrong that assumption was, and I was very wrong.

I guess that's why I can'tget too upset with those who voted for the authorization.

Hey, I NEVER dreamed any US Prez could as ruthlessand criminalas this one, in the current time frame. But then, I also didn't anticipate the media to be such an accomplice either!

I think there's some mis-remembering going on in this thread. Now, everyone who doesn't like HC for various reasons has mis-remembered that "everyone at DU knew Bush was lying".

Of course most of us "assumed" he was lying. But that was because we hated him and the way he came to power with the help of a corrupt Supreme Court and the way Gore was trashed (with the help of many here BTW). There were many threads about the weak evidence for WMD's. But no-one here was posting information that proved there were no WMD's as far as I can remember. I think our stance was generally that the evidence wasn't strong enough to justify war against SH and Iraq.

Also, I don't think any congress-people voted for or against the IWR based on any irrefutable evidence either way. There was none. Many of those who voted against the IWR were in districts where it would not hurt them no matter what was found out later. Many who voted for it - did so because they were in districts where not supporting the president who was seen by many as going after those who orchestrated 9/11 (no matter how illogical that was) - could make them unelectable - no matter how the WMD thing turned out.

If HC had voted against the IWR and even one cache of WMD's were found - she never would have been re-elected as senator from NY - much less had any chance of becoming the first female president of the US.

The sad truth is that a large number of voters have very little sense and are easily manipulated by their emotions. In most voting districts sensible reality-based politicians still need the votes of those largely clueless voters to get elected. So (smart, electable) politicians hedge their bets in some important matters so they are covered no matter how things turn out. It's called politics.

Many of us here at DU would love to see our congressmembers take principled votes no matter what the outcome. Unfortunately, we'd soon find ourselves with all Republican congressmembers representing us - because when a nation is attacked and 3000 citizens killed - the great majority will be open to almost any call by a strong-sounding leader no matter how illogical or fanciful - and that's what Bush was depending on. (Look how the idiot Gulianni benefitted from filling that emotional need.)

HC's vote on the IWR is only a liability for her on the far left. Most of the rest of Americans would see it as a strength - supporting the president - even of another party - when America was attacked. And almost all Dems see that vote as yesterday's news - and want to know what we can do from this day forward to make this a better country and a better world with a Dem president. If she suffers for that vote (which I doubt) it will be from the far left who'd rather see Kucinich or someone like him nominated and will claim that she is calculating, trying to have her cake and eat it, etc. But someone like Kucinich would have zero chance of being elected IMO. We live in a world where Islamic leaders make speeches about how they are going to destroy us. The vast majority of Americans believe them.

There are still many Indie's who voted for Dems in this last election who'd cross back to R in a heartbeat in 2008 if they felt that the Repuke's claims that we are soft on terrorism had the slightest chance of being true - or if we nominated someone who would be even slightly vulnerable to that charge. They want tough - and smart. HC is about to spend the next several months fulfilling that vision - and IMO will likely be the first female president of the US.

(Perversely, the cries that will come from the far left could even help her in that regard - but those that come from DU could turn DU into a pretty unpleasant place IMO.)

(From my avatar I obviously admire HC - so discount my logic for all this if you like.) :-)

"I do think we are engaged in a war against heartless, ruthless enemies," she said. "If they could come after us again tomorrow they would do so."

Is she talking about Iraqis? Because that is where we are engaged in war. Is she implying that the Iraqis would come after us AGAIN? huh?
This reeks of fear-mongering and hints at a desire to continue this occupation.

"I do think we are engaged in a war against heartless, ruthless enemies," she said. "If they could come after us again tomorrow they would do so."

Hillary seem to be implying that she still lumps the Iraq situation together with Al-Quaeda which will be, in essence, a continuation of the b*sh doctrine! Her DLC propensity seem not to have abated one bit in this regard and she should be carefully evaluated before any progressive support is thrown in her way.

She cannot possibly be unaware of the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Not by now.

But she's aiding in that lie.

Good question.

But then, you knew that.

We don't appear to be fighting one

Remember the saying, "once a whore, always a whore". (not that there's anything wrong with being a whore)

Personal history is a guide to predict one's future behavior.

But we're talking about presidency here. Such an unprincicpled person regarding life and death like Hillary should really be raising a red flag for all democrats who are contemplating to vote for her.

Say no to warmonger Hillary.

If she's going to get my vote (which is likely only going to happen if she has the nomination) she needs to eat some crow and show some spine. This is why I don't like her. I fell no passion from her except her passion to be President. All ambition and no soul.

And all your peity and wit can't bring it back to cancel half a line;
Nor all your tears wash out a word of it."

Hillary's ready to move on.

False humility and mea culpas do not impress me anymore. I expect to see firm, positive, BINDING action AGAINST any further prosecution of this illegal invasion of any innocent nations.

NOW.

Anyone can mouth the words that we made popular by being right about this war all along.

Actions speak far louder. So where are they?

Non-binding resolutions my ASS.

First, I want to share the benefit of my experience. I've been around for a while. First vote for president, 1964. I voted for the "peace candidate." That's how he sold himself. The one who would NOT escalate what later became known as the Vietnam War. I voted for LBJ. And got about a million people slaughtered, for my trouble.

Lesson: Beware of Democrats bearing peace.

Of course, then Nixon campaigned on "peace with honor." (I didn't fall for that, of course.) Another million slaughtered.

Lesson: You can't trust anybody, really--and if you can trust them, they "can't be elected" (or won't survive it). We need to get this through our heads. Our government is run by War Profiteers. Between wars, they work on "Star Wars." Whatever keeps the booty coming in. Then, when a lull happens, and people start to thinking maybe there should be a "peace dividend," or something--a break for the little guy, decent health care or whatever--they manufacture ANOTHER war, small or big, whatever is needed to fill up their coffers with our sweat and blood. They've been doing this since the Korean War. And you pretty much cannot get elected to anything--certainly not to the Senate or White House--unless you go along with it. Big UNNECESSARY military budgets.

We could cut our military budget tomorrow by 90%, down to a true defensive posture, without in any way harming our ability to defend ourselves from any true threat. What is the rest of it for? It's for MANUFACTURING fake wars to feed the war profiteer beast.

However, it would be a difficult and tangled problem economically--one we can solve, for sure, but still, difficult. The "military-industrial complex" is an octopus, with tentacles in all of our lives. I don't know the stats, but it employs many millions of people--to make bullets, guns, rifles, tanks, planes, jeeps, boats, tents, helmets, uniforms, boots, the lot. It's a BIG BUSINESS, just supplying the military for an offensive war posture--and much of it are VERY BIG ticket items--battleships, submarines, missiles, nuclear warheads, fighter jets, satellites, communication systems, food supplies, housing and offices--and all the oil and oil tankers it takes to supply this humongous killing machine. In addition, it employs soldiers and numerous personnel at military bases, a Pentagon bureaucracy, an entire medical establishment (mobile and permanent hospitals, doctors, nurses, high tech equipment, rehab facilities, etc.), a separate prison system (including now torture prisons and secret detention prisons), language schools, training schools of every kind, "think tanks" (how to manufacture the next war?), navy seaports, and on and on and on. Whole communities in the U.S. are completely dependent on the war industry. How do you scale this down without causing a Great Depression? It CAN be done. But it is not easy, and it is not the sort of thing that your average politician would want to take on, due in part to their TIES to the war industry, and also because it is risky and visionary.

There is a reason that it takes a million dollars to even think about running for Congress. Only corporations--and in the U.S, that means the war industry--and the super-rich can put you in that position. So you have to buy into it all, to start with. The super-rich are making their money off the war industry. That's what they are largely invested in. The corporate news monopolies are part of giant multinationals that are also war profiteers. You cross the war industry in any serious way, you get "swift-boated" (or worse). And now we have rightwing Bushite corporations "counting" all our votes with "trade secret," proprietary programming code, and virtually no audit/recount controls--for the purpose of preventing a voter revolt against this great cancerous growth on our backs: War and its costs.

Hillary Clinton is no different from a lot of other politicians who have knowingly and willingly sought the approval of the war industry. As a Democrat--the party that was most responsive (ultimately) to the will of the people on the Vietnam War, the party that "learned the lessons of Vietnam"--she could not have STARTED the Iraq War, if she had been president back in '02. None of the Democrats could have (and I don't think Al Gore would have). But Bush could. It was really a two-party war. It took both parties--which may go some way to explain the mind-boggling silence of the Democratic leadership, as Bushite corporations took over our election system with secret code, during the 2002-2004 period. The Democratic mode--a la Clinton--was limited war--a little action there, a little action there, under UN auspices, to keep the monster going. But the Clinton prosperity threatened to bring our huge military budget into question, and the country's largely peace-minded, progressive views prevented the really big war that was "needed" to feed the beast. Also, the Clinton prosperity--built, as it was, on the backs of the slave labor in other countries, and at the expense of the planet--was really quite precarious, and it was not long before the impacts of "free trade" (global free piracy) hit home, with massive job losses, and loss of our manufacturing capability. The Seattle '99 protests were the harbinger. The people were threatening to take back their government from the Corporate Rulers.

Frankly, I think Bush took office with the acquiescence of the Democratic Party leadership of the time. (I don't think Gore was acquiescent--but I think the Clintons were, and many others including the top tier of the DNC). And now that Bush has all but destroyed our democracy, the Clintons can come back in with unprecedented powers to stifle dissent and possibly to crush the peaceful, democratic revolution in Latin America (which opposes "free trade" and also controls a lot of oil), to maintain the war machine in the Middle East (and suck the last oil profits out of it), and possibly to throw a few sops to the American middle and poor classes. But if there were no Hillary, someone else would fill this bill. (....truly sorry for the pun--not intended). And as long as we continue to possess this gigantic war machine, no other kind of president will be allowed. The war machine will not be used in OUR interest--to protect US--but will continue to be appropriated for corporate resource wars.

To deconstruct the war machine--that is, not to endanger our safety, but to reduce it significantly to a true defensive level--may take a roused up Congress, willing to do battle with a Democratic president (perhaps in alliance with a new type of Republican--true fiscal responsibility, true believer in both small government AND small business and community values--anti-bigness of every kind). This might be possible if we can restore our election system.

There is only one candidate that I can see who might transcend these facts of our system--and that is Al Gore. He opposed the war, early. He opposed the Bush Junta, early. He has the right ideas on Constitutional and lawful government, and has been passionate in articulating them. He is highly experienced in the Executive branch. He is not a pacifist of any kind--and thus may not be as scary to the war industry as, say, Kuncinich is, or as Dean was--but neither is Gore a warmonger. He is a very, very smart guy, who sees that addressing our planetary weather crisis is the way to tap into America's "can do" attitude and enormous creativity and technical expertise. I think that we could begin the process of de-militarization under Gore--maybe not as quickly and dramatically as I would like to see, but nevertheless a serious re-tooling. What the hell are we doing manufacturing completely unnecessary bullets--far beyond what we need for our defense--when we could be manufacturing solar panels? That sort of thinking. Gore is also a highly respected and trusted figure--a known quantity. He has the capacity to re-think our foreign policy and completely turn it around to constructive purposes. He would attract the best talent in the country in every field, to his administration. He has not alienated the Corporate Rulers in his advocacy on global warming (to the point, say, of their wanting to assassinate him). I think he wants to enlist their cooperation. And, last but not least, everybody thinks he was elected--and he was indeed elected--in 2000, and should have been president.

It's interesting that both Hillary Clinton and Al Gore come out of the first Clinton administration--but the one is tied to the old paradigm (war industry rule), and the other has had some downtown to think things through thoroughly and to start creating a new vision of what this country is and could be. That's my main problem with Hillary--she doesn't have any vision. She's just reacting to things as they are, and seems to approve of things as they are. Gore, on the other hand, has become an exciting political figure who can entice the country to change and to face the future.

I get angry when I remember how Gore lost, but I get tingly imagining a possible win in the future! Thanks for your thoughts.

Peace

and although your piece was pretty long-winded (sorry) and well detailed, I've come to much the same conclusion as you.

Al Gore could do it this time.

But we will have to draft him, don't you think?

Or will he willingly take on this difficult path?

It will be interesting to see what happens.

Thanks for your comments.

Wow ... some apology ...
So glad Hil's taking "personal responsibility" for her actions (sarcasm).
Unacceptable for someone who wants to be the President of this country.

Own your mistakes, Senator, and only speak of your "regrets" when they are genuine and heartfelt.
If you can't do that, please do us all a favor, and get out of the race:
Our country is broken because of a disingenuous leader who lied to us.

Just another gutless politician.

Still doesn't have my vote. She should have owned up to this years ago, or even better not voted to authorize at all.

Now the world has to deal with it.

Saying you take responsibility is not the same as a mea culpa, and sack cloth and ashes and standing on the church steps in a sheet with a sign around your neck begging for forgiveness (Medieaval Public Penance, which I wish would make a comeback) is merely step one.

An act of contrtion might be drafting legislation to unable Mr. Bush, Sen. Clinton.

It could even be called the "Restoration of Constitutional Rule Act."

"As a senator from New York, I lived through 9/11 and I am still dealing with the aftereffects," Clinton said. "I may have a slightly different take on this from some of the other people who will be coming through here."

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

which would piss me off. I value honesty in my politicians.

It was not a matter of faulty information, and even if Saddam had nukes, even George Tenet was forced to admit he wouldn't use them unless he was about to be overthrown (like every other government in the world including us).

Further, I seem to recall just about every poll of people in New York City shows people there are far more skeptical of the official line on 9/11 and Iraq, not more willing to suspend disbelief as Hillary implies here.

If she is just going to be a more competent version of Baby Bush, say Papa Bush in a skirt, she should do democracy a favor and sit down.

As much we admire the Presidency of Bill Clinton, the role yesterday of Hillary Clinton to try and draw attention to herself and her Presidential ambitions rather than the hundreds of thousands of Americans that took part in the call to end the war in Iraq does show her "hidden" agenda.

But this is the email we sent her the day she asked for dialogue. No reply, of course!

Dear Hillary,

We listened today to your invitation to people to have a dialogue with you as you investigate whether you should stand for the post of the President of the US.

We are giving you, below, are our honest views.

We are sure you will ignore them. But, as you asked for them, here they are in brief.

But first: We are not American, we do not live in America, one of us is European, the other Asian, we are concerned citizens of the world, we are not Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, fundamentalists of any religion, Arabs, Blacks.

Dear Hillary, you have not understood the problem. But you are part of the problem.

You stood for the illegal war and occupation of Iraq when millions of us around the world took to the streets and protested against it. You ignored us but showed your ignorance and could not separate the truth from falsity. Not a good qualification for someone who wants to head the US.

You helped fund it and continued the killing of innocent Iraqis.

You stood by your US generals and soldiers who took part in the carnage of innocent civilians, the torture of innocents, the illegal imprisonment of people in Guantanamo and such war crimes, that many around the world consider you as one of those who need to be charged with war crimes.

You even took to task Cindy Sheehan for standing up for her dead son.

Yet, your daughter has not volunteered to go and fight for a war that you have blindly supported.

We may complain about the Bush twins not signing up, but what about your daughter?

No way? Will she run away the same direction as your husband at the time of the Vietnam war?

Your votes in Congress on the illegal war and occupation are hardly anything you should be proud of.

Now you stand for capping of the troop levels when most Iraqis want America to withdraw and 70% of Americans want the US troops OUT of Iraq.

As much as we admire you and your husband, we think your possible election as the President of USA will only further alienate the people around the world who see you as part of the problem, just as we see the illegal occupation of Iraq as the problem.

Thank you for trying to Listen. But we know the hypocrisy of US Politicians where such words as ours will go through one ear and out through the other!

Regards

--
Annikki & Jacob Matthan
Oulu, Finland
http://jmpolitics.blogspot.com

Hillary's position on Iraq is not her finest moment. Basically, she has had to "eat crow" on it. I hope you understand that English expression. However, there are enough mistakes that have been made to go around to the whole crowd of cronies who populate our government. If you're going to start splitting hairs about who turned around and when, we will truly be lost. The mistakes of the past are regrettable. It is NOT as if we wanted them or agree with them. You share our shame at what our country has become.

We have a crucial election coming up in 2008. You will not be partaking in it, only observing it, because you are not voting here in the United States. Of course, you are entitled to your opinions as citizens of the world.

Many of us Americans cringe at what has happened in the United States since the voting ended in November 2000. This is the worst administration we have ever seen in our lifetime. I am 67 years old; my husband is 72 years old. We comprise the

Our president was selected by the Supreme Court as I realize you must know. Most Americans expressed their popular vote which gave Mr. Al Gore 500,000 more popular votes. But our system was basically flawed with an Electoral College, as well as other irregularities in voting, and you must know what happened then.

We trust that you realize President Bush and all of his cronies -- all the Republicans have lied to us continually over the past six years. They bear more responsibility for this than any one Democrat. We are all still just beginning to look over the large field of candidates who will wish to become President. At this moment, we have months and months to go before the race even shapes up. If Hillary is not your candidate, I can certainly understand that. I'd be pleased to have your opinions on how other people look from the "outside looking in".

I sincerely hope you will be able to continue to observe how our government works better in the future than in the past. That is why we joined an Internet group like this. We are trying to get back on track as one of the best countries in the world.

Yours truly,

Radio Lady Ellen in Oregon

that Hillary chose to have her own agenda when Americans who are against the war were holding theirs. This is not something that was arranged "just yesterday".

That really showed her up "to the rest of the world" for what she was and is!

Bad judgement, bad politics, self-serving, no self commitment - is that not what we say about the Bush regime.

Do the Democrats want to elect "HER" as their President?

You said, "Do the Democrats want to elect (Hillary)as their President?"

We will just have to wait and see what unfolds.

Meanwhile, I wish you good, warm, ever strengthening sunlight as we move towards spring. We've spent some time in travel to destinations far to the north, near the Arctic Circle, and we found the long winter night hours are extraordinarily difficult.

I think it was in Scotland that they said, "You have to be on the golf course by 10 AM because the sun begins to set by 2 PM" on winter afternoons.

What kind of activities (or work) do you and your wife do in Finland? I see you have a website, but I can't spend the time to link to it. We're at the airport and on our way to Las Vegas, Nevada on travel.

Another Grandmother for Peace,

Radio Lady Ellen in Oregon

satisfaction, as well as an obligation, in telling the truth to power.

Thanks for sharing this.

The elites need to know that they aren't fooling everyone. Perhaps it will cause them to be at least a bit more cautious.

I knew * was going to abuse his authority. So did most of you. You saw the nay votes above. They knew. If we knew about the PNAC plan and the players, why didn't she. She has been way in the inside for years. Naive does not make for a good president. We need to back a candidate who is clear of any enabling of this war.

She was a liar (or a dumbass) when she supported the IWR and she is a liar (or a dumbass) now for continuing to vote for its funding while claiming she was misled by Bush. She was only misled because she found it politically expedient to be misled just like the rest of the Gephardt-Daschle axis of dumbassedness with their Rose Garden concordat in September 2002.

But, of course she didn't actually say, "I'm sorry".

she is making me ill with her g.d. excuses - she voted for WAR AUHORITY for a man who STOLE THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION - WTF was she thinking about besides her own career? I am DISGUSTED.

Just wondering.

that if you admit responsibility, then that is the same as being held accountable...

that simply admitting your actions helped to bring harm to others and allowed abuses that spread far and wide, for example.... is enough.

I don't agree with that thinking...it isn't enough


It can be said that facing the consequences for your actions - being held accountable...is an inherent part of taking responsibility for your actions. Simply admitting a wrong doing without accepting and receiving the consequences doesn't really amount to anything.


I can admit to a wrongful act but if I'm not held accountable for that act, I got away with it. I haven't really taken responsibility at all. There is absolutely no cost to me for my actions. It's like telling me I can do anything I want, anytime I want, to anyone I want...and all I have to do is say "oops, my bad" and all is well.

A confession(the taking responsibility part) for a crime or other wrong doings isn't met with "oh, that's OK - at least you admitted it" and nothing else - they still go to jail - there are still consequences(that's the accountability part)

But Hillary can kiss my big white butt. It was her job to analyze all the factors involved and come to the conclusion most DUers and a lot of others did. If so many of us out here in the real world saw the writing on the wall that spelled debacle why didn't she?

Sound like it's closer to regret.

Well. I prefer a DEM President who is neither an apologist or a regret(ist). Someone who was opposed to the obvious insanity of giving Shrub power from the get-go.

23 Other Senators voted no, 133 other Reps voted no, and most folks on DU knew what Shrub was going to do...

Why did not Hillary!? :shrug:

This is nothing personal about Senator Clinton but if *I KNEW* the case against Iraq was bogus and our justifications for war were dishonest back then, then senators have NO excuse.

Clinton's ROLE in this mess is not that the president abused his authority. He did, no question. But he should have NEVER had that authority in the first place. There was plenty of ability to know that there was no legitimate case for war. Congress failed to check the president because he was popular back then, and they were all more worried about their political careers than they were about the lives of our sons and daughters.

Every single person who voted to authorize this war has completely FAILED to serve the American people. Every single one should resign. Every one. I don't care about their years of service or whatever else they have done right, just like I wouldn't excuse a senator of a literal felony simply because he/she had served well in the past. What these people did is like a crime, and they did it when they had enough information to choose differently. They were cowards and its a disgrace. And I'm tired of making excuses for the people who represent me. I want fresh faces and new blood in Washington, and I want accountability for the despicable and disgusting cowardice of the IWR vote.

I hope you get all this crap out of your system before the 2008 elections. The only questions that really matter are 1. can she win, and 2. does she stand for the majority of things you stand for. The answers are yes and yes.

650,000+ Iraqi civilians off her hands doesn't matter??? Whatever

We must get united behind one of the Democrats and hope all the haters have gotten it out of their system enough to vote the Democratic ticket.

For myself, I think Hillary would make a great President. I think Al Gore, Barack Obama, and several others would be fine.

Whatever happened to ANYBODY but BUSH? This is our chance, friends. Don't get lost in the details!

In peace,

Radio Lady in LAS VEGAS tonight! Hanging with the DU dudes and gals!

No, thx. I've had enough of political dynasties. She gets the nomination and I almost guarantee you there will be a third party candidate running. She polarizes people that badly and she's been nothing short of a weather vane on this $^%& war.

and she continues her hawk stance she doesn't fool anybody

She's 100% responsible!!
Lets go with a winner in 08 - Kucinich/Nader!!