Hillary just told the biggest lie of the campaign

On MTP she told Tim Russert that:




What!? In order to believe this, you would have to believe that Hillary didn't even take the time to read the resolution, titled the "IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION" before she agreed to vote for it. If that's the case, do we want to elect a woman who accidentally helped start a 5 year war?

It's amazing.

as an aside, believe we are supporting the same magnificent candidate! I had to keep doing double takes on your sig line!

However, certain events have convinced me that it is time to make a commitment.

In for a penny, in a for a pound.

No thanks.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton say they are for change however they support many policies of the Bush administration. There Platforms are overwhelmingly similar, and include many issues most politically educated people would understand to be a more conservative stance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt0iTWQxykQ

Kucinich has been blocked out of the media and excluded from many debates, it is up to us to educate our selfs on the candidates and not allow the media to foce feed us lies

:hi:

like a tidal wave...and very effective. More people are interested in flinging shit, than in finding facts. Of course the shit is easy to find, while the facts are buried as soon as they appear.

I agree that Kucinich's ideas and candidacy are really important, and am also saddened and kind of shocked that the news companies decide who is and who is not a candidate.

But have to strongly disagree when you say Obama is no better, as after his 8 years serving in Illinois state senate, when he was running for US senator had the courage to say this is an unneccesary and stupid war. That was a very unpopular opinion back then and most would not have had the courage to say it while running for office.

In any case, Aloha.

clarification on why Obama is better. That's one of the most important reasons I support him as well as how he stands on the dire issues of our times..

http://www.barackobama.com/index.php

if you take every criticism of Obama's record at face value he still comes off better than Hillary. Her record and his record side by side are indeed similar - except were hers is worse.

That's why Clinton gets no points from me for pointing out what's wrong with the records of others, because it first requires that you ignore her own record.

That is what Bush said in Oct 2002 and that was the supposed purpose of the IWR. The problem isn't that vote as much as it is her support of the war after. From her remarks to Code Pink just days before the invasion, to her "stay the course" rhetoric in Nov 2003, and her refusal to support timelines until the base dang near ran her out of the party.

At least you know he loves war and isn't trying to state otherwise.

would you serioulsy vote for Guilliani?

However, if it is, Michael Bloomberg will run as a third party candidate.

You prefer Giuliani, go plead your case on the Freeper boards. How fucking rude is that?

Everyone knows Guiliani has no chance. I was making a point about Hillary's illicit connections to corporate interests and setting that against another person who likes to sport blond hair and heels. One knows when he's pretending, the other doesn't.

Giuliani was DOA. Non-starter. Not even worth discussing.

Sorry, but i just couldn't resist...

<a href="" target="_blank"><img src="" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

felt the same way.

John Kerry, Chuck Hagel etc.

Because I would hate to have to vote for someone who thought that voting for something called the IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION was a vote to avoid confrontation

last time, or were you this opposed to it that you voted for bush (lol)

knew what the IWR was for, unlike Clinton apparently:



She didn't know? Also, the personally thing is pretty funny, considering Bush's assurances were part of the debate. Does she give more credence to it because he told her "personally"?

Also, Kerry has strongly opposed the Iraq war and led the efforts to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq.

So "He did it to" is damn well good enough for Hillary supporters. Ye reap what ye sow. :shrug:

except where it's worse.

but shame on the party that puts forth another such candidate

going to war. OHHHH I guess everyone was just tricked into war in Iraq. No one in there right mind would think the Iraq War Resolution meant we were going to war.:sarcasm:

post.

I've been there... back in 2006, I voted for something out here which was presented differently on the ballot than what I later found out it's true intent was.

If I'd known the intent, I would have voted against the measure.

I expected repukes to support Bush but any Dem who trusted or believed Bush after theft 2000 was a fool then and unfit to lead now.

We at DU knew that IWR was Bush's free pass to wage his war on his timeline, inspectors and facts be damned. He and Cheney wanted to go to war by any means concoctable.

IWR = Iraq War Resolution and gave Bush SOLE authority. WTF did those assholes think he was going to do with that resolution? And BIPARTISAN backing from the likes of Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, Lieberman, Dodd, Biden gave him political cover. They weren't fooled. They voted political calculation, hedging the lives of others and the treasury of this nation for their future political advantage. Lieberman of course was looking out for Israel (first, foremost and always) fellating Bush.

those who can at admit it was a mistake I can forgive somewhat. Those who can't admit as much have the same mentality that Bush does. "I never make mistakes."

one can go back through the DU archives at the time and see that nearly everyone here-and abroad-was opposed to the signing of the IWR because we all feared what eventually did come to pass because of it. We're not paid to understand these things-yet we seemed to have a better understanding of the consequences of it than they did? Hmmmm...

I felt the same after reading about IWR back then. After all, it said, "Iraq War Resolution" not Peace resolution.

not seeing the forest for the trees. Members of Congress get so much "information" thrown their way that they can't see the bigger and clearer picture.

then their decisions were influenced by political considerations

They wanted this war and they got it.

give anyone who aided and abetted all the death and destruction associated with that vote a rest, especially when that someone wants to rise up the leadership chain.

Oh, hell no. Do the people of Iraq or the multiply-deployed soldiers and their families get to give it a rest?!!!

Fuck no, this is issue one with me and many others and we will not give it a rest despite the MSM and candidates who have somehow managed to put this fiasco on a back burner.

She didn't know?

Personally?

Why would she think that was a bill aimed at preventing confrontation? Why wouldn't she have read the bill, or had someone on her staff read it, before voting for it.

...and most of it is preamble anyway. The actual resolution is very short-- takes maybe 2 minutes to read, and it is utterly clear and unabiguous in its authorization to use military force against Iraq without any meaningful conditions or impediments. No one who actually read it can credibly claim to think it was anything else, IMO.

designed to give GEORGE W. BUSH a free hand at using military violence against Iraq. It was clear to many of us that George W. Bush had no intention of using it as a last resort.

We all knew what Bush wanted. PNAC spelled it out long BEFORE 9/11.

Besides, how was Iraq an imminent threat? How could anyone could believe that crap? A 1991 war followed by 12 years of sanctions... Beyond credibility.

If war was a last resort, why the need for a WAR resolution before the inspectors were finished.

Crap, crap, crap. Spin, spin, spin.

(and I don't agree with the reasoning) Was that Saddam would not cooperate with inspections until he was forced to. The IWR was to be used as an ultimatum. Without the ultimatum people believed Saddam would just drag things out.

It was known by many that Iraq had effectively disarmed by 1995, and Baghdad had already agreed to resume inspections in September of 2002, before the IWR was introduced in October. Hans Blix fully expected to eventually certify Iraq's compliance with the disarmament mandate. The U.N had already declined to authorize further military action.

I think the IWR was REALLY just the opposite of what you suggest. The window of even trumped up legitimacy for war was closing rapidly, and the Bush administration-- and congress members seeking the political boost of a nice, easy little war like Gulf War I-- were running out of time. The IWR was an attempt to prop the window open for a few more months until the invasion could be launched.

There was still a dispute about whether or not the inspectors were receiving complete access.

It was the lifting of sanctions and any return to normalcy in Iraq that the U.S. could not allow under any circumstances. In fact, UNMOVIC did not complain about any access restrictions that I can recall until they were evacuated from Iraq in advance of the U.S. invasion in March 2003.

The resolution passed the Senate on 10/11/02.

This CNN report from 11/27/02 says Hans Blix was taking a wait and see attitude toward Iraqi cooperation.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/11/27/iraq.inspectors/index.html

The neocons wrote a letter to President Clinton in 1998, begging him for war with Iraq.
Hillary knew these warmongering dirtbags had been shopping around war with Iraq for years.
Bill said no and they slinked away, knowing that they would have to wait until a Republican
president would give them their long-desired Iraq war.

I might add that the people who asked Bill Clinton for war with Iraq, in 1998, included: John Bolton,
Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle.

The same neocons who asked Bill for war, arrived on the scene after 9/11--with Bush leading
the charge.

Hillary damn well knew the intentions of these neocons--because they asked her husband for the
same war. And she has the audacity to suggest that voting "yes" on their Iraq War Resolution
didn't mean war...that it really meant peaceful, diplomatic negotiations?

We should all be fearful of this lying, neocon enabling, conscious-lacking person, and never
trust her. She is with them.

Here's a copy of the letter: http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Link??

knew what the IWR was for, unlike Clinton apparently:



She didn't know? Also, the personally thing is pretty funny, considering Bush's assurances were part of the debate. Does she give more credence to it because he told her "personally"?

It never stops with her

Or Giuliani? Or ........


never mind. Keep playing that same old song. And vote for the nominee. Oh wait, you hate Hillary, I forgot.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha!

OMG!!! Amazing! So is she stupid or is she lying?

stupid a lie. She was warned by colleagues NOT to vote for it. Lots of them. Kennedy, Leahy, Byrd, etc. She voted for it out of political expedience, trust in bushie or just plain stupidity. None of those reasons are acceptable. Leahy warned over and over again that the IWR was a BLANK CHECK. Too bad she didn't listen to people who are clearly her superior in every way.

Thats what pisses me off the most.

I supported Kerry when he got the nomination, and I'm *considering* voting for Hillary in the GE, but I am wiser now and Hillary's condescension and stridency offend me more than Kerry's waffling and aloofness.
It seems to me that Kerry at least could make an effective argument against the war. Hillary, on the other hand still embraces the War-on-terror logic that ceded Bush the authority to go to war in the first place.

before you go any further. Cause you obviously are speaking without the appropriate knowledge.

...then you're apparently lacking some "appropriate knowledge" too. First, the IWR was a free standing resolution, not an amendment to another bill. Second, while the PREAMBLE to the resolution thanks Bush for his prior diplomacy-- along with stating that Iraq was awash with banned weapons of mass destruction, implicated in the 9/11 attacks, and a bunch of other lies-- the resolution itself is brief and does only two things. It authorizes the president to use military force, without any preconditions and at his sole discretion, and it justifies military action under the War Powers Resolution of 1974 while modifing the reporting requirements of that Resolution.

The IWR was a naked blank check war authorization. Anyone who voted for something else was delusion, didn't pay attention when they were called to perform their leadership duties, or they're lying about their motives. Take you pick where Senator Clinton is concerned.

She basically told that the Bushies lied to her on the intent of the IWR based on all the data she put together to justify the vote. But the quote for Obama showed profound, even prophetic jusgement with far less data.

Hey Hillary if you were betrayed by the Bushies....why did you vote year adter year to fund the war? If you thought the Bueshies lied, why did you not support impeachment?

Obama clearly had better judgement going in.

so smart and so experienced, how could she be fooled by the moronic Bush and the demonic Cheney?!

...BEFORE the IWR vote. This is more of the tired old smoke screen warmongering dems used to justify their support for the war against Iraq.

who don't like Hillary Clinton will use it as a ploy against her. Tim Russert was his usual adversarial self toward Democrats. If Tim ever runs for garbage collector I might vote for him. People like Russert, Matthews, Fox associates, do us a real harm when they try to promote themselves while they interview candidates.

she turned her fucking back on us. And you come along and say we would use it as a ploy against her?

hillary used it as a ploy to get her powerhungry self to the whitehouse using our Soldiers as political pawns. hillary has no shame and only gets emotional for herself.

It hurts her to think of where this country is going. :eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes:

Well, it should 'cause she's partly to blame.

whether that statement is just idiotic or dishonest, or both.

If this is the best job Obama supporters can do of discussing issues, he's in big trouble.

But you can attack Hillary KNOWING the OP is bullshit?

think it was a vote to get inspectors back in?

tight against your ears as you campaign for Hillary. You don't play WHAT game - responding to criticism of your preferred candidate's statements on record?

PNAC had sent the letter to Pres. Clinton advocating for an invasion of Iraq. That was 1998. When many of the signers of that letter took control of the government and started beating the drums of war, nobody with any sense at all thought this was about inspections. I may not support Senator Clinton, but I do not think she's stupid. She knew we were going to war.

And then there were her closest advisers like Holbrooke, Feinstein, and O'Hanlon, who believed in the policy of "clean the swamp." If all Hillary wanted was to get the inspectors in, then she could have supported the Levin Amendment, a way to force bush to return to the congress before any invasion. She failed that test too.

Senator Clinton is being dishonest and in a just world, should not be permitted to get away with this.

truth
facts
history
no spin
no excusitis:

"Senator Clinton is being dishonest and in a just world, should not be permitted to get away with this."

Why such a horrific disinformation campaign? The National polls show her in the lead, why continue to try and take her down through lies, disinformation, propaganda, and harsh rhetoric?

What the fuck is wrong with DU???? Shouldn't we be working to defeat the Reich wing and not our own candidates? What would happen if Hillary is nominated and she chooses Obama as he VP? Would you fuckers NOT vote for her out of spite, KNOWING that we could have 16 years of uninterrupted Democratic rule.


Too fucking much, this is not the DU I signed up for so many years ago.

I'm just doing what Hillary asked us to do.

what shit

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and I hope you're doin' okay.

You can't handle the truth.

HRC is a GE loser. Repukes love to hate her, independents won't stomach her triangulation and, as is obvious on this board, many Dems are viscerally opposed to her because of her war stance.

the Clinton folks are doing it to Obama, the Edwards folks are doing it to both (though today I have seen some jump all over others within their 'camp' for doing it), the Obama folks do it to Clinton.

I think it was ugly in 2004, and now it is uglier on steroids.

I would much rather someone say, "I fully understood the situation, but I made a mistake in judgement" than that they didn't know what they were doing.

But for someone making important decisions that affect every man, woman and child in this country? Not knowing the situation forwards and backwards is completely unacceptable.

I don't think so. It is popularly called the "Iraq War Resolution," but that's after the fact, and certainly not the official title that Clinton saw at the time. So that's a lie on your part.

It was actually called the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002."

However, it DOES mirror the language of the resolution that enabled the Gulf War of 1991, which was called the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution" (of 1991, though it wasn't called "of 1991," obviously).

So, she definitely should have known better. That said, don't lie. It's demeaning.

If she'd vote for that without reading, what else would she do without having enough information?

progressives who knew it was a bad deal.

re. the Iraq war resolution. Her speech was very clear, concise and detailed. It is quite clear she was depending on the administration to rely on the UN, allies and diplomatic means to rein in Saddam Hussein. She had a choice and made the wrong choice by trusting a very corrupt Bush administration to do that very thing. It was a very tough choice.
Of course it is doubtful that Clinton haters will bother to examine the true motivations of Hillary Clinton.

...is to read the title and insist on the most simplistic literal interpretation of that as possible.

Works great for things like the "Clean Air Act", for instance.

That Hillary... reading the details of the legislation and voting based on that instead! What a buffoon! :eyes:

If she had read it, she would have known that she wasn't simply voting for the return of inspectors.

Or she's lying now.

Which one is it?

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html Thanks to papua post # 49

It is clear she was fully aware of the Iraq situation. Moreso than you I can be assured.

:rofl:

Have your read the IWR? There is a preamble, in which each statement begins with "Whereas...." That is all just boiler plate, albeit filled with lies and distortions, but the preamble legislates nothing. The resolution itself begins with "be it resolved..." and is very brief and direct. It is a naked blank check authorization for war against Iraq, without any meaningful conditions. Anyone who has read the details of that legislation and still harbors any delusions about its intent is disingenuous at best.



That's the sharp end, in all its dazzling complexity.

is pretty short, and available in PDF here:
http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

I have to respect that more then blindly trusting GWB.

Bushco wants a new history, and so they claim things that are untrue.

Here are a few examples:

Saddam = 9/11

Rebels against our invasion = "Al-Qaeda terrorists"

WMDs(Nukes especially) = Any country we want to invade

Offshoring = good for the economy

They just keep saying it in the hopes that it will become accepted fact.

There was a push for alternatives to the resolution that would have required Bush to come back and get authorization for an invasion. That was apparently too much trouble for the Dems who voted for the one we got.

I've got one of my own, and I think it's the true one of the bunch:

"Tough on Terror" = Stealing other people's oil

I am NOT a warmonger!
I am just an IDIOT!

Vote for Meeeee!

The only thing funnier (or sadder) than Hillary's explaination are those blind partisans who BUY THIS SHIT!!!!

:rofl:

Do you ever post positive thread about your candidate? Let me answer that for you, no, because you don't really have a candidate. You're just here to find anything to feed on your Clinton bashing.

Get a life.

Look at what she is actually doing, and tell me you agree with her tactics.

Go ahead, and try it. It might help if, in these articles, you read her name as "Bush". Would you support these tactics is he was doing it?

Maybe Bushco did tell her that, but she's not an idiot.

She read the resolution, and she listened to all the speeches, including Byrd's "blank check" speech.

She read the news reports and she knew that the day before the vote, Saddam had agreed to let the inspectors back in and the White House had rebuffed him.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

Hillary believes that you do what you have to do to stay politically viable and to get elected so you can do the good and important things you want to do later. She has always believed that.

It is a terrifying sign of how far gone America is that this good Democrat allowed men and women to fight and die in an illegal war in order to maintain political viability.

But it worked, and she's still there. It would not help her, or us, for her to tell the truth about this now. I'll proudly and hopefully vote for her if she is the nominee. I say that not knowing if she can, or will, lead this country back from the brink after making such a horrible compromise. But I know for sure that another Republican President won't. Another Republican President will mean the end of America.

So, yes, it's a lie, a huge one. And I can live with it.

at all. And you, what else can you live with? How far can a politician go to maintain viability?

And I don't know what else I can live with. I never dreamed I would be able to live with the likes of this.

Four and a half years ago, I was a principled and pure as you.

so much death and destruction so HRC can rise again SUPPOSEDLY to do good works.

Fuck that. She failed the political and moral leadership test when it mattered and I will not reward her with even greater power.

That's not a lie. That's just how she sees it.

but is not true now.

and our job is to see to it that she doesn't get into the general on her smears and jeers. What a lame pres she would make.

heaven forbid.

She'll lose the GE because repukes HATE her, independents won't support her and, as seen here, Dems range from lukewarm to viscerally opposed.

Can you say POTUS McCain or Huckebee?

ha.

I liked it better during that brief moment when they actually thought they could win.

Some "progressive"

I'm a little fuzzy on all that.

But if she really did claim that, on Meet the Press........

and she expects to be elected as President of the United States? she can't read? she doesn't want to read?

Is she gonna hand off responsibility to other people who should be reading for her and making decisions for her and CNN.... like Bush is proud of doing (or at least, he was proud of doing and boasted about it, before Katrina)?

One hundred Senators were given a briefing by BushCo. The briefing supposedly contained up to date info from the CIA and FBI. The IWR was to allow Bush to go to the Security Council of the United Nations and work within the UN. He also wanted the inspectors(that he had pulled out of Iraq)put back in.

Fine. You all with me so far?

What the BushCo actually briefed was the fixed intelligence cooked up by HIS Iraq Study Group which rewrote the CIA/FBI report to support Bush's intent and the facts.

The Iraq Study Group: Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Kindasleezy/Wolfowitz/Pearle/Feith.

That is what the Senators voted to allow. At that time, we on the net knew there were no WMD in Iraq. But Senators, at least up to that time, tended to believe the president(PNAC document be damned). So, out of the 100 Senators, 76 voted for the IWR.

Lots of google material in this to satisfy the most twisted of minds.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/25/204032.aspx



So that's probably where I'm getting that Hillary didn't read, vague memories of this newspiece.

Is the book full of b.s.? I don't know how that works. Do you?

The book merely muddies the issue further, and does not clarify one thing.

...who voted against it? All these efforts to exonerate the dem legislators who supported the war against Iraq fail to account for those who didn't. Were they unpatriotic? Were they supporters of Saddam Hussein? If the administration's briefing was so iron clad, why didn't they support the IWR? Might they have questioned its conclusions, or might they have simply known better than to believe the administration when folks close to UNSCOM had reported that Iraq was fundamentally disarmed by 1995? If the IWR was necessary to force Iraq's compliance with inspections, did those legislators seek to undermine the UNSCOM inspectors? Were they showing better leadership than those who blindly went along with the administration's call for war? If the the dem senators who voted for the IWR weren't voting for war, what weren't the others voting for?

H.R. 114-- the Iraq War resolution-- was sponsored by Dennis Hastert. It was cosponsored by 136 members of the House. You can read their names here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HJ00114:

Members of the executive branch cannot sponsor resolutions in the House of Representatives.

on edit-- the link above does not work-- use this one, then click on Bill Summary and Status at the bottom: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

Which is actually the more polite way of saying what she's full of.

Saying that you vote without knowing what you're voting for just makes you look more irresponsible.

Thank you.

I don't know if we've ever had a better excuse to go out and soak up some rays. Timing couldn't have been better.

As David Geffen said, the problem with the Clintons is not that they lie, but that they lie with such ease.

Just what we needed in the White House, another pathological liar to replace George W. Bush.

First, be specific. Was she lying about Bush making assurances he would invade only if necessary?

The title of the resolution is insufficient by itself to prove she lied. To make your case, you need to post the text of the resolution and demonstrate there was no language in it to support Clinton's statement.

Personally, I think anyone who voted for the IWR showed incredibly poor judgement if they trusted Bush to abide by assurances or even by language in the resolution. The agenda of the PNAC neocon policymakers in the Bush administration was no secret. Once given the authority, Bush was going to invade no matter what. That was obvious to me at the time, so I think it also had to be obvious to a politician as smart as Clinton.

Edwards was worse. He actually bought into the neocon rhetoric that an invasion and occupation of Iraq by the United States would spark a flowering of democracies in the Middle East.

...make that statement pretty damn close to a lie. If she wanted weapons inspectors, but not war, she would've voted for the Levin Amendment.

She voted for the war to keep her New York Senate seat, plain and simple.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4056512&mesg_id=4056512

Politicians above all else base their calculations on how an issue or vote affects their own political future.

And like I said, Hillary is smart enough to know Bush would invade no matter what.

but at least he also owns up to it and admits he was wrong, something Clinton won't do.

... admitting he was wrong doesn't erase the extremely poor judgement he showed in 2002.

That vote remains a litmus test for my vote, surpassed only by the imperative of nominating a candidate who will win the general election.

Not in a relationship, not in politics.

Makes my skin crawl. :scared:

Eight years of a pathological liar in the White House isn't enough for some people, they now want a pathological liar with a D after her name.

:scared:

...this comes as no surprise.

I get the feeling that Hillary tries to hide her obvious pro-war votes from America.
She becomes indignant when reporters or voters ask to to explain her war votes.

In Iowa, she accused a man of being "a plant" because he asked her about Kyl/Lieberman
and challenged her on her explanation.

She actually spins that Kyl/Lieberman--which declares an arm of the Iranian government, a "terrorist organization"--
is the best way to foster diplomacy between Iran and the United States.

Yeah. That's it. I always label people "terrorists" in an effort to build bridges with them.

Just how dumb does Hillary Clinton think we all are?

I did the research and read what the resolution said and her reasons for voting for it in her own words. The gist has been stated in previous posts.

She denies responsiblity for her own actions and choices. LIKE BUSH! I ABSOLUTELY CAN NOT VOTE FOR HER!

I want someone who takes responsibility for their actions and remedies them if they learn that they were wrong. Not someone who simply denies that they made the mistake and then ignores the ramifications. I don't want 4 more years of Bush-like politicians. Something HAS to change!

Wow.

I pray that she does NOT win.

would believe that for 1 second.

Seriously, Edwards and Obama supporters are so dense sometimes.

The resolution is a comparison to sticks in foreign policy. Show them your willing to strike and perhaps they'll fall through and cave in. So, she's right.

QQ?

They have staffers do it... and if that's your litmus test, here's your candidate: Kucinich.