Clinton Supporters, please explain to me why she won't admit the IWR vote was a mistake?

I think Hillary did a great job in the debate. I am very proud of both their performances - I am very proud to be a Democrat tonight. I believe this is the best debate we've had so far, and I wish the others were this substantive.

I feel walking away from the debate that what we're really faced with here are two people who, for the most part, agree on policy. What we are voting on is a style of leadership.

At the end, Hillary simply could not say her vote for the war in Iraq was a mistake. This was one of the major reasons I am not voting for her - I was against the war from the beginning. I do not believe Hillary is either naive nor stupid, but that seems to be her rational for voting for the war - that she was bamboozled by Bush. I believe her vote was a political calculation, and to me - to vote for a war that has ended with the deaths of thousands of American's and Iraqi's to score political points... it is hard to swallow.

She was given an opportunity tonight to say that her vote was a mistake. I think if she had admitted that it was a mistake I could have forgiven her for her vote. I understand her mindset about not wanting to seem weak, but I do not understand why she cannot say: "Look, at the time when I was faced with casting my vote, I believed I was making the right decision. It's easy in retrospect to say it was a bad choice - it was - I did make a mistake - but now moving forward I am prepared to change course and do the right thing."

Why couldn't Hillary say that - or something like that? It effectively lets her have it both ways. I need to hear Hillary admit that she made a mistake. After eight years of George Bush, who has given us nothing but mistake after mistake, I need to hear our next President admit that they are not infallible.

Tonight, Obama made the point that when he picks his cabinet and his Vice President, he does not want yes people. He wants people who will tell him no, and he pointed out and made clear that sometimes he won't make the right decisions. I see this as a very clear difference between Hillary and Obama in their styles of leadership.

EDIT: Looking forward we are likely to go up against John McCain. His core issue - his only issue - is war and in particular the war in Iraq. I do not see how Hillary can face him and win in that debate.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7682.doc.htm

We invaded anyway.

The vote was not a mistake. It worked.

I am not getting what you are saying. It has nothing to do with inspectors and everything to do with the fact that going into Iraq was a mistake right from the start.

Serbians to save lives ... only * would turn it into a permanent occupation. HRC doesn't suffer his delusions.

That was a fucking mistake. What a waste of life and treasure!

WHY WON'T HILLARY, LIKE EDWARDS, ADMIT the YES VOTE WAS A MISTAKE?

Now please avoid the urge to give a Rove-ian answer.

They don't have an answer to the question.

Remember a guy named John "I voted for it before I voted against it" Kerry?

Much smarter for the GE to be able to say, I voted to give the President power put pressure on Saddam. He abused that power.

Whether it's true or not (and I happen to think it is, for the most part), it the only way she can go with it now. It's not the answer Democrats want to hear, but the Repubs will tear her up later if she waffles.

If she doesn't renounce, she will look like a damn hypocrite. Owning your mistake and publically embracing a better way, like John Edwards did, is miles away better in the eyes of voters that perceived wishy washiness or hypocrisy.

given what she knew then, and I think she thinks one should not apologize for supporting the right policy choice for your position at the time with the information available to you then. BUT Clinton now knows that the wrong President implemented that policy, he broke his word to Congress and the American people and he abused it instead of implementing it the way it was intended, and the way he promised it would be used. I think that is really the rub for Clinton. Hillary does say that if she knew then what she knows now that she would not have cast that vote.

Clinton puts the blame for the Iraq invasion directly on Bush because he took what appeared to her and many people at the time to be an effective tough diplomacy strategy and twisted it into an excuse to go to war. I think Hillary believes that strategy should have and would have worked exactly the way it was designed to work if Bush had not betrayed his office and disregarded the promises he made and his obligation to the American people to give peace a chance. The U.N. DID send inspectors back into Iraq. Those inspectors ultimately DID get free access to any site they wanted to inspect without notice, and they WOULD have found out that Iraq posed no threat to the world from WMD. Bush however did an end run and invaded anyway.

So honestly, I don't know if it is her pride, or just believing it would be untruthful for her to say now that, under more normal circumstances with an honest President, what Congress did then knowing what they then knew was unjustified. Her form of "apology" IS to admit that if she knew then what she knows now she would not have done it. Sometimes I wonder if in a way having been so close once to the Presidency herself, that she doesn't think more in terms of what tools of diplomacy a sane President needs to be effective more than the average member of Congress would. That might color her reasoning in a way that other Senators dealing with an issue like that would not undergo.

Often in Washington we've started to get these little code words for really bad things. For example, for the killing of civilians in war, we don't call them "civilian deaths", we call them "collateral damage".

She used one of those terms while talking about her IWR vote: "coercive diplomacy". It really jumped out at me. I take it to mean that she supported, and in the future will support if President, the use of our military as a diplomatic weapon. In other words, she would use our military as pawns, "You do what we want or we invade and destroy you."

That is how I understand and define coercive diplomacy. I do not believe that she would make a threat that she was not prepared to back up, and that in turn - if she was put into a position where she had to do it - could lead to more preemptive wars.

I think, the more I examine her position, her real issue with Bush was not the fact that he invaded Iraq in the first place, but rather the fact that he bungled the invasion. That he screwed up the occupation. In my mind, the more I think about it, the more I see Hillary going down the exact same road as Bush, but believing that she could do it better - that she wouldn't make the same mistakes that he made.

There is a very real fear on my part that her unwillingness to endorse time tables for withdrawal essentially means that she does not plan to withdraw. Part of me believes that once she becomes President she will maintain the occupation under some dubious notion.

That seems to be a different type of foreign policy than what Obama is presenting. For example, he endorses talking with our enemies. He is not against speaking with Iran, something Hillary is unwilling to do.

Am I seeing this wrong, and if so how? The more I examine the position the more I see Hillary as saying, "I believe in the Bush Foreign Policy, the difference between us, however, is that I won't fuck it up."

My problem with Bush is not the failed execution of the occupation. My problem with his foreign policy is that it goes counter to what I believe is productive for the United States, both in the short and long term, and charts us on a dangerous course heading forward into the future.

and leaping from assumption to assumption with little in the way of a real basis for those assumptions. You are out of bounds for example with your conclusions that Clinton does not want to withdraw from Iraq. You present no real basis for that conclusion.

The phrase that alarmed you means having the ability to let an adversary know, in situations where our security is potentially at stake, that we have the means to and may actually use force as a last resort if we deem it absolutely necessary. It sometimes means keeping adversaries guessing what line they would need to cross before they may face force used against them, so that they become reluctant to cross any lines and see diplomacy as a preferred alternative. It magnifies greatly the ability to get an adversary who really would rather just blow you off to take your concerns seriously.

It is exactly what Obama is doing when he refuses to rule out in advance that the United States under some circumstances might need to resort to force to counter a perceived threat from Iran. It is the classic "leaving all options on the table line" which Obama also subscribes to.

The difference between the two is approach. Since you brought up Iran, we are dealing with a situation there that can be resolved with diplomacy. Hillary does not want to have diplomatic talks with Iran, just as Bush does not, but Obama is willing to sit down and talk to them. You can leave the use of force on the table, certainly, but it is not diplomacy if you are not talking to them. It is a threat. It is saying, "Do what I want or else." That is the Bush policy.

One of the possible reasons that Hillary refuses to not admit her vote was a mistake is because she honestly and sincerely believes that it was not a mistake. It is highly possible that she still believes that it was the right vote to cast, and if she admits it was a mistake she'd effectively be lying. I appreciate her honesty on the matter, if that is the truth, however what I'd like from her is clarity.

It really comes down to the fact of whether or not you believe in pre-emptive evasions. Obama's approach to foreign policy is different in that he sees us more as a global community. He seems to want to reach out to other nations, even our enemies, and bring everyone together to forge a diplomatic solution. He does not seem to be afraid to be both strong - in that he won't rule out the use of military force if necessary - but at the same time reasonable. Hillary seems to want to be all strength, there seems to be an intense need in Hillary to prove that she is strong.

That may be due to fears that men in America will see her as weak on foreign policy, it could be any number of issues, she could really believe that her method is the best. Really, it is just hard to fully understand because she has not been clear, especially in this last debate.

and you view Clinton is such a one sided way that after this post I will withdraw from this dialog. Hillary has been a strong proponent of diplomacy with Iran. You are buying into their silly little dance whereby Hillary says "I'm experienced enough to know that a President doesn't rush off immiately to have a fire side chat with the leader of a nation that has long been our adversary without building on a sustained diplomatic offensive at lower levels building higher first". Obama's dance is "I am the one willing to really pursue Peace because I am willing to travel anywhere in my first year in office to give peace a chance."

I wrote this elswhere but Obama would himself start out by launching lower level talks and Clinton would gladly meet personally with an adversary after lower level talks proved fruitful enough to kick it to a summit level. There is no functional difference. Each of them is strongly on record as committed to launching a diplomatic offensive with Iran. Their differences are of style not substance in foreign affairs. That turns out to be true with most issues.

I completely reject your personality analysis of Hillary Clinton. Given how you view her, I now understand why you keep leaping to the conclusions that you do.

Show us one quote from before the invasion, when tens of millions of people all around the nation and the world were in the streets in most massive universal denouncement of the impending invasion...

...show us just one time before we went in where she said it might be ill advised.

Bush might honestly believe that she supported him on the invasion, so show us all why he should believe otherwise.

You know, I don't dout that you probably believe what you are saying, but it just has no basis in reality. She doesn't seem to see anything fundamentally (criminally or legally or Constitionally) wrong with what we are doing NOW, only that she could do it BETTER. She doesn't appear to think that Bush is a war criminal; she doesn't let on that the US oil companies that are currently trying to bribe the Iraqi Parliment are guilty of violating any international or US laws; she doesn't even seem to view this as an unjust war and illegal occupation...

WHAT IS SHE THINKING?

It's pretty obvious that she intended to give the president the ability to use force, to help get the inspectors back in.

Let me tell you something. Tom never writes without evidence, but I think he has come to realize you don't really want to hear it as your mind is made up. Me, I'm not as smart as he is.

Yes, Hillary believes in using "coercive diplomacy." It's what we used to stop Milosevic from killing Muslims in Kosovo. You think we could have just asked him nicely? Fact is, we tried that. He would agree, then go ahead with the killing. It wasn't until the bombs started falling, and until he could be sure that NATO would not stop dropping them, that he capitulated. And something like 1.5 million people are alive today that might not be if we hadn't.

The difference between Clinton and Bush, and it's a BIG one, is that Clinton will only use force as a last resort. Another big difference is that she will not act unilaterally unless absolutely necessary. Bush prefers to act alone, with only token participation by other nations and no international organizations unless they subordinate themselves to him. And a final big difference is that her "last resort" will usually have something to do with saving lives, either here or abroad. It won't be to steal another country's resources or to generate profits for political cronies.

But let me ask you something. Why do you think Obama is any different? He may not use the foreign policy jargon, because frankly it's not in his repertoire. But he did talk about deploying troops into Pakistan to get bin Laden, even without the Pakistani government's permission. I'd bet you Hillary wouldn't do that, not without UN approval and/or NATO participation.

Why can't you face facts, and leave Obama and everyone else out of this for just a second.

There is no statement from her, when millions and millions of people were in the streets all over the world (when the media was ignoring the demonstrations) and the drumbeats were sounding ever louder...

...where is her public statement that she opposed the invasion?

THERE ISN'T ONE, BECAUSE SHE DIDN'T OPPOSE IT!

How stupid do you think the people here are? She was in favor of going in. She thought is WAS THE "LAST RESORT"!

Why do you want to try and rewrite history about this? It's clear as can be, SHE WANTED THIS WAR!

No need to shout.

I told you where to find her public statement concerning the purpose of her vote at the time. You have heard her explanation since. You have no proof of your assertion. But I suppose that doesn't matter.

I'm done now too.

That isn't what I asked at all. I asked a different question entirely.

Where is her contemporaneous statement about the INVASION OF IRAQ? See the difference? This question has nothing to do with a vote, it's about a war.

Since you are the one who is insisting that you know somehow that she was against it, I'm asking HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?

Did she ever make any contemporaneous statement to that effect?

The only thing at stake was US military dominance of the ME, which is an utterly vile, immoral and ethical goal in the first place.

and couldn't stop w/o the local situation descending into the madness we see today. I disagree entirely w/how we handled the situation, but don't pretend we didn't already have a military presence at risk.

The way to get our military out of the risk situation is to just cut it the hell out, period.

The way to get our military out of the risk situation is to just cut it the hell out, period.

in this regard, the public is aware that diplomacy often requires the threat of force. Resorting to it, of course, is a sign of incompetence. The next administration will do better.

because most Americans want a President who's right on the important issues. She figures that most Dem. voters are now more concerned with how to get out than how we got in. And to a large degree she's right on that.

ears.

IWR was a GOOD idea?

her vote with Bush was Saddam kicking out the inspectors.

that got my eyebrows up a bit.
the inspectors were told to get out when Bush decided to do his war thing. THEY WERE THERE CLOSE UP TO THE WAR.

wtf was That about?

...she also said that another reason she voted for the war was because Saddam wouldn't have wanted to compete with Osama for attention. KO in post debate analysis brought that up several times - it didn't make any sense.

isn't that a throwback line from the Clinton years? the kicking out when the real story was Saddam was a bit miffed by CIA infiltrating the inspectors?

good gawd, can't keep up with this shit.

but That's what I'm reminded of now that makes more sense.
it may have been a rote thing on her part and she placed it in the wrong spot.

We invaded anyhoo. Here's Blix explanation of why external pressures were necessary

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7682.doc.htm

Better to take the approach she's taking, which is to put the focus back on Bush.

Whenever the issue comes up she has to explain her vote. It really hurts her. If she admits in retrospect, seeing how Bush screwed things up, that it was a mistake and if she knew then what she knows now, she wouldn't have voted for it - that's putting the focus back on Bush. Right now, her response is too muddled. Going up against McCain, whose only issue is the war - this is her weakest issue.

about lambasting Bush. which is always good.
but save it for the GE and don't try using it askance to save your own damn ass in the primaries.

but the fact she is getting big $$$$ from Defense companies is probably the #1 reason she won't apologize.

you will find your answer there

Let's face it, and I mean no disrespect to John Kerry, but he was a weak candidate. He was not ready to go up against the Republican's. I believe both Hillary and Obama are ready, and I believe we have really benefited from this extended primary season. Our candidates have been vetted heavily.

That being said, Bush attacked Kerry on the fact that he was for the war and then against it. Hillary's position is the same. She was for the war and now she's against it. She will be attacked as Kerry was attacked no matter if she admits her mistake or not. Therefore, I do not see the political benefit, especially in a Democratic Primary, to not admit to a mistake. The only logical conclusion I can come to is that she still supports the war, and perhaps that is the reason she does not want to give a time table for withdrawal.

If she had come out and faced the issue around the time that Edwards did (preferably before), she could have neutralized the topic. However, her "handlers" think it will make her look soft and like a flip-flopper at this point. So, she's stuck trying to dodge the issue without repudiating her vote.

Honestly, I think she really is sorry she voted that way. Like Biden, Cleland, Dodd, Harkin, Kerry, Reid, and Schumer, she made a political gamble. They all knew it was wrong to vote the way they did, but Republicans were so dominant at that point; the media was so gung-ho for war, that they bowed to the political pressure and voted yay.

I can certainly see why they could see how it would make her look like a flip-flopper. Of course, the fact remains in the general election, going up against John McCain, she already looks like a flip-flopper. She was for the war in the beginning, and now that things have gone badly, she is against the war and wants to end it. Admitting that, in retrospect, if she knew then what she knows now she wouldn't have voted for it, takes the focus off of her vote and puts it back onto Bush.

I, personally, do not see that as a weakness in leadership - I see that as a strength. To admit that you've made a mistake is important because - lets face it - no matter if Obama or Hillary is our next President they will make a mistake. They are human and it is inevitable.

Like I said in my first post, I think they are pretty close on the issues. Although, I am disappointed Hillary won't set an exact time table like Obama for getting out, and that leaves some room in my mind for her to keep us in Iraq once she takes office. There is some part of me that still believes that she supports the war, even now, but had to change her position because she knew the Democratic base would have rejected her outright.

After all, if she could take a political gamble, throw thousands of lives away out of fear, and drain our economy... what goes to say that she really didn't feel - and still doesn't feel - that it was the right choice to make? Maybe that is why she won't say it was a mistake?

I guess, in the end, I just do not see it as big of a deal. For me the defining moment was at the end, when Obama made clear what type of people he was looking for in not only a Vice President but also in a cabinet. He was looking for people who wouldn't be "yes men". He admitted upfront that he wasn't perfect and that sometimes he was going to be wrong.

To me, in my mind, at this point, that really solidified the difference between them both.

I suppose it is possible for Hillary to have reversed her stance after seeing the war's unpopularity and not because she truly believes it was wrong to invade. If she was really concerned with ascertaining whether or not there were actually WMDs, she could have voted for the Levin amendment.

The ability to admit a mistake or seek the perspective of people who are opposite your POV is important, IMO. Bill Clinton did have this quality; his cabinet was very diverse and did not always agree with him.

I do feel as if we must set a timetable. It lets the Iraqis know that we are not intent upon being occupiers and that they will have to come together to re-build their nation.

Just like Kerry and Edwards, Hillary voted thinking that the dumb shit Bush was going to go to the UN like he said. If she turns around an apologizes for her vote, just look were it got Kerry and Edwards. Also it is easy for Obama to say he was against the war when in fact he was not even a United State Senator at that time. But Obama keeps on funding the war at this time. If he was truly anti the Iraq war he would have been doing what Kucinich has done and vote NO.

Now the McCain deal is a easy one. All Hillary or Obama have to do is just say that they don't plan on keeping our man and women in that hell hole and McCain wants to stay there up to 100 years.

If Hillary wins the nomination and goes up against McCain, she is going to face the same problem as Kerry did. She's going to be called a flip-flopper. She was for the war and now she's against it - that's flip-flopping. Going a step further and admitting that in retrospect, knowing what you know now, you wouldn't have given Bush power to go to war - that is not an inconsistent message. The only conclusion that I can draw is that she believed then, and still believes now, that her Iraq War vote was the right thing to do, and that is why she will not admit it was a mistake.

Additionally, on the point about Obama - he had more to lose than anyone in Congress. He was running to become a United States Senator at the time. At that time the vast majority of America was for the war and was on Hillary's side. He could have lost his campaign because of that stance. Hillary is a New York Senator. Voting not to authorize the war would not have caused her trouble in a re-election campaign.

And McCain can be called a war monger.

Hillary won't call McCain a warmonger, and he doesn't pretend that he is not. Hillary's policy does not change by admitting that her IWR vote was a mistake. The only two conclusions that can be drawn are:

1. She is afraid to say it for any number of reasons.
2. She doesn't believe it was a mistake.

In the first instance, that isn't a leadership quality, and in the second that goes counter to what I think most in the Democratic Party are looking for in a President's foreign policy.

I really wish Hillary would be clear and honest on where she stands and how she intends to proceed with her foreign policy.

with her foreign policy."

I thought she has. Didn't she say she would end our military engagement in Iraq's civil war and immediately start bringing our troops home. oh screw this! I will just do what Obama supporters do.... Her is her web page with step by step plans on Iraq.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/iraq/

She was for the war and now she's against it. That's a flip-flop, and that was what was used to bludgeon Kerry to death. That is what McCain is going to use against Hillary if she is the nominee.

Hillary's refusal to admit it was a mistake puts her in a strategic disadvantage. Right now the VAST majority of American's believe that the Iraq War was a mistake. Hillary coming out and saying - knowing what I know now I would not have voted for the war - will not hurt her. It is not even a change in position, because she has already come out against the war. The main difference is that she is admitting her vote was a mistake.

One of the reasons I assume that Hillary refuses to say it was a mistake, and although I cannot be certain on this, is because she truly believed at the time that it was the right thing to do, and now even today she still believes that the Iraq War is a just war. The main difference she has with Bush is in how it was executed. That's McCain's stance on the war. Her refusing to give a time table for withdrawal only further complicates that line of thought, and there is a very real fear on my part that if she becomes President of the United States, that she will continue to keep us in Iraq indefinitely.

Do you remember those big awful fights? And with whom? Cuz I certainly don't!

Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Robert Byrd (D-WV)
Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
Jon Corzine (D-NJ)
Kent Conrad (D-ND)
Mark Dayton (D-MN)
Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Russ Feingold (D-WI)
Bob Graham (D-FL)
Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
Jim Jeffords (I-VT)
Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
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 Wellstone (D-MN)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)

What did they know that Hillary did not?

And many voters gave a shit! Many voters won't forget.

Hillary gambled with her vote - and lost.

the Administration presented to the Congress and the UN she thought she was doing the right thing. Colin Powell evidently believed the evidence too. If she would admit it was a mistake then she would be labeled a flip-flopper by the Republicans, I think she would rather take the fire from the Democrats than from McCain later. Obama was not in the Senate at the time so he probably wasn't aware of all the evedence that was presented to the Senate and he didn't have to make the decision. If he was in that position we don't really know what he would have done. Didn't he say that himself when he supported Kerry's vote on the IWR in the 2004 campaign.

23 Senators and a MAJORITY of democrats in the House KNEW it was BULLSHIT

Alphabetical by Senator Name
Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Campbell (R-CO), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Chafee (R-RI), Nay
Cleland (D-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Corzine (D-NJ), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Nay
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (D-FL), Nay
Gramm (R-TX), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Helms (R-NC), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Hutchinson (R-AR), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Jeffords (I-VT), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nickles (R-OK), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-NH), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thompson (R-TN), Yea
Thurmond (R-SC), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wellstone (D-MN), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Nay

She voted cynically, figuring she could spin it later.

Some people obviously will SWALLOW.

Some will NOT.

An overwhelming majority of the Senate believed the Administration's and the CIA's cooked up evidence. Hillary Clinton and 75 other Senators voted to give Bush authority to invade Iraq if the UN inspectors found WMDs how was they to know Bush would pull the UN out and start a war. Since Obama has been in the Senate he has voted to give Bush the money to keep the war going. As far as the future they both sound virtually the same on the war.

Powell didn't even want to go to the UN
with what he knew was trumped up "evidence".

How come the majority of democrats in the House
knew what was coming?

How come half all those other senators KNEW
it was BS?

We ALL knew it was BS, THAT'S WHY!!!

Then how did Obama, everyone on DU at the time, including myself, realize that the whole thing was a sham? We didn't fall for the deception. Wolf was booed for basically saying something along the lines, "So what you are saying, Senator, is that you were naive to trust the President?"

That is the argument you are giving here - that she was bamboozled by Bush. You are arguing that she had a failure in judgment, when so many others - her chief opponent in particular - saw right through it.

decision to vote for the IWR? I believe he said something to the effect if he was there and knew what Kerry knew that he may have voted for it too. It doesn't really matter now it's ancient history. The question is how do we get out of this mess. Oh,and hasn't Obama voted to fund the war since he has been in the Senate?

Obama gave some vague answer after John Kerry won the nomination. Obama was the keynote speaker at the convention, and did not want to either insult or embarrass John Kerry. Tim Russert, who asked the question, has also verified his answer. He has been, from the very beginning, against the war. He accurately predicted what would happen if we invaded. That is an issue of judgment - of foresight - that is not something you can learn. That is apparently something you either have or you do not.

Obama had more to lose than anyone casting their vote at that time. He was running for national office - he was running to join the Senate. Hillary had a safe Senate Seat in the state of New York. She had the opportunity to vote no, and come out against the war as Obama did - to come out and reject the mentality that got us into war in the first place.

One of the following things happened:
1. Hillary cast her vote for the Iraq War because she believed Bush and his lies. This argument is based off the premise that Hillary is somehow naive or stupid. I do not believe Hillary is so easily bamboozled. She knew what she was doing when she cast that vote - if I knew there was no way she couldn't have known. However, if this argument is true - how does this lack of foresight and judgment qualify her to be President?

2. Hillary cast her vote for political expediency. I believe that this is what happened. When the legislation was in front of her, she had a choice and she took the easy road. If she stood up against the Iraq War from the beginning, Bush still might have went, but at least she did the right thing - at least she showed leadership in the face of adversity. Do we want a President who will send thousands to die, and tens of thousands more to suffer untold physical and emotional destruction as a calculated move to further her political career? Is that the type of President we need and want?

3. Hillary actually believes in Bush's foreign policy, and was casting a vote to support it. Do I even need to explain this? Do we want a continuation of that policy? We cannot deny that this is an option - Hillary may disagree with the execution and think that she can do it better - but that is not where I want to see America go. That is not where America should go. Perhaps, the reason she won't admit it was a mistake because to her it was not. She believed it was the right thing to do - she earnestly supported the Iraq War both then and now - and that is the reason she refuses to give either time tables or promises to leave.

I believe that in the end the answer is either #2 or #3. That is why it is important for her to say that she made a mistake.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,968581,00.html

snip>Mr Powell's team removed dozens of pages of alleged evidence about Iraq's banned weapons and ties to terrorists from a draft of his speech, US News and World Report says today. At one point, he became so angry at the lack of adequate sourcing to intelligence claims that he declared: "I'm not reading this. This is bullshit," according to the magazine.

Presented with a script for his speech, Mr Powell suspected that Washington hawks were "cherry picking", the US magazine Newsweek also reports today. Greg Theilmann, a recently retired state department intelligence analyst directly involved in assessing the Iraqi threat, says that inside the Bush administration "there is a lot of sorrow and anger at the way intelligence was misused".< unsnip



This was all COMMON KNOWLEDGE.

Powell resigned, you know.

wouldn't totally hang him out to dry - big mistake. I've read many accounts by those that voted for the resolution that information was presented to them that raised many concerns. We now know it was total BS but it must have been some pretty convincing BS to fool some of those folks who are very well respected.

I think her answer is the best.

BTW, I'm sick of hearing how Rachel Maddow is so upset, who the f@#* cares?!! Poor Rachel. You're one talking head among hundreds pulling a paycheck for criticizing people. Congratulations.

killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and to eliminate any WMD that Saddam had (if any).

Saying it was a mistake is the same as saying she is sorry she tried to do that.

If she faces McCain it will be about the war in Iraq. He is a one issue candidate - war, war and more war. He isn't afraid to say 100 more years of Iraq. People might disagree with him, but they will respect him for being honest. If Hillary comes out with a muddled response - as she did tonight - she will seem dishonest and unclear. In a war over Iraq - and I am confident when I say this - McCain will win. Bush was on the same side as McCain in 2004 and he won. So it can happen.

because then they can say "you even admitted you are wrong, how can we trust you in the future?"

When I first became invested in politics I picked up one of Carvile's books. One of the points he made was that when you're wrong the public forgives you when you admit it. When Bill Clinton lied about his affair with Monica, he eventually came clean. After that point, his popularity shot up. Why? Because people saw him as sympathetic - they forgave him.

What is worse in politics? To tell the truth, and accept your mistakes, or to obviously continue to lie to the point no one trusts what you tell them?

but about personal things like monica of course u gotta say ur wrong. but about policy you must save face.

When people vote they do not normally vote in terms of policy. For those voters who do, they are normally one issue voters, you are either with them or against them. The majority of people vote on character and personality.

Most people do not like those who cannot admit their mistakes. Look at Bush. We see him as an arrogant SOB because he refuses to acknowledge that he does anything wrong. That is a character flaw - a flaw in his personality.

Hillary has already changed course on her policy. Publicly, she is no longer in favor of remaining in Iraq. That's a reversal. She is refusing to admit her vote was wrong, however, and this leads to the same problems as Bush is having. If she makes it to the general election, she is going to be contrasted against Bush, and people are going to see this - her refusal to admit mistakes - and shake their heads.

The diffrence between her and McCain is that McCain does not believe it was a mistake. We are not completely sure what Hillary believes.

that actually brought about the illegal invasion of Iraq. Not congress ... just Bush's arrogant disregard for Congress and the Constitution.

And this is one of the main reasons I am against her.

She is close to PNAC.

She is close to AIPAC.

She is close to the Defense Industry.

Her tone, and her words, are those of someone who is still shot through with Monroe Doctrine, the Big Stick policy, very 19th century imperialism friendly. This MUST change in us or our future in world relations is dog shit.

It is certainly possible, and it might even be likely.

It gets to the core of what the real differences are between Obama and Hillary, and why Obama is better for our nation, and the world.

Obama is all about building bridges with as many people and groups internationally as we can, and that inclusiveness has always worked best for us. Hillary is still a believer in American Empire, which is the major reason she cannot and will not give a hard date to when troops will be out of Iraq, or even promise to do so. Everything she says on the subject is carefully calculated to provide the appearance of support with withdrawal without actually promising to do so. And many Democrats are buying this. They're going to be shocked when Hillary comes up with some political contrivance to keep massive amounts of troops in the Middle East.

So I won't try.

was not in the senate at the time, so his saying that he didn't vote for IWR and she did is really a moot point.

It never fails....the Hillarites take one of Obama's biggest strengths and try to slime it as a weakness.

How KARL ROVE you twits!

That answer might not soothe your soul, but it's the truth. Most people were as taken in by Bush as our politically expedient senators. I doubt they are going to hold it against her like the rabid base on DU does.

And incidently, that's the same reason Barack Obama won't admit he shouldn't give homophobic bigots an open mike for 30 min to talk about what perverts gays and lesbians are, and then hit the campaign trail with them. :)

She made a descision based on the facts as she knew them and the discussions she had with people from both outside and inside the Administration at that time, and in light of the political realities of how to best avoid the war.

One resolution vote was not enough to stop the march to war, not with an election 2 weeks away.


All things considered, on balance, that vote was the best the Dems could do at the time, to get the inspectors in there, the calculation was that it would lessen the case for war.


Ask yourself this, what is the better way to convince your scared fellow Americans that war is not necessary?

1)FULL UNFETTERED INPSECTIONS REVEALING HE WAS NOT THE THREAT WE WERE BEING TOLD

or

2)SOME ANTIWAR DEMS THAT ARE NOT PREPARED TO FORCE THE INSPECTIONS VOTING DOWN A RESOLUTION.


If we chose number 2 the issue would not have just gone away, it would have been back in January and with more Republicans in Congress and the Senate, and no inpsections going on in Iraq.

I imagine it is easy to make decisions when they don't matter to anyone but yourself. I have heard Hillary say in her own words that knowing what she knows now she would have voted no. That sounds to me like she regrets her vote. To call the vote a mistake means she was not making a sound judgment at the time. Give it a fucking break already. Perhaps your Crystal ball into the future was working 100% I want to puke when I keep hearing this bullshit.

Even Saddam himself didn't think we would invade. They had no idea Bush was the madman he is, it defies logic. You know, I predicted nearly everything correctly from the get go...You know what people labeled me? Paranoid. We had a serious problem facing us and we didn't need the Iraqi distraction, it did need to be settled once and for all. Did your crystal ball tell you that we should have kept up the oil for theft program going on indefinitely? Did anyone bother to bring any meaningful legislation to the floor to solve the problem?

Unfortunately for Hillary she wasn't able to put her finger in the air and wait for the wind to determine her position on the matter. She voted with the almost 3-1 majority on the matter. And you or no one else will ever sell me a load of crap that 2/3 of our elected officials are that stupid and corrupt. Nobody conceived the evil man. How could ya? If you can, you start seeing it places that your heart can't stand.

Read that resolution sometime. The very first sentence is:

"Joint Resolution: To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq."

How much authority did the resolution grant him?

EC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

This was a blank check for the president to use the military however he wanted, and that alone made it completely inexcusable.

But Hillary was afraid of being portrayed as "soft on terror", and she knew that the way the resolution was drafted would give her political cover, should Bush do something egregious. This was a calculated decision on her part, weighing her political future against the destruction of countless human lives, and she chose to protect her political candidacy rather than refuse to vote for this inexcusable bill.

This was a war of choice, a war of our choosing. She could've continued to negotiate until she got a bill that only provided the president with the limited authority needed to compel compliance with the UN (a preposterous cover for war by a Republican, btw). She showed moral cowardice by abrogating her most important Consitutional duty as a Senator by voting for this bill, and thousands upon thousands of people are dead because of it.

So, yeah, I don't get your point of view, either.

Seriously.

more on this issue.

Her inability to admit that she is INDEED fallable- to actually say "I made a mistake" is a very important thing to me.

It speaks to her true character. If she cannot allow herself to admit that she was wrong, and to apologize for it, she isn't (in my view) ready to be the leader of this country. There is NOTHING wrong with being wrong- even wrong on something as important as this. Every one of us is wrong sometimes.

If her pride won't let her admit it, then her pride may take this nation places it shouldn't go-

If she feels extra pressure to not admit her error because she is a woman, then what other issues may come up that she cannot respond to properly because of how it may "appear"?

If she is afraid the media- or the republicans will attack her for it, what kind of control will she allow them to exert over other situations that would come up?

If she really regrets this vote, and would do it differently knowing everything that is known now, she should not fear saying "I made a mistake- I wish I had not voted for this resolution".

Call me anal- or cynical, but I can't help but wonder if it is possible that the regret isn't because of what this war has done to countless Iraqi people, untold numbers of soldiers and their loved ones, our nation, this world- etc, but the regret is that this vote is getting in the way of her and the white house.

I know that sounds harsh, but it is very hard for me to trust someone who is not open enough, not genuine enough, .. authentic enough to believe that admitting being human- to having done something wrong, is more important that "looking good".


peace~

Some of her supporters responses have been ridiculous. Hillary was wrong, is wrong, and will continue to be wrong on her Iraq War vote. If she admits her mistake, it might not change what she did, but at least there is room to forgive her. I cannot - I will not - forgive her until she apologizes.

It makes me angry at how people brush this aside and make excuses. There is no excuse that can be given for the death of nearly 90,000 people - if you combine American deaths and Iraqi deaths - not to mention the scores more who have been injured, both physically and mentally. You would think, considering the lives her vote cost, and the impact it's had not only here, but in Iraq and around the world, that she could utter four simple words: "I made a mistake."

I can only conclude that she does not believe her actions were wrong, and as President that she may, if given the opportunity, act in a similar fashion. She is in the same mindset that she was in when she cast that vote. It is not good enough just to understand that the war is wrong, but to also understand - and reject - the mentality that brought us the disaster in the first place.

-nt-

Gee .... some people cannot do that
Not everyone perfect

She did it, it wasn't a mistake, unlike pressing the wrong button was. I would not say it was a mistake either, why commit political suicide? And if she did do that she would be skewered here and worse with the wingnuts.

She can't admit it because she would have to confess that it was pure political calculation to position herself for 2008. It was a MIScalculation, to be sure, but that's why she did it. And since she can never own up to that, she has to stick with the phony excuses (I believed George Bush, it wasn't a vote for WAR, etc.).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4334769