Way too much is made of Hillary's Iraq War vote ... and I can tell you why ...

At least I think I can.

I should also mention that I am not a Hillary supporter, or an Obama supporter. I am a Democratic candidate supporter. It doesn't matter to me which of these 2 wins the primary. In fact, I'd be just as happy to see them run together. And I would have been just as happy with John Edwards.

To help people understand Hillary's Iraq vote, I need to tell a story first. When I was in my late teens, I played basketball in Philadelphia's public league. The teams in the league were not based on local schools, but on neighborhood recreation centers, and the player's age. Our team was in the 18-21 league.

There was a guy in my neighborhood who was about 3 years older than I was. He was a good ball player and we played on the same team. When he turned 22, he could no longer play in this league. Instead, he took classes and passed all the tests required to become a referee. From time to time, he was the referee for our games.

You'd think this might be great for our team, but it was awful. He knew our team very well. And others in the league knew that he had played for us in prior years. So he worked very hard to remain objective and fair whenever he was the referee for one of our games. But in his attempts to be objective and fair, he would generally give the benefit of the doubt to which ever team we were playing. Put simply, while his intent was honorable (to be fair and objective), he actually tended to overcompensate.

I think that this is kind of what Hillary did in that vote. Here's why ...

Hillary spent 8 years in the White House being hounded, investigated and attacked by a vindictive GOP congress. They chased her and Bill relentlessly. Their partisan hate was white hot.

Moreover, their partisan behavior ignored our National Security. I'm sure everyone remembers "No war for Monica", and "Wag the Dog!!" Bill was trying to do something about Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda ... and yet the GOP congress was more worried about trying to remove a sitting President over a BJ. We were already at risk, and yet they were doing everything they could to prevent Bill from responding effectively.

Fast forward a few years ... its after 911, and Hillary is in the Senate. The same people that Bill tried to take out back in 1998 have now succeeded in an attack on US soil. You know she must be wondering what might have been different if the GOP congress had worked WITH Bill regarding Afghanistan and the Taliban, instead of working against him in a purely partisan manner.

Now the Iraq war vote is on the floor, and she has to make a decision about it. Does she act in a bipartisan fashion, vote YES, and TRUST a President who has said over and over publicly that war is the last resort, or does she act in a more partisan fashion, ASSUME that he will abuse the authority, and vote NO.

Its a tough decision. We all want to be able to trust the President on matters of this magnitude.

She again considers the negative impact on our national security that the vindictive partisan GOP congress had when Bill was President. Maybe she wonders "Could Bill, with GOP support, have been able to stop Osama Bin Laden?" We'll never know for sure.

And so, she does what every single American truly wants to be able to do -- no matter which party controls the White House -- she places her trust the President. And she votes Yes.

Unfortunately, immediately after receiving this authorization, Bush cut the Democrats out of every single decision from that moment on, and rushed into war. That kind of partisan behavior is not exactly the unifying action that any American (even a Senator) might expect of a US President so soon after such a horrendous attack.

So I guess you can get all worked up over her vote if you want.

But it makes perfect sense to me.

And I don't think we should hold it against her in the least. I know I won't.

The IWR vote is the least of Hillary's problems on the Iraq War. If you believe anything she says after her record, then you're a lot more trusting person than I am.

There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm’s way, that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I’ve followed for more than a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. . . . I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information, intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount the political or other factors that I didn’t believe should be in any way part of this decision.
Hillary addresses Code Pink, March 7, 2003.

Tonight, the President gave Saddam Hussein one last chance to avoid war, and the world hopes that Saddam Hussein will finally hear this ultimatum, understand the severity of those words, and act accordingly. While we wish there were more international support for the effort to disarm Saddam Hussein, at this critical juncture it is important for all of us to come together in support of our troops and pray that, if war does occur, this mission is accomplished swiftly and decisively with minimum loss of life and civilian casualties.
March 17 2003 (Invasion)
We are in a two-front war. We are offense in Iraq and we have to finish the job
March 19 2003

“We must stay the course” in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and asked for more troops to finish the job.
“We have to exert all of our efforts militarily”
November 29, 2003 Hilary visits the troops In Iraq and Afghanistan

I am both a little optimistic and a little pessimistic, but what I'm trying to do is be realistic about where we are and what we need to be successful. We have no option but to stay involved and committed.
Dec 15, 2003 Speech to CFR

"The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration," she said. "It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared.
"But I think that in the case of the administration, they really believed it. They really thought they were right, but they didn't let enough sunlight into their thinking process to really have the kind of debate that needs to take place when a serious decision occurs like that." (They believed it, but her people didn't??)
April 2004 Larry King

It's regrettable that the security needs have increased so much. On the other hand, I think you can look at the country as a whole and see that there are many parts of Iraq that are functioning quite well," Clinton said.
It is time for the President to stop serving up platitudes and present us with a plan for finishing this war with success and honor – not a rigid timetable that terrorists can exploit, but a public plan for winning and concluding the war.
Nov 2005 Letter To Constituents

nor do I think it is smart strategy to set a date certain.
June 2006 TBA

"Now it's time to say the redeployment should start in 90 days or the Congress will revoke authorization for this war,"
Feb 2007

She did everything she could to not be like the GOP congress and obstruct just to obstruct.

I guess you can get angry at her for trusting Bush at all ... but that is in fact what every Americans wants to be able to do ... and we sure don't want the parties taking opposite sides just to take them.

When they invaded and there were no special ops securing suspected WMD sites, and when they started having to "find" WMD, I knew the whole thing had been a total and complete fabrication. Hillary STILL won't admit the lies that were told to get us into this war.

Compare to Obama calling the bullshit what it was, even while acknowledging there's no simple way to get out of this mess.

"However, I think what is also true is that the Administration launched the Iraq war without giving either Congress or the American people the full story. This is not a partisan claim - you don't have to take my word for it. All you need to do is to match up the Administration's statements during the run-up to the war with the now declassified intelligence estimates that they had in their possession at the time. Match them up and you will conclude that at the very least, the Administration shaded, exaggerated and selectively used the intelligence available in order to make the case for invasion.

The President told the American people about Iraqi attempts to acquire yellow cake during the State of the Union. The Vice-President made statements on national television expressing certainty about Iraq's nuclear weapons programs. Secretary Rice used the words "mushroom cloud" over and over again.

We know now that even at the time these unequivocal statements were made, intelligence assessments existed that contradicted these claims. Analysis from the CIA and State Department was summarily dismissed when it did not help the Administration make the case for war."

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/051122-moving_forward/

so that when she ultimately ran for President she wouldn't get painted as weak on security.

Unfortunately that strategy resulted in a track record of statements that have shown how wrong she was. The quotes you found chart her path of backtracking on that, and now she can offer no good explanation for her past positions and statements, as was abundantly clear in last night's debate.

Why do I say this?

Because if you don't ... you will be implicitly trusting a potential Republican to end the war in Iraq faster than she would.

In a sense ... you are basically in the same position she was in. Its a tough decision ... do you stay home and trust a Republican to make the right decisions with regard to the Iraq war ... or do you vote for Hillary who has at least said that she will end the war.

If you sit home and a Republican like McCain wins, and we stay in Iraq for 50-110 years ... what is your culpability?

because I'm Canadian, and therefore can't vote. :)

But if I were American, of course I would vote the Democratic ticket. With Hillary vs McCain it might be a choice between bad and worse, but you play the hand you're dealt. Right now the Democrats are still in a position to build what I think is a stronger hand.

I agree ... the Dems need to learn what the Republicans seem to always know ... that no matter what differences we have internally, when the time comes ... upi line up and support the party's candidate, period.

This time around the GOP looks fragmented ... but we can't just count on that.

where Hillary is concerned. The more the voters see of her and the more she presents her case, the more they like her. And she will get quite a few disenchanted Republicans to vote for her simply because she is not weak on national security.

Something that the GOP congress denied Bill Clinton ... which made us less safe.

it fails to explain the huge number of Americans, myself included, who saw the IWR as nothing more what it in fact turned out to be: an excuse to bomb the crap out of Iraq. I saw it for what it was. Congress critters like DK saw it for what it was. Pols and journalists (like Keith) saw it for what it was. We may have wanted to trust the president on matters of such huge national importance, but we couldn't. She did. She might have swallowed her good sense, but she did. What could we possibly have known that she she didn't? Nothing. Were *any* of us surprised when we went to war?

As to the partisan nature of such a decision, the repugs have and would have continued to loathe here no matter what her decision. Try to take the high road? Not if your last name is Clinton. She could have still voted against the IWR and not lost a shred of credibility with us. Voting for it certainly didn't gain her any with the 'pugs...

Personally, I probabaly would have voted NO.

I just think that I can understand how Hillary could end up voting yes. She's lived in the white house, had seen the US attacked up close (93 for example) ... and then watched partisanship make America less safe.

You and I weren't under partisan attack every day in the 90s. We watched it on TV ... but honestly, I never thought that the GOP could win in 2000. They were a joke.

But for Hillary, being neck deep in their hateful attacks ... I can see anyone who went through that trying to take the higher road when America's safety is on the table.

My point is that it would not have mattered what she did. The pugs would have hated her just for being a Clinton (or maybe for being a strong, goal-oriented woman). Regardless of what she knew, believed, or hoped there is absolutely zero chance that she ever would have been able to parlay this vote into warm-fuzzies from the partisan-hack wing of the GOP.

On the other hand, it would have been a hell of a gesture for the democratic base to vote against it, and she would now be immeasurably stronger now with both the base and with independents and maybe even (dare I say it?) Goldwater Republicans.

"And so, she does what every single American truly wants to be able to do -- no matter which party controls the White House -- she places her trust the President. And she votes Yes."

This is not a case of wishful thinking, clear headed people say "NO to WAR" from the very beginning.

I think she tried to demonstrate a willingness to reach across a huge partisan divide and work WITH the President ... and he screwed her and all of us.

She was being a politician, looking out for her best interest, instead of making a decision like a CLEAR HEADED HUMAN BEING would.

She should stand up in front of every camera on this planet and say "I made a big mistake" and everyone would AGREE.

It would be a tiny first step to STOPPING the occupation in Iraq.

But I don't think she sees her honest attempt to be bipartisan as a mistake in and of itself. If Bush actually cared about this country, he would never have rushed into the invasion ... no American President has ever done anything like that.

When Nixon was impeached, it was a republican congress that was driving ...

I truly believe that Hillary envisions a government where party differences are not the only decision making criteria.

And like I said in my post ... I'm not a Hillary supporter.

I just think she gets a bad wrap on this.

She has been all over the place in her political career. She has seen suffering. She knows that an attack, invasion and occupation of another country means suffering and death.

She knows that she is one of a few handfuls of people who MAKE A DIFFERENCE and she said "YES".

There is no excuse for her behavior.

If so ... you are making the same mistake she did ... you will be trusting a potential Republican President to get us out of Iraq.

We may not be thrilled with her vote in 2003 ... but we can be sure that she'd get our troops out of there much faster than anyone in the GOP.

If she caved in as a US Senator, then we don't need to see how she caves in as a US President.

We need a President that will take responsibility for his or her actions ... for a change.

If you sit it out ... and a Republican gets in ... then you will have also helped extend the war.

because she wasn´t able to see the consequences of her behavior.

almot 4000 dead US soldiers
75,000+ injured US soldiers
1 million killed Iraqis (they were innoncent you know)
2 million+ displaced Iraqis

That's why her vote DOES matter.

number of dead us service people

number of wounded us service people


number of dead iraqi's


go suck an egg hilary...

She has already told me that her vote at that time was the correct one for her to make. I remember the time. We all knew it was bogus. There were massive protests against the war. She is responsible for her vote for war. And she's sticking to it. Good for her. Once she lies, she will never give up the truth.

Bush rushed in ... not Hillary.

I doubt anyone would have predicted that an American President would act in such a partisan manner when it comes to war and national security.

it didn't work for Condi, and it didn't work for war.

The second really good interpretation I've seen this week. And, again, one I hadn't considered.

I'll vote enthusiastically for which ever Dem we put up ...

But I think we are wasting lots of time on this, and not enough on so many other topics.

I get the impression that about half the posters didn't read a word I said.

No one disputes that the Iraq war is a huge disaster.

But Bush made the call ... he picked the date ... and he blew off all advice to the contrary.

Hillary made the mistake of trusting him and believing that he would use that authority only as a last resort.

I would agree with you IF ... IF the congress provided a declaration of WAR. But that's not what happened.

HRC is NOT the victim, please stop defending her unacceptable behavior.

She´s a grown woman, she can defend herself, if she would come to her senses and see that she is directly responsible for the attack, invasion and occupation of Iraq.

You will be allowing the Iraq war to continue ... and trusting a republican to end it.

Even if I could somehow accept she trusted Bush would do the right thing (lol), I cannot accept that she continued to toe the WH line even as the bombs were falling. She had ample opportunities to stand up and she chose not to. That is where I fault Hillary. I realize it's too late now to apologize but there was a time when she could have and should have.

Her careful political calculations stand in the way of doing what is right.

Recall that when Bill Clinton fired cruise missiles to get OBL, the GOP went against him HARD.

Hillary was there ...

I think she went out of her way to be "fair and bipartisan" given her experience in the 90s at the hands of a vindictive GOP ... and she over compensated.

And that's why I don;t hold it against her ... I thikn she was trying to do what we want all our politicians to do ... work together ... particularly in situations of this magnitude ... it took some time to recognize that Bush was never going to work with the Dems ... and worse ... it took longer to become clear that he would use 911 as a political weapon ... something unheard of for a US President.

the Hillary IWR vote explanation, most people are not masochists, lol.

But this is similar to my own thinking on the matter. That she believed it was the best thing to get the inspectors in there, that it was the right thing from a National Security perspective, and also I think she believed there was less chance of a war with a yes vote becuase of the resulting inspections.

I see this topic come up every day ... and yet I never see any reasoned discussion on it. Its just screaming and yelling ... you can see that here too ...

Bottom line: I think this vote was a very difficult one to make given the situation. Even Obama has said that he's not 100% sure how he might have voted.

And I also think it was even harder for Hillary because of what took place in the 90s. This country does not do well when every decision is made based on which party brought it forward.

Now what we've seen under Bush is that the partisan angle is EVERYTHING ... that is how they make every single decision ...

But at the time ... this was not completely obvious ... even to those of us (like myself) who didn't trust Bush in the least.

After 911 I wanted to be able to trust him. But doing so became a serious liability.

Another poster last night commented on her being a New York Senator and the implications of her responsibility to New York if she did not act in accordance with the collective damaged psyche of its citizens.

I hated all the members of Congress who capitulated with that vote. I wish she would renounce it. But Edwards did renounce his vote, admitted his mistake. Well, guess what happened? People mocked him, mocked his judgment, said they still wouldn't trust him. I've read such posts from many members of DU. They won't forgive him for the vote. Nor will they forgive Hillary.

But Kerry? Now he's golden again. Oh, well.

The fact is the right will pillar her no matter what she did, or does.

And until people realize that their jobs were shipped out of the US and the economy fell on its ass because of the TRILLION DOLLARS spent fighting a losing cause in Iraq - they will never get it!!

By not voting for her ... you will have helped the republicans seat a President that we know for sure will continue the war in Iraq. Which means many more dead and injured on both sides.

Much like your view that Hillary shares significant responsibility for the war in Iraq (which Bush initiated) ... you too will share blame for its continuation if a Republican wins in 08.

If her vote in 2003 mattered .... so will yours in 08. She will do more to end the war than any Republican.

"mortage their home and give to to MCcain, before ever voting for Hillary, because she was a liar and a cheat". When you get nonsensical responses like that, it's almost a reason to ditch this forum.

a No vote would kill their chance in a general election, and a yes vote would kill their chance in a primary....

the GOP knows what they are doing and the serious liberals on here are condemning her... Wellstone was one of the few who voted against the war and he was killed because of it!

in favor at the onset and in 2004 they didn't care enough to change. Most see the obsession of who voted for the resolution not nearly as important as the decision to end the war now.

And its about more than this one war...this is emblamatic of a HISTORY we have of military aggression and intervention in smaller nations' business, and dictating their governments. Hillary Clinton is absolutely proud to inherit that putrid legacy, as is obvious with her ties to PNAC, the Defense Industry and her IWR vote.

Screw that. Screw that HARD.

If so, then you can be sure things get worse when the next Republican goes to the White House.

courts, civil libeties, healthcare not to mentioned 100 yrs in Iraq. Sorry but it's just plain dumb to pull a Nader again!!!

satisfied?

I thought you meant the POTENTIAL for McCain, not the assured reality.

The only way he wins ... is if WE let him ... if Dems walk away from Hillary in the General ... then they will have put their trust in HIM over Hillary.

You may not think they are that different ... but I think they are very different and have no intention of leaving it to chance if that's how the primaries fall.

"Does she act in a bipartisan fashion, vote YES, and TRUST a President who has said over and over publicly that war is the last resort?"

This is the problem: Everyone knew this 'last resort' stuff was bullshit. I knew they WANTED war. You knew they WANTED war. Why didn't SHE know? Or did she?

It wasn't until the state of the union that I started to worry. And even then I held out hope that he was just waving the stick ...

The PNAC jokers who took us to war are the same ones who tried to get Bill Clinton to invade Iraq back in the 90s. She had to know who they were and what they were up to.

And I agree that they were trying to push Clinton into this in 98 ... but even in 2003 ... this was not a mainstream position. No one had used PNAC ideology to do anything. Any the Bush planning for Iraq war was still hidden.

And Cheney had been against going into Bagdad after Gulf War 1.

So while I hear your point, there wasn't much to use to oppose it on those grounds. Its very clear now ... but was not at the time.

:thumbsup:

young men and women who are maimed for life.

out of 126 voted FOR THE RESOLUTION! in the house and
29 vote FOR out of 21 in the Senate.

But Hillary's vote did not cause the war ... it certainly didn't prevent it ... but it did not cause it either.

And I'll ask you a question I'm asking others ... if she wins the primary ... will you vote for her in the general, or will you sit it out?

I ask this because if you sit it out ... then you are implicitly trusting a potential Republican President to end the war faster than Hillary would.

In a sense, you have to make a decision that is very similar to the one she had to make ... do you trust a Republican President more than you would trust Hillary as President?

I simply think that some on DU are so dogmatic in their views that they can not consider any alternative construction of events. In fact, I rarely see a reasoned discussion on this topic ... even though it is a recurring type of thread.

And as I said at the top of my post ... I'm not a Hillary supporter ... all of the candidates have called my house looking for donations ... I have yet to give any of them money ...

I WILL give money to whoever our nominee is because I am not going to TRUST any of the republicans MORE than I would trust any of the Dem candidates.

But your little B-ball games didn't have the kind of stakes on them that Hillary's vote did. You don't, absolutely do not, put people's lives on the line for such a dicey proposition as the IWR. You don't play politics with their lives, you don't give a person the benefit of the doubt with their lives on the line. You make the best, most intelligent and informed decision that you can because the power of life and death is in your hands as you make that vote.

Hillary instead make a cold, calculated, political decision, sending us into a war that she knew we had no business going into. She played politics with the lives of innocents.

And yes, I will always hold it against her. What I find extremely ironic is that back in '04 the idea was going around was that we should hold responsible all of those who voted for the war. But now, out of pure partisan politics, people, many of them the same ones, are willing to not hold Hillary accountable, all because she is now "their girl".:puke:

The House
81 Ayes 126 Nayes
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml

The Senate
29 Ayes 21 Nayes

Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)