Question: What State Did Sen. Hillary Clinton Represent in 2002?

[McCamy Taylor]

Answer: the same state that suffered during the 9/11 attack, New York.

How many people in New York state were scared and angry after 9/11? How many people wanted to feel safe? How many people in New York were still suffering from PTSD when Colin Powell told his infamous lies about how quickly one of Saddam bombs could reach the US? How many of Hillary Clinton's constituents wanted her to vote "yes" on the Iraq Invasion?

How did her fellow New York Senator, Chuck Schumer vote? You don't know? Why not? (Answer: Yes)

Do you know how many Democrats voted "yes"? You don't? Why not? (Answer: 28)

Do you know how many Democrats voted "no"? You don't? Why not? (Answer: 21)

OMG! Look at that. Joe Biden voted yes. So did Max Cleland. Chris Dodd, Tom Harkin, John Kerry, Jay Rockefeller....

So, someone please tell me how Clinton went from being one of a majority of Senate Democrats to go along with the resolution to being the sole mastermind of the fiendish plot? Was it her "Witch" powers, the ones the right wing is always going on about. Please tell me.

[William769]

1. Kick & highly recommended.

[Buzz Clik]

102. Good to see a K&R as the first response.

The group-think howlers came later and en masse.

[William769]

106. No one was manning the war room.

[Buzz Clik]

108. Seriously. Five full minutes passed, and you were still first in line.

[closeupready]

2. Chuck Schumer isn't running for President; Hillary is.

Same reason that her seat on Walmart's board (which she occupied for six full years) bothers this New Yorker - she was absolutely ineffective at actually doing ANYTHING progressive at Walmart, she failed the American people in voting Yes on the IWR, and she will fail as president.

[Jim Lane]

99. And if Schumer DID run for President, I would hold that vote against him.

The Iraq War Resolution is one thing (among many) that I would consider in evaluating a Presidential candidate.

[Buzz Clik]

103. Idealism in retrospect.

Shit, we all supported Kerry.

[Cali_Democrat]

3. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11

As a leader, it's her job to cut through the bullshit rather than cheer lead.

[Comrade Grumpy]

7. What he said. n/t

[Scuba]

9. +1,000

[DisgustipatedinCA]

64. This should be the largest subthread in the entire thread.

It's the domain of the Republican Party to try to make Iraq the guilty party for 9/11. It was never true. We knew it then; we haven't forgotten it now. Hillary gets no "I was a complete dumbass" pass.

[rhett o rick]

71. I agree 100%. nm

[Marr]

148. +1

[City Lights]

149. !

[yeoman6987]

4. So true. Some can get away with everything,

Secretary Clinton seems to be accountable for everything that happened in the World. The list of those you mention have something in common that Secretary Clinton doesn't...........wonder what that is.

[Fumesucker]

20. They aren't the inevitable Democratic candidate for POTUS in 2016?

[Jim Lane]

100. "Paranoia strikes deep...."

I assume your snide implication is that anyone who criticizes Hillary Clinton's IWR vote is a sexist pig/agent of the patriarchy/MRA type.

Back here in the real world, no, male Democrats can't "get away with everything." I've long admired John Kerry, for example, but I didn't vote for him in the 2004 primary. His support for the Iraq War was one reason I hatcheted him in favor of Dennis Kucinich. (Of course, I voted for Kerry in November.)

Anything further I would write would merely be duplicating Martin Eden's excellent analysis in #10.

[yeoman6987]

112. There you go with assume again

[Jim Lane]

118. If my assumption was false, pray enlighten me.

You wrote:

The list of those you mention have something in common that Secretary Clinton doesn't...........wonder what that is.

Were the rest of them all born under water signs? Do they all have Social Security numbers ending in an odd digit? Do they all have Type O+ blood?

[Fumesucker]

5. What is the purpose/duty of a representative in a representative democracy?

Is it to vote as the majority of their constituents would wish in every case or is it to use their own judgement and do the right thing?

[tracks29]

6. Defending the Iraq vote

Wow this is going to be a long primary (at least on DU).

[vssmith]

8. George Will said,

"The last 11 years have been filled with hard learning. The 2003 invasion of Iraq, the worst foreign policy decision in U.S. history, coincided with mission creep (“nation building”) in Afghanistan."

I want a President who was not complicit in the worst foreign policy decision in U.S. History.

[Buzz Clik]

110. "Mission creep in Afghanistan"?

There's a reason why George Will is not a DU hero. You found it, but I don't think you realize it.

[vssmith]

143. I fully realize who GW is and what he believes

[Buzz Clik]

147. So... you were going with the blind pig/truffle metaphor?

[Martin Eden]

10. I have an answer to your question

You asked:

So, someone please tell me how Clinton went from being one of a majority of Senate Democrats to go along with the resolution to being the sole mastermind of the fiendish plot?

I'm answering for myself, but I'm pretty sure it applies to a large number of DUers who won't support Hillary in the Democratic primary.

Here's my answer:
She didn't, and I never asserted she was some kind of "sole mastermind" of this war crime.
The broom she's holding is made of straw, and so is the question you asked.

I have refused to vote for Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry, or any other candidate in a Democratic primary who voted for the IWR in October 2002.

Have you considered that the focus is on Hillary's record now because she is the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination for president, and the others are not?

Our nation desperately needed strong and principled Democratic leadership when Cheney/Bush was beating the war drums for invading Iraq and manipulating the public with propaganda and OUTRIGHT LIES. If ever there was a test for national leadership and wisdom on foreign policy, this was it. The LIES and the catastrophic folly of this march to war were obvious to those with eyes to see.

Every member of Congress (slightly less than half the Dems in the House/Senate) who voted for the IWR was complicit. Not just Hillary. I was especially disappointed with John Kerry, who rose to national prominence as a leader of Vietnam Vets against that war. Giving GW Bush authority to invade Iraq is inexcusable for any person supposedly qualified for POTUS.

This, of course, is my opinion. Did you think at the time that invading Iraq was necessary and the right thing to do?

If so, I can understand why -- despite how it turned out -- you might trust Hillary Clinton and think her qualified to guide our nation in matters of war and peace. But if you didn't think invading Iraq was necessary and right, I really struggle to understand how anyone can possibly want her to be President of the United States.

Well, I did my best to answer your question. Please answer mine:
Did you think at the time that invading Iraq was necessary and the right thing to do?

[Autumn]

12. Great post

[KittyWampus]

18. you are applauding someone who says they won't vote for certain Democrats.

[Autumn]

21. "in a Democratic primary" those are the key words. I didn't vote for Obama in the 2008 primary.

I caucused for Hillary. I will not caucus for her in the next primary, I believe one can support whomever they chose in a primary.

[Agschmid]

104. Can I ask what's changed your mind in 6(ish) years?

[Autumn]

136. I like Hillary, she's a lovely woman. I was able to talk to her on a couple of occasions on health

care. Hillary had a goal to achieve it and had she been elected we would have had a public option or perhaps more, she would have fought tooth and nail for it. Now I'm not so blind as to think that the way it currently is that a person can get elected without donations from the wealthy supporters but after the way it has gone since the crash and the ones that caused it being appointed to guard the hen house I think that enough is enough. The poor, the elderly and the working class are struggling and hanging on by a thread. The last things we need is another episode of Jamie Dimon on the senate floor whipping votes at the behest of the president, that episode got me to change my Democratic affiliation of over 40 years to Unaffiliated. With Larry Summers as her adviser, her support of the TPP, she is very much a hawk and seems fine with more perpetual war, "we came we saw he died" showed me a side of her that I didn't care for. A continuation of the last 15 years, and yes bush was responsible for the worst 8 years of that but he had just enough "bipartisan support" to fuck us all royally, is not something that I can or will support. With Hillary that is what we will get. There are more reasons, those were just off the top of my head.

[Agschmid]

142. Thanks reasonable list and it seems you feel passionately about it.

[Martin Eden]

63. ... in the Democratic primary

I was tremendously disappointed by John Kerry's vote for the IWR, and did not vote for him in the Democratic primary. But that didn't stop me from taking 3 days off work to travel to Akron Ohio to get out the vote for John Kerry in the 2004 general election for president.

I will vote for Hillary Clinton if she is the Democratic nominee for president in 2016.

But I think it's a terrible mistake to anoint her as our nominee now to the exclusion of anyone else who could be much better for our country. Hillary Clinton utterly failed us in what was very likely the most important vote she ever took and her greatest opportunity to provide leadership when it was needed the most.

[CTyankee]

44. But we were lied to about Saddam Hussein being behind the 9/11 attack. All of us.

We know he truth now but who knew it in the months following the attacks?

Colin Powell was lied to. And he went before the UN to make the case for the war based on what he was told.

[hfojvt]

54. many people knew that in real time

there were plenty of left wing writers and blogs pushing back on those lies from day one. Powell's speech got thoroughly debunked in many places on the web.

For goodness sake, if a guy like me reading blogs in the middle of Kansas can know better than to invade Iraq, then a US Senator should damned well have known better.

But I think many of them were just making political calculations and not following data or principles.

Still, John Edwards also voted for the IWR and I, like a majority of DUers, was happy to support him in the 2008 primary.

[CTyankee]

62. I was a skeptic myself but few of us had proof to the contrary.

I may be wrong...I was skeptical but had no back up evidence. But my memory is poor so help me out here. The argument I remember having was on the wisdom of further invasion and occupation by the West and I recall ME experts talking about how this would be seen as further evidence of western imperialism in order to get hold of Iraq's oil. I subscribed to this viewpoint but I don't remember being able to rebut firmly and conclusively that Saddam had no hand in 9/11.

Then IIRC, stuff began to surface that disproved Bush and Powell and from then on it was a downhill slide on that theory. I remember Richard Clarke and his book "Against All Enemies" and admiring Clarke for his impassioned stand.

But right after 9/11 there wasn't much public knowledge about some guy named Bin Laden.

I supported Edwards, too, and believed him when he lied about his affair with Rielle Hunter and fathering her baby. I swore after that not to put too much trust in any politician. It was a hard lesson for me to learn.

[Martin Eden]

65. Were you at DU in 2002?

I was. DU was a great source of information that wasn't being reported in the corporate media. We knew -- as well as could be known at the time -- that Saddam was not behind 9/11 and Bush was lying through his teeth. I protested the war in February 2002 in my hometown of Chicago and traveled to our nation's capitol to join 100,000 in protest on March 15, just days before Shock & Awe.

If Hillary Clinton didn't know what we knew she was much too incompetent to be entrusted with the office of US Senator, let alone POTUS.

[CTyankee]

67. No, I didn't find out about DU until October of 2004.

I remember the protests very well. A colleague of mine at work was one of the protesters of either that march or the one in 2003 (IIRC). There was a protest on the New Haven Green (not sure of date).

It would be interesting to travel back in time to piece together what we knew and when we knew it on that time period...

Do you remember the evidence that you knew in 2002 to be inconclusive that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11? As I said in my post, I was skeptical but I don't remember the conclusive proof at the time...

[Martin Eden]

73. There was no evidence that Saddam had anything to do with it

About the only "evidence" they had was a false claim that one of the hijackers (Atta) met with an Iraqi agent in Germany (Atta was in the US at the time of the alleged meeting in Germany).

In fact, as far as I know, the Bush administration never explicitly asserted that Saddam ordered the attack. What GW Bush did in speech after speech was to constantly conflate Iraq with 9/11 by repeatedly putting the two in the same context and warning about the "grave and gathering threat" posed by Saddam giving WMD to al Qaeda for attacks on American soil.

It was very clever propaganda, but obviously propaganda when his actual words were parsed and critical thought was applied. Saddam was an Arab nationalist who valued is own power above all else, whereas al Qaeda was a radical Islamist organization intent on toppling corrupt regimes like Iraq. Mouthpieces for the Bush administration pointed to Saddam giving money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers after Israel bulldozed their homes -- as evidence of Saddam's collusion with terrorists. But this flew in the face of their assertion that Saddam had vast stores of WMD which he wouldn't hesitate to give to terrorists, because not one Palestinian attack against Israel involved the biochem weapons he supposedly possessed during the 12 years after the first gulf war.

Millions who protested the war before it was launched would not have done so if they believed Iraq was responsible for 9/11 and posed a serious threat to the world's only superpower halfway around the globe.

If Hillary Clinton was fooled by the blatant propaganda, then she's not intelligent enough to be president.

But I seriously doubt she was fooled.

[CTyankee]

80. thanks for the back story. always good to know.

Not sure she still supports that early view but it is largely irrelevant to many voters since memory fades fast.

The issue that resonates today is "now what?" I think this whole conversation revolves around that.

It will be an interesting discourse...

[Martin Eden]

122. The Past is Prologue

If you really want an informed answer to "now what" then you have to look at the records of the candidates and especially what they did and how they voted on the most critically important issues.

In the realm of foreign policy, war & peace, the IWR vote on Iraq is at the top of the list IMO.

[TheKentuckian]

131. Now what is to see her on Libya, S. America, Syria, and the Ukraine.

We see how long she took to walk back the Iraq vote even a millimeter.

We think and see we have a dangerous person to match with the primary powers and area of authority of a US President.
An irresponsible nomination in the name of risk aversion based on name recognition for far too many flogged hard by a few corporate conservative true believers that is highly likely to blow up in our faces no matter what the election results.

[ND-Dem]

107. +100

[on point]

128. It is not negative evidence Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. it was the lack of positive evidence

It was obvious Bush was lying about Iraq at the time.

Everything he said was a transparent lie. A secular socialist dictator somehow linked up with a radical religious group that would challenge his rule?? What a farce.

Chemical Weapons? Scott Ritter plainly showed these did not exist at the time. One point he made was these all had a half life of a few years, and Saddam had no ability to manufacture new since first Iraq war. Anything left over was worthless as a weapon. Real time in the news then.

The UN team said, If you (Bush) know where the WMD are, tell us. But every time they did, there was nothing there. Bush had to launch the war before the UN basically said Bush assertions were a lie. He was running out of time and couldn't wait.

I knew Bush wanted to attack Iraq BEFORE 9/11 when he promoted a dead American pilot from first Iraq war and declared him a POW. Saddam said, come look for him, we will help. He is dead. But rather than do that, Bush said no, and just went on to use the already dead pilot as a propaganda piece. Guess what, once Bush invaded Iraq, he never went to look for the pilot, but quietly declared him dead, just as Saddam had said.


No the evidence was everywhere the Iraq war was a fraud. Millions around the world knew about the Bush Iraq lies. It was OBVIOUS to anyone not blinded by propaganda.

Hillary failed as a leader when she was needed most, I suspect to help ambition, and it cost this country trillions, the lives of service people, and the lives of the Iraq people, and the ISIS problem today is a direct rsult.

We don't need more such failure from leadership.

[Martin Eden]

139. "Bush had to launch the war before the UN basically said Bush assertions were a lie."

Exactly. The only "imminent threat" was the primary justification for the war would evaporate along with the mushroom clouds Bush told us to fear.

The UN inspectors were given access to every site in Iraq, and they were already determining the extensive infrastructure necessary for a nuclear weapons program simply did not exist in Iraq. Bush essentially forced the inspectors out before they could complete their job.

[Agschmid]

109. Here is a quick reminder of the votes for IWR...

58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution. Those voting for the resolution are:

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

42% of Democratic senators (21 of 50) voted against the resolution. Those voting against the resolution are:

Sens. Boxer (D-CA), Graham (D-FL), Akaka (D-HI), Inouye (D-HI), Durbin (D-IL), Mikulski (D-MD), Sarbanes (D-MD), Kennedy (D-MA), Stabenow (D-MI), Levin (D-MI), Dayton (D-MN), Wellstone (D-MN), Corzine (D-NJ), Bingaman (D-NM), Conrad (D-ND), Wyden (D-OR), Reed (D-RI), Leahy (D-VT), Murray (D-WA), Byrd (D-WV), and Feingold (D-WI)

I bolded Biden... just because.

[MannyGoldstein]

114. And what about the House? nt

[Martin Eden]

123. That reminder is incomplete

In the House, 81 Dems voted yes and 126 voted no. Overall, more Dems voted no than yes.

But what's the point, in the context of Hillary Clinton's presidential candidacy?

The real questions are why did she vote to give GW Bush authority to invade Iraq and what does that say about her decisions in matters of war and peace if she becomes president?

[Agschmid]

132. Want to take a trip back in time?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4329475

Interesting huh? Doesn't answer and questions but this debate seems real familiar...

[Martin Eden]

138. c)

c) Hillary Clinton knew, as we here at DU knew, the warnings of a "grave and gathering threat" being made by the Bush administration and their constant conflation of Iraq with 9/11 was a marketing campaign of half-truths, distortion, obvious propaganda, and LIES. She was on board with the neocon agenda and/or she believed voting yes for the IWR was to her political advantage at the time.

Of course the debate is "familiar." Nothing much has changed, and her 2002 vote for the IWR smells every bit as bad now as it did then. I wouldn't vote for her then (or Biden, or Kerry) in a Democratic primary, and I won't vote for her now.

Giving Bush/Cheney authority to invade Iraq is an automatic disqualification in my book. I'll vote for the Democratic nominee in the general election, but until then I'll try to convince people that HC should NOT be our nominee.

[rhett o rick]

68. Who lied to us? Bush? Who believed Bush? Colin Powell knew the truth but was a coward

as were the Democrats that followed the Republicons like lemmings. Now we are being asked to forgive those that were fooled by Bush. We have other options than elect someone fooled by Bush.

[Martin Eden]

75. I sincerely doubt Hillary was fooled.

She was either on board with the agenda, or believed it was to her political advantage at the time.

If she attains the Oval Office she perhaps will be proven correct about the latter.

[rhett o rick]

115. The point is that smart people didn't trust Bush/Cheney. Smart people recognized

the bull shit propaganda they were spouting. I believe that HRC knew the truth but chose to repeat the lies.

[fredamae]

59. Can't say I disagree

at all with your personal analysis of your position. You are correct, I too suspect many can agree with you.

To those who believe we're all supposed to blindly vote for a dem...any dem just because they opt to place a "D" next to their name...doesn't work. Look around us now at the corporate friendly "conserva-dems".
I'm done with that ilk.
I'm done with the narrative that "We Need More/Any "dem" who is willing to run". No we don't. We need Progressive Democrats-and those who decide to take the challenge had better have a Damned good Record to run on..and not a lot of "fairy tales" about "they know what we need"...which means What exactly?

Yes, I will still vote for Democrats but Never again will I vote for a "dem"..even if that means the other guy/gal wins..at that point-what difference does it make Who gets in..we will still suffer the same consequences, regardless.
Recent, real time history should be evidence enough...

[99Forever]

11. Are you really going to try and run that stinking pile past us?

You actually think we are stupid, don't you?

Guess what. You are beyond wrong. The more of this fucking claptrap you post, the further away you drive progressives, so please KEEP IT UP.

[dissentient]

13. So you don't understand why many liberals/progressives are upset about her Iraq war vote? Seriously?

Think about it a bit, and it's not because they thought she was the mastermind behind the Iraq invasion. That is nonsense.

Are you proud of Hillary's vote regarding Iraq? Just curious.

[rhett o rick]

29. I have yet to hear any attempt at justifying HRC's IWar vote. nm

[Martin Eden]

66. See post #44 n/t

[rhett o rick]

70. Oh Dog, I hope you are being factious. Tell me you are. nm

[Martin Eden]

74. The poster tried to justify the vote

... based on the argument that HC, like so many others, genuinely believed Saddam was responsible for 9/11.

It's a weak argument, but that was the gist of it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. All those who voted for the IWR and supported Bush's wars have blood on their hands.

Whether they did out of political expediency or stupidity they are unfit to hold public office.

[rhett o rick]

27. Well said. nm

[Broward]

15. So, Hillary gets a pass? Is that what you are saying?

[wyldwolf]

16. Interesting the people who believe the IWR vote is a *real* political liability

I'm not saying the issue isn't a real concern to many, but...

John Kerry voted for the IWR, was the nominee in 2004 and almost the President.
John Edwards voted for the IWR and was the VP candidate on Kerry's ticket.
Clinton voted for the IWR and was Obama's SOS.

[rhett o rick]

26. This has nothing to do with "political liability", this has to do with

the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and American troops. They all have blood on their hands.

[wyldwolf]

82. It has everything to do with political liability

If enough people say they won't vote for her because of:

A.
B.
C.,

Those points are political liabilities.

Here, perhaps this will help you.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

17. I sure wish Iraq hadn't taken down the World Trade Center towers.

Last edited Sun Feb 15, 2015, 03:24 PM - Edit history (1)

OH, that's fucking right. They didn't. This is a really clumsy attempt to wash the blood away. Tell it to the rubes.

[JaneyVee]

19. And they voted yes on the notion it would only take 6months.

[Fumesucker]

23. A clear indication of stupidity

Six months to rip a society apart and rebuild it from the ground up is ludicrous on its face.

[merrily]

58. I very much doubt anyone who voted bought the six months thing, or the hang flowers around the necks

of our troops thing. Or the notion that, given the oil, we might even turn a profit thing. It was all ludicrous. And those who voted knew it.

It wasn't stupidity. It was self-interest.

[rhett o rick]

25. Let's guess your point. The Democrats betrayed their country because they thought

that killing innocent Iraqis would be ok as long as it didn't take over 6 months. And they believed the lying ass Republicons as to how long the war would take.

Whatever their excuse, they have the blood of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis on their hands.

[merrily]

37. ffs, no one with two brain cells believed six months or the flowers around the necks of our troops

or anything else Cheney, Condi and Rummy were trying to peddle to the American public. Certainly no Dem with two brain cells. We were all laughing at them, in a horrified, gallows humor kind of way,, and yelling at the TV, and so on.

These rationalizations and revisions are shameful, IMO.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

33. Actually, they voted "Yes" because they wanted Bush to have credibility....

Leading to the absurdity of saying, "I gave him authorization but I didn't think he'd use it."

[AtomicKitten]

22. Your insipid cheerleading just turned offensive.

Last edited Sun Feb 15, 2015, 04:16 PM - Edit history (1)

Hillary didn't bother to read the NIE but turned to the Bush Admin, specifically C. Rice, for counsel. Her vote was a craven illustration of her ruthless ambition, with her husband trying to smooth it over by conflating Iraq with 9/11. Worse, in her officious speech before Congress just prior to the vote, she rallied her colleagues to join her in green-lighting Bush's illegal and immoral war which was arguably the biggest foreign policy mistake this country had ever made. Your attempt here to persuade otherwise is truly repulsive.

[rhett o rick]

28. HRC was more than willing to support family friend George Bush and his illegal war.

She repeated their lies as if she believe them true. She deliberately mislead the Party and country.

[AtomicKitten]

49. We will never forget.

The Clintons have inflicted enough harm on this country (and Democratic Party) in pursuit of their ruthless money-grubbing ambition. Their sycophant lies will be met with truth.

[rhett o rick]

60. We will never forget, abso-fracking-lutely. nm

[rhett o rick]

24. "Hey look over there, there are other people that betrayed their constituents, party

country and world. They couldn't help it. They were all fooled by the lying Republicans so let's cut them all a break."

Whether they were all fooled or just afraid to stand up for the right thing, the consequences of their betrayal resulted in the deaths of American troops, the wounding of many thousands of American troops, the deaths of hundreds of thousand innocent Iraqis and the displacement of about 5,000,000 innocent Iraqis. The results destroyed the American ideal of being the good guys in the world. We lost our most valuable allies. The MIC took advantage and raped the wealth of the American lower classes. The NSA/CIA used the fear to place a strangle-hold on our lives with unregulated domestic spying. A war resulted that continues today and sees no end. We are now justifying killing terrorist suspects in any country we choose. The damage done was tremendous.

We those Democrats that bowed down to King George actually fooled by the evidence? I doubt it. They cashed in their integrity and supported the biggest disaster in recent American history.

Why lay this responsibility on HRC? She not only yielded to the Republicons, she actively promoted the lies. Lies that I am sure she knew were false. Her betrayal is special in that people looked to her for a voice of reason not trusting Bush and Cheney. She told us that Bush and Cheney were right in the need to kill Iraqis. Now she is the front runner to be president of the USofA. Why would we even consider her when we can choose someone that didn't betray us.

In 2002 I was devastated that this nitwit George Bush could lead us into an illegal war. The Democrats couldn't have prevented it but at least they could have told the American people and the world that we all didn't agree with the idiot that would be king.

[merrily]

32. Other people who don't seem to be running for President to boot. Who didn't all advocate for the

invasion, either.

I simply don't get the implication that we can't point out that someone who gives all indications of seeking the 2016 Presidential nomination not not only voted for the war but advocated for it because other Democrats voted for it too.

Her representation of NY doesn't excuse the advocacy or the vote, either. Or the failure to read the NIE before she voted.

Hillary herself has finally said publicly that she was wrong, but her supporters on DU can't even take her word for it.

[navarth]

30. sorry, but.....fail. nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

31. Republicans framed that vote as either a "Yes" or you were weak....

Kucinich didn't buy that crap.

The DLC did.

[hobbit709]

34. If 25 people are wrong that doesn't make it better than only 20 being right.

[Ino]

35. Punjab?

At the fundraiser hosted by Dr Rajwant Singh at his Potomac, Maryland, home, and which raised nearly $50,000 for her re-election campaign, Clinton began by joking that, 'I can certainly run for the Senate seat in Punjab and win easily,' after being introduced by Singh as the Senator not only from New York but also Punjab.

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2007/06/dpunjab_funny_d.html

[HereSince1628]

36. How many New Yorkers -were-suffering PTSD from Sept 11th?

It's really inappropriate to conflate fear and/or anger and/or vengefulness and or any other potential emotional state with PTSD just for the sake of hyperbole.

So...what's the number?

[merrily]

39. You don't commit blood and treasure because your constituents might feel safer if you do.

[HereSince1628]

45. Re-read what you wrote, I did. I think nations often do commit blood and treasure for security

they also do it for a variety of other emotional and cognitive states as well as to employ "shock doctrine" to exploit situations.

My guess is Sept 11th did indeed cause many cases of PTSD across the country very likely thousands of cases.

The US certainly don't go to war because the entire population, or a majority or even sizeable minority of New York had PTSD.

If any part of going to war was rational it was a sense of vengeance and need to demonstrate that such attacks would be met with punishing retribution.

But, the US decided to turn anger and 'justice' seeking into 'opportunity taking' under the shock doctrine. We depend upon elected officials to act responsibly and rationally in order to protect ourselves from ourselves in such circumstance

What we got was the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act that stripped citizens of rights, what we got was authorization to use the military against Iraq based on lies that some elected officials should have known were lies from their committee assignments and the Cheney administration went to war for oil and the realignment of power for our allies in the region.

As far as I have ever found, only ONE senator, one of my state's senators, actually read the USA PATRIOT Act, and having read it he voted against it.

[merrily]

46. I was trying to support your view, not trying to undermine it.

[HereSince1628]

47. Ok. You just gave me a chance to expand

[merrily]

48. Cool. It was a good post.

[Jim Lane]

98. I suffered from 9/11 (though not PTSD).

My employer (downtown office) took a financial hit and laid off some folks, myself included.

That didn't panic me into believing Bush's bullshit. I was one of hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers who marched down Fifth Avenue in opposition to this imperialist adventure.

Yes, New York was the state most directly and immediately affected. It's also a fairly liberal state. Hillary Clinton had a lot more political leeway to do the right thing than did legislators from red or purple states.

[Capt. Obvious]

127. Are you honestly calling yourself a victim of 9/11 because you got laid off?

I suppose we're all victims of 9/11 because we have to take our shoes off at the airport.

Never forget!

[Jim Lane]

135. To me, losing my job was worse than having to take off my shoes at the airport.

Rather obviously, I suffered more than the average American but less than the people who were killed or injured or whose family members experienced such outcomes.

But if you discount my experience, and insist on hearing from "real" victims, fine, I can make the same point more generally. Many people who were injured, or whose family members died, actively opposed the invasion of Iraq. See, for example, the work of September Eleventh Families for Peaceful Tomorrows.

I'm sure many of them were New Yorkers. It's absurd to say that the 9/11 attacks turned everyone living in New York into a panicked and bloodthirsty warmonger, leaving poor peace-loving Hillary Clinton no choice but to go along with the hysteria.

[libdem4life]

38. Hey, I have an idea. Let's just hand over the White House to someone who didn't vote for

the Iraq War...pure as driven snow on that one...GWB's brother. President Bush III ...That'll teach 'em.

[Half-Century Man]

57. At no point has it ever been "Hillary or nobody".

Ask President Obama his thoughts on that issue

[libdem4life]

79. Uh, that's what it seems to be as we write here and what the hubub is all about. No one else cares

to step up...so until someone does...at least in the Hinterland who has access to a cool billion dollars, she's it right now. What may evolve, who knows? Obama showed up last time. Fine. If it happens again, fine. We'll choose.

[cheapdate]

151. And that's the way it is, reporting live from planet Earth.

[libdem4life]

154. Cute. So point out the mistakes. There is an old saying

"If you don't know where you are, you'll not know how to get where you want to go." I rephrased it a bit, but it works. The old one "If you don't know where you're going, how will you know if/when you get there." I like mine better.

[cheapdate]

155. I was affirming the undeniable good sense and logic of what you said.

That makes twice in one day I've been challenged for agreeing with a poster.

[libdem4life]

156. So sorry...so used to the sarcasm and snark here...thanks for clearing it up.

[merrily]

40. Shameful OP.

[Fearless]

41. She stil voted for it.

We don't need a follower we need a leader.

[benz380]

42. I gave this a rec so I could go back and unrec it. nt

[Hekate]

43. K and effing R

Those were evil times.

[whereisjustice]

50. And ten years later, after all the mistakes and bloodshed, she pushes for Afghanistan "surge", and

we have another fucking disaster of thousands of torn bodies, destroyed families and wasted billions of dollars.

And then there's Gaza.

She should go run as a "liberal" Republican.

Because we don't need a corpo-military conservative leading the party, calling us hippies because we don't agree with the "conservative" principals of Party over People and Corporations over State.

[Half-Century Man]

51. To me, her vote on the Iraqi war is just one disconcerting event among many.

Ms. Clinton is a vast number of things; stupid is not one of them, nor is conformist.
She vote to allow punishment of the innocent based on constantly challenged, never adequately documented, ever more grandiose propaganda by persons with a obviously huge vested interest.

She seems to see the USA as the policeman of the world. I see the Iraqi invasion as not much than "asset forfeiture" on a national scale. Did we (America) seize the property of an innocent person(s) based on our "training" it might someday be used in a "crime"?

I have issues with that.
I have questions about that.
Until I get answers, I'll with hold my support in the Democratic primaries.

[merrily]

52. It was not just a vote either. She urged her fellow Senators to vote for the invasion.

Pointing out who else voted implies a false equivalency.

And pointing to any one who does not seem destined to run against her in the primary is an irrelevancy.

If any of these people enter the primary against Hillary, then their Iraq vote and/or advocacy can be matched up to hers.

As it is, people seem to be throwing varieties of spaghetti against the wall to see if any of it will stick.

This was more than a vote:

[Half-Century Man]

55. Before I can feel justified in supporting her

I have many questions I want addressed.

If here, at he question of her vote/participation in the Iraqi War Resolution is where we start; cool, lets go.

[merrily]

56. I don't know what questions you have about it. She advocated for the Iraq Invasion and did so

without having read the NIE. People died, got maimed in mind and body, 100,000 Iraqis were displaced and worse. I read stories of young children being sold into slavery to help feed the remaining members of the family because all dying was the other option. More terrorist groups rose up. A few months ago, she said she made a mistake about Iraq.

I have no idea what answer to which question could mitigate that. That she wasn't the only vote? Not relevant in this contest, unless and until the others try to get my vote for President.

[Half-Century Man]

61. I want to hear from her the actual motivations behind mer decision.

I want to know why she picked the sources of information she used over other sources.
I want to know how she, after being so monumentally wrong, can trust her own judgment again; and how in good faith can she ask us to do so as well.

I have deeply held suspicions as to why she remains so confident in herself.
That she is not only a willing supporter, but a leader of the support of the Military/Intelligence/Police Industrial Complex. That in her personal quest for wealth, power, and fame; she is ready to sacrifice the welfare of the majority of the people who's votes she is asking for.

I also have questions about her ties to the financial industry.

[merrily]

72. Fair enough. She has spoken about some of those things, esp. why she did not read the NIE.

I did not find her explanation plausible or, if to be believed, adequate. It was that the people who had prepared the NIE had briefed her. However, the NIE was 90 pages. Why get the short version about something that monumental? Why not read it and take notes so that, when you do get the face to face, you have lots of questions ready? Besides, given 90 pages, just how long was that briefing? Don't know about you, but conversing takes me a lot longer than reading.

Besides, my suspicion is that she didn't read the NIE because her mind was made up. (The center right think tanks were advocating for the invasion.) But, that's just me.


I doubt you will get answers to you other questions that will satisfy you. IMO, full disclosure is not her style. JMO

[Warren DeMontague]

85. It means we can COUNT ON HER! ....To do the politically expedient thing, if not the right one.

So, for example, when cancer grannies in medical marijuana states keep getting put in prison for 5-10 years because they were busted in their wheelchairs for smoking a joint, no doubt Hillary will listen to the wise beltway political experts who tell her values voters want someone "tough on drugs".

[fredamae]

53. Votes (theirs) Matter and Most

don't care enough to look them up...to compare with the political "Meme of the Moment" ---Politicians on Both sides appreciate that we, by majority-Don't care enough to look. That's vetting and they prefer we simply just swallow what is published for public consumption on "Dark Noise N'ewwwwz", imo.

Great Post!

[olddots]

69. I don'want to demonize Hillary Clinton

or her supporters but this one vote she cast is is above my level of forgiveness .

I believe in peace even when it isn't popular .

[hrmjustin]

76. I am a NYer and I support her, but I did protest Hillary's and Chuck's office for their votes.

They made mistakes but I still support them.

I say this as acousin that lost a cousin in Iraq and friends in the towers.

[Iggo]

77. We're trying to purdy up the Iraq War vote now?

[Warren DeMontague]

90. Can't let anything get in the way of the inevitability train!

Remember what happened last time, when she was inevitable?

[Iggo]

93. I do remember.

But excuse me if the message "Oh yeah? Well everyone else is just as fucked-up as I am!" doesn't quite resonate with me.

[Warren DeMontague]

95. I am actually in agreement with you.

I can get past the IWR vote, but I sure as hell am not going to accept that it's not a mark of shame.

[woo me with science]

97. Not enough lipstick in the WORLD

to pretty that one up.

[Agnosticsherbet]

78. Hillary is being held responsible for the Iraq war because

opponents are throwing all the shit they can at the wall to see what sticks. Fortuntely, no one has dug poor Vince Foster up and turned his bones over to a political forensic expert.

But hey, Obama used her vote on the Iraq war against her and won the nomination.

He then, as promised, expanded the war in Afghanistan.

As agreed by Bush who could not get a favorable status of forces agreement in Iraq, and pulled troops out of Iraq.

He sent units to fight pirates in the red sea and elsewhere.

He attacked Libya.

He has used drones in Africa, the Middle east, and stationed drones in Central and South America.

He provided weapons to Syrian Rebels and is now bombing ISIS. (I support the air war on ISIS)

I consider holding Hillary responsible for leading the US to war ridiculous. She was a junior Senator who did not hold a position in the Senate leadership. New York had been hit by the worst terrorist attack in US History. It is easy to be angry at the outcome of the war that BUSH and CHENEY lied us into. Using it to attach Hillary Clinton is just politics as usual.

[Fumesucker]

91. Over half the Democratic members of Congress voted against the Iraq War

No one is holding Hillary totally responsible for the Iraq war but she is much better connected than the average junior Senator and she certainly knows not to trust the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy with so much as a blunt spork.

So much blood and treasure gone and she not only voted for it but urged other Democrats to vote for it too.

Worst foreign policy disaster in American history and an eminently predictable one, predicted by many many people around the world including right here on DU.

[Agnosticsherbet]

92. A majority of Democratic Senators voted for the war. Hillary was a junior member of the Senate.

She held no leadership posts. She was not i n a position to widely influence the Senate or Congress. Furthermore, she was the Junion Senator form New York, who had suffered 9/11. New York Tims Polls at the time showed a majority of New Yorkers approved of the Bush, his foreign diplomacy, and the war. Both she had Chuck Schumer approved the resolution. Schumer, a senior Democrat had far more influence with other Senators and even in the House.

I see no problem if you don't like her vogte, but holding her responsible because she did not influence everyone to oppose the war is giiving the junior Senator from New York too much power.

In the Senate in 2002 she was a member of the following committees. She jsut wasn't in a position to use an enormous amount of influence.

Committee on the Budget (2001-2003)[1]
Committee on Environment and Public Works (2001-2009)
Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (2001-2009)
She was also a Commissioner of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe[4] (2001-2009).

[Fumesucker]

94. What influence she had Hillary used the other way

I think there's an arguable case to be made that Hillary would be Madame War President right now if she had voted against the IWR.

There's days I think Dick 'n Dubya actually did snow Hillary and there's days I think it was pure political calculation, arguments for both aren't hard to think of.

I sometimes wonder how many pundits and politicians actually were surprised when things in Iraq went pear shaped.

[Agnosticsherbet]

96. If you want to blame a Democrat, blam Tom Dashel to Democrat in the Senate

The whole influence thing is just not accurate to her position in the Senate at the time.

[Fumesucker]

119. I'll focus on Daschle when he indicates he may be running for POTUS

Whether Hillary actually had influence or not she tried to use what she thought she might have in order to push for the worst foreign policy disaster in US history.

[tabasco]

81. She fucked up

Deal with it in your own special way (denial).

[Maedhros]

83. The idea that attacking Iraq because of 9-11 grief is JUSTIFIED

is nonsense.

Bigot logic:

Islamic Fundamentalists attacked America
Islamic Fundamentalists are Arabic
Iraqis are Arabic
Therefore, attacking Iraq is justified revenge for 9-11 because Iraqis are Arabic

So, you're saying that it's OK that Hillary agreed with this bigoted nonsense?

[Warren DeMontague]

84. So Saddam Hussein attacked us on 9-11?

Is Hillary Clinton not intelligent enough to figure out what was already well known by that time, i.e. that the Bush administration was deliberately peddling disinformation to conflate Iraq with 9-11?

I give her more credit, intellectually, than that.

Why don't we call it what it was, a shameful episode of political convenience that needs to be apologized for, not justified.

There were plenty of Senators who saw through the bullshit and didn't vote for that turd.

[Ramses]

86. 1 MILLION dead Iraqis

I MILLION DEAD human beings because Hillary voted for a war that was a LIE.
She doesnt seem to bothered by 1 MILLION dead human beings because of her YES vote.

[JackRiddler]

87. One of the most important enablers of a war of aggression.

If you want to defend the Lady from Goldman Sachs, this is not the way.

Twenty-three Democratic senators voted no.

There is no excuse for anyone who voted yea. None of them.

[Cha]

88. I don't hate Hillary anymore for her vote but I lived in New York at the time and called

her office and wrote her to Please not enable Bush's ******* misbegotten war with a Yes on the IWR. Please Please Please!

[Warren DeMontague]

89. You realize that Bush and Cheney could use that exact same rationale, right?

Which means you've just offered up a justification for the number one fuckup and preeminent moral failure of the previous administration.

[Buzz Clik]

101. +1! Excellent, excellent post.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

125. Reminder: IRAQ DID NOT ATTACK THE US ON 9/11

That's a line for dumbfuck conservatives to use. So why is it that this is an excellent, excellent post? It's a pile of rightwing dumbfuckery. I will continue to attack the living shit out of any hapless or lying fuck telling the same goddamned lies that George Bush used in order to go kill a million souls.

So what's your line, Buzz Click?

[Buzz Clik]

130. Normally, the spineless assholes on this site would alert an attack like yours.

I give you points for being bold, but not much else. You lose ten points for piling on. Being ninth in line saying the same shit is a bit cowardly, doncha think?

The attacks on Hillary Clinton at this dump are nonstop. I do NOT -- repeat -- I do NOT support Hillary Clinton's run for president. Period. I dislike her and her politics.

But, I flatly refuse to join the parade of brainless idiots who climb all over themselves to slam her again and again and act like they are so edgy and smart.

Bullshit.

You want to be edgy and smart? Get someone you support in national office. Don't just sit back on your sorry, lazy asses joining the "I Hate Hillary" chorus and expect to be something other than just another chimp.

DU is a mouthpiece for a) ineffective liberals who don't understand even the concept of real activism and real productivity b) fucking rightwing knuckledraggers who clown you guys every day.

Same old shit, different day. It all repeats tomorrow.

(I'll delete without reading the automated message in my response banning me from this thread.)

[DisgustipatedinCA]

134. I'm not alerting you, you're not alerting me. Maybe someone will get one or the other of us.

And I don't much care.

You praised the thread, and I asked you how on god's green f-ing earth you could think this was an excellent post when it's predicated on a lie that Republicans have been telling since late 2001. I don't care about edginess, piling on, my lazy ass, or anything else about this thread, except for not letting someone get by with this same crap we railed against here back in 2001/2002.

[Fumesucker]

141. So which are you?

Ineffective liberal or right wing knuckledragger?

DU is a mouthpiece for a) ineffective liberals who don't understand even the concept of real activism and real productivity b) fucking rightwing knuckledraggers who clown you guys every day.

[Marr]

150. I'm glad no one deleted this disgusting post of yours.

You Hillary fans aren't advancing your candidate's interests very well at all. You seem incapable of containing your disdain for everyone to the left of Bush Sr.

[Buzz Clik]

153. I'm a Hillary fan? Really?

Ridiculous.

[still_one]

105. Because they are ignorant of what Hillary positions even are

They spew a bunch of sound bites from Nader or Greenwald like a mantra during a medication

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/hillary_clinton.htm

[Historic NY]

111. Senator Clinton was a good representative for NY...

oddly enough she visited every county in the state at least once ever year.

[MannyGoldstein]

113. Your OP contains a major error of fact, please correct it

Most elected Democrats voted AGAINST invading Iraq - you only included Senators. Even in NY, other than Hillary's vote, it was 50:50. Hillary's vote tipped the NY delegation to having a majority for war; had she voted sanely, the majority would have been against war.

[eridani]

116. That she was joined by others in a cowardly response to war hysteria is supposed to--

--count in her favor? If 2/3 of the posters on DU could figure out that Iraq had not a fucking thing to do with the attack, why couldn't our representatives to the same? You'd think they'd have access to more information, correct? If they were so concerned about revenge, why didn't they advocate attacking Saudi Arabia?

[Spider Jerusalem]

117. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11

We knew Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 in 2002. So this entire line of reasoning is kind of absurd. Doing the wrong thing because it's popular is morally indefensible; doing the right thing when it's unpopular is a lot harder.

[juajen]

120. K & R

[craigmatic]

121. So we're defending her support of the war machine now? I thought we were past this.

The Iraq war was a bad idea then and now.

[Rex]

145. No, just a few here are doing that. Most of us still use critical thinking skills and common sense.

Some here want to pretend they can demand their pony be the only one in the race. Their loathing of democracy is curious and shared by another group that seems to hate democracy.

[JEB]

124. Kissinger/Summers in 2016. eom

[Capt. Obvious]

126. This is quite possibly the lamest attempt at Clinton apologia I've seen on this site

and that's saying something.

[madokie]

129. K&R

[NCTraveler]

133. Give us Clinton out of the primaries...

and we will get you Florida in the General. Ready to work in Florida.

[Orsino]

137. Sole mastermind? No. That might demonstrate leadership.

She is, in most matters, a go-along-to-get-along candidate.

I wish we could do better. Or I wish she would do better...but inevitability means never having to work.

[TheKentuckian]

140. Who has accused her of being the mastermind, sole or otherwise? Phony, absurd, lame excuses

based on irresponsibly dangerous thinking.

What a batshit fucking crazy defense this is anyway! Are we supposed to be reassured by this decision tree and weak appeals to popularity of insane decisions?

What you describe is the opposite of leadership and wisdom not evidence of these critical qualities.

What kind of campaign goes with "I will behave in a reactionary manner and hastily respond to my base emotions when seriously pressed, particularly if doing so allows me to go with the herd no matter how heinously absurd and stupid it may be to do so."?

I hope they have better than that but I think the idea is to avoid the conversation altogether and do it all again.

[Rex]

144. Her opening statements about the IWR

"Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.

I am honored to represent nearly 19 million New Yorkers, a thoughtful democracy of voices and opinions who make themselves heard on the great issues of our day especially this one. Many have contacted my office about this resolution, both in support of and in opposition to it, and I am grateful to all who have expressed an opinion.

I also greatly respect the differing opinions within this body. The debate they engender will aid our search for a wise, effective policy. Therefore, on no account should dissent be discouraged or disparaged. It is central to our freedom and to our progress, for on more than one occasion, history has proven our great dissenters to be right. "

The problem is history is unbiased and doesn't donate money to politicians. The dissenters were right, but yet the government not only did not listen - but did not care. HRC was right, we must never disparage dissent...guess a few of her supporters here didn't get the memo.

[hollowdweller]

146. Hillarys support for Iraq war would not prevent me from voting for her.

I read the news, all of it, and I knew that Iraq having WMD's was bogus. The UN inspectors were being given pretty free access to run down any leads and they were finding nothing. However Bush and the neocons had pretty much created a narrative that no matter if nothing was found and Iraq fully cooperated that they could not be trusted.

It's sort of the same line that Netanyahu and the GOP is pushing now on Iran, and if successful once again they may lead us to war.

Bush and Company were so successful with the media going along you would have had to take serious risks politically to oppose it.

Hillary just played it safe, like so many democrats did. She probably knew it was bullshit but like you say she was from NY, where 9/11 happened and she had to go along. She probably figured they'd find something they could extrapolate to cover their asses, but she was wrong.

So by playing it safe she did the same thing as Kerry, who I voted for. However like Kerry, she lost at least partly because the politics of the situation wound up being difft than what she figured.

More troubling for me with Hillary is if you listen to her she sounds more like McCain and Graham. That's because they all came of age during the Cold War so they see everything thru that lens.

So when the time comes to attack Iran, they have tried to cut a deal with us but Israel and the GOP says they are lying and can't be trusted what will she decide?? Even more than her bowing to Wall Street her hawkish foreign policy statements concern me.

Still I would vote for her over any republican candidate. Hillary will not be full of fresh ideas and perspective like Obama, it will be all about helping the rich and sabre rattling overall.

However if she is only .00001 better than the republican candidate I will vote for her.

[brooklynite]

152. Am I correct that EVERYONE holding this vote against Clinton voted against Kerry in 2004?