Clinton Supporters, You Have GOT To Check Out This Thread

[McCamy Taylor]

I mention it, because you will likely ignore it, as you do most of the "We can never forgive a woman who voted 13 years ago to authorize a war!" threads. However, this one is inadvertently humorous, because it is about how Clinton should have followed the advice of Sen. Byrd. As is "I used to a KKKer but I reformed and now you don't have to despise me anymore" Sen. Byrd.

I suggest raising Sen. Byrd as an example any time someone tries to tell you that a single vote can absolutely define a person's character until the end of time and that he or she can never redeem him or herself short of ritual suicide. What would thew world have been like had Sen. Byrd thrown himself upon his sword in 1976 in an excess of remorse? Isn't it a better world because he tried to fix some of the damage he did? Maybe Clinton can fix some things, too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026639251

[Bonobo]

1. You really think you got a winner with that argument? nt

[winter is coming]

2. There's a first time for everything. n/t

[McCamy Taylor]

3. I think you would have been better quoting Kennedy if your point was "Clinton cant change."

Byrd is the poster boy for "anyone can change." Tell you what, you forgive him for his Klan days and I will forgive Clinton for the Iraq War resolution.

[Bonobo]

8. Nope, not equivalent at all. nt

[JDPriestly]

37. But, McCamy, watch this speech:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12805180

Sorry, but Bernie doesn't have to apologize. Why support a candidate who has to apologize, whether Byrd or Hillary when you have a candidate that is smart, most often right in his judgment even on complex foreign policy issues and can speak with moral authority, authenticity, a candidate we can trust through and through.

Again. Watch this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12805180

It's Bernie and he is the best qualified to be president in 2016. Authentic, honest and very, very wise. No need to apologize. And if he does need to apologize about something, he will be ready to do it.

Bernie is our candidate for 2016. I'm just amazed at this speech.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12805180

[pnwmom]

17. You think your question reveals a flaw in the argument?

The poster is right.

Some of Sanders' supporters who can't forgive Hillary for the vote for the IWR -- a vote that Senator Ted Kennedy said he could understand because the Senate was lied to by Colin Powell -- have no problem forgiving Sen. Byrd for his extremely racist past.

Ted Kennedy was a member of the Armed Services Committee, and he said he voted against the IWR only because he had access to classified info that showed Powell was lying -- but that he wasn't legally able to share with the rest of the Senate. But he wouldn't condemn Clinton, Biden, or Kerry for their votes because he knew they didn't have access to the same information that he did when they voted that fall.

[Bonobo]

20. Honestly I do not because the false equivalence is so vast and the gulf in remorse so unbridgeable.

Classified information was not necessary for people with a lick of common sense to know that there was something foul going on.

[roguevalley]

23. If we can't forgive and believe Byrd changed from the KKK and give him the benefit of

the doubt, then why should we do the same for Clinton when she with open eyes voted for the war? This is a major fail piece of logic. If we can't forgive one for their past conduct, then we can't forgive the other.

[woo me with science]

30. They are desperate.

They certainly can't run her on her predatory corporate record and ties to Wall Street.

The Clinton Dynasty's Horrific Legacy: More Drug War, More Prisons
http://www.alternet.org/drugs/clinton-dynasty-horrific-legacy-more-drug-war-more-prisons

Hillary Clinton's leading role in drafting the TPP
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101667554

Hillary's TPP will mean a pay cut for 90 percent of American workers.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023661805

Hillary pushes for increases in H1B visas and outsourcing.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6405669

Hillary Clinton and Trade Deals: That “Giant Sucking Sound”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016101761

Hillary Clinton Cheerleads for Biotech and GMOs
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112772326

Dissecting Hillary Clinton's Neocon Talking Points - Atlantic Interview
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017209519

NYTimes notices Hillary's natural affinity toward the neocons.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025205645

Hillary Clinton, the unrepentant hawk
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024876898

More from Hillary Clinton's State Department: The fascistic TISA (Trade in Services Agreement)
http://m.thenation.com/blog/180572-grassroots-labor-uprising-your-bank

How Hillary Clinton's State Department sold fracking to the world
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251376647

Hillary Clinton Sides with NSA over Snowden Disclosures
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101695441

On the NSA, Hillary Clinton Is Either a Fool or a Liar
http://m.thenation.com/article/180564-nsa-hillary-clinton-either-fool-or-liar

Corporate Warfare: Hillary Clinton admits role in Honduran coup aftermath
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025601610#post29

The Bill and Hillary Clinton Money Machine Taps Corporate Cash
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025189257

Hillary's Privatization Plan: TISA kept more secret than the TPP
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014829628

Hillary Clinton criticizes Obama's foreign policy 'failure'; strongly defends Israel
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014867136

Some of Hillary Clinton's statements on Social Security.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024379279

Hillary Clinton's GOLDMAN SACHS PROBLEM.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025049343

Ring of Fire: Hillary Clinton - The Perfect Republican Candidate
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017209285

How Americans Need Answers From Hillary Clinton On TPP, KXL, Wall St & More
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017181611

Hillary Clinton Left Out By Liberal Donor Club
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025809071

Why Wall Street Loves Hillary
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016106575

Hillary Clinton: Neocon-lite
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101684986

Interactive graphic of Hillary Clinton's connections to the Forbes top 400 (Follow link in post)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025824981#post9

The Warmongering Record of Hillary Clinton "I urged him to bomb..."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026219783

Hillary Clinton criticizes Obama's foreign policy 'failure'; strongly defends Israel
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014867136

Hillary defends Israel on Gaza carpet bombing
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025274041

Hillary tacks right of Obama on foreign policy.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024707589

Dissecting Hillary Clinton's Neocon Talking Points - Atlantic Interview
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017209519

NYTimes notices Hillary's natural affinity toward the neocons.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025205645

Hillary Clinton, the unrepentant hawk
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024876898

Hillary Clinton Praises George W. Bush and the Art of Compromise
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026394878

Hillary Clinton's role in right-wing Honduran coup and aftermath
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025601610#post29

Hillary Clinton's Horrifying Iraq War Vote Still Matters.
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/hillary-clintons-iraq-war-vote-still-matters-9737

Secret recordings show US military and a Democratic congressman distrusted Hillary Clinton on Libya (lying, manipulating intelligence)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026157088

Hillary Clinton Blasts ‘Unfair’ World Reaction Over Gaza, Cites Anti-Semitism As Factor
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025364869

Obama didn't go as far as Hillary now says she wanted to go in smashing Syria
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251375376

Hand in Hand With Kissinger: A Review of Hillary Clinton’s Review
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016102317

Hillary Clinton Serves Us KISSINGER KOOL-AID
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025504036

MJ - Hillary Clinton Praises a Guy With Lots of Blood on His Hands
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025493748

[Cheese Sandwich]

80. Awesome post woo me with science. Thanks for collecting all this stuff in one place.

[leftofcool]

53. Actually, she does. Google "double standard."

[Bonobo]

57. After you google "the price of tea in China". nt

[treestar]

82. Whoever chose to use Byrd as an example to show up Hillary

Didn't think. They want to use someone to chastise Hillary. Yet that person has an awful past, too.

[Bonobo]

84. Byrd's words and actions wrt the Iraqi War resolution are what matters...

and the contrast with Hillary Clinton's.

[neverforget]

91. to some it was "only a vote and it doesn't make a difference"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6644342

[merrily]

4. Good grief. So amusing.

One little vote, 13 ago



And, just last year, she said she made a mistake, too!

Why can't you just moveon. org? Forgive and forget and vote for that kind of judgment about war now. Help elect her Commander in Chief!

I'll forgive when people with a dead or disabled loved one forgive when 1 million displaced Iraqis forgive. When Al Q'aeeda Iraq and Isis disappear.

[workinclasszero]

66. Bernie on the job defending the makers of Bushmaster XM15-E2S and Glock and you forgive this?????

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Date December 14, 2012

c.?9:35 am – c.?9:40 am[2][3][4] EST (UTC?05:00)

Target Students and staff at Sandy Hook Elementary School

Attack type
School shooting, murder–suicide, matricide, spree shooting
Weapons Bushmaster XM15-E2S Glock 20SF

Deaths 28 total; 27 at the school (including perpetrator) and perpetrator's mother[5][6]
Non-fatal injuries
2[7]
Perpetrator Adam Peter Lanza[8][9]

The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting occurred on December 14, 2012, in Newtown, Connecticut, when 20-year-old Adam Lanza fatally shot 20 children and 6 adult staff members.[5][6] Prior to driving to the school, Lanza shot and killed his mother at their Newtown home.[8][11][12] As first responders arrived at the scene, Lanza committed suicide by shooting himself in the head.

The incident was the deadliest mass shooting at a high school or grade school in U.S. history and the second-deadliest mass shooting by a single person in U.S. history, after the 2007 Virginia Tech shootings.[13][14][15]

The shooting prompted renewed debate about gun control in the United States, including proposals for making the background-check system universal, and for new federal and state legislation banning the sale and manufacture of certain types of semi-automatic firearms and magazines with more than ten rounds of ammunition.[16][17]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting

[merrily]

68. Comparing that to Iraq?

[NanceGreggs]

5. ...

"I suggest raising Sen. Byrd as an example any time someone tries to tell you that a single vote can absolutely define a person's character until the end of time ..." etc.

That is a great observation.

Well done.

[Bonobo]

10. When she shows some genuine soul-searching growth from her part in that slaughter...

then I will cut her slack.

Until then, it chills me to the bone that we might elect someone so easily duped or swayed by political calculation.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

14. Political calculation?! Who? Hillary? Surely you're joking Mr. Feynman!

[MaggieD]

18. ALL politicians calculate

Every last one of them. Including the one who is the flavor of the day demigod at DU.

[woo me with science]

33. Yes, the propaganda has reached a point of trying to NORMALIZE monied corruption of the system.

I call that ugliness, "Third Way blase." And it is particularly glaring now that we finally have an honest candidate in the race to remind Americans, by sheer contrast, of how deeply into corruption and brazen defense of it our ugly political machines have devolved.

I enjoy seeing Third Way posts like this. They expose how shamelessly and unapologetically corrupt the Third Way candidates and their mouthpieces really are.

[MaggieD]

34. Third way posts?

What's that? A post you disagree with?

So, do you think it was a political calculus for Bernie to introduce a bill to shut down the big banks right after he announced his run?

I mean it's the same bill he put out there in 2009 when he had favorable majorities in both chambers. Didn't pass then. So into'ing it again under a rethug majority is simply political calculus, right?

I'd actually love to see it pass, but this last one is just for show. They ALL calculate. Even Socialists.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

59. Yes, but Bernie doesn't "calculate" by pulling a 180 everytime the "political wind" starts to blow in the other direction. That's the difference with Bernie...WYSIWYG

[sabrina 1]

86. And reducing it to just the Iraq vote. That was bad enough to be sure, all by itself. But it all the

other issues. The close ties to Wall St, the fact we do not know where she stands on some of the most important issues facing this country today.

Eg, does she agree or disagree with the cuts to SS in the form of the Orwellian named Chained CPI?

Bird spend decades working to overcome his past. He stated that he accepted it would be part of his legacy but would continue to do what was right and to learn, which he did.

His position on the Iraq war, he was the only one I recall even mentioning what it do to the IRAQI PEOPLE.

And his eight year long stand against everything the neocons stood for, all of this is vastly different to someone who continued to support neocon policies, still does, see Libya, which is now a destroyed African nation..

This is not a winner for Hillary, it would be far better to talk about where she is on the issues.

And I get a sad feeling to see Bird being bashed like this here on DU. This is exactly the issue the Far Right attacked him with AFTER his amazing speech the night he voted against the Iraq War. What a difference a few years make.

[BainsBane]

62. Keep insulting Democrats

Last edited Fri May 8, 2015, 11:23 PM - Edit history (1)

It's the surest possible way of sinking Sanders' candidacy. If you can't even talk to people on this site without treating them as inferior, how can you except to have any influence in the real world? But then you don't actually care about any of that do you? It's all about creating an in-crowd on a website that in no way reflects the demographic of the nation or the Democratic party. When this is what passes as left in America, we truly are fucked. If leftism stands for anything, it's solidarity, not contempt for ordinary Americans. You all don't resent Wall Street and the one percent, you resent ordinary Americans who have the nerve to diverge from your class project.

Basic civics is not Third Way. Contempt for the people is not left, and it's not clever. It's just elitist and counterproductive, but you don't care. If you cared about the country, you'd try to establish solidarity rather than making the circle of acceptable human beings increasingly smaller. You rail about "Third Way" when you act like you're running a country club, and that little in crowd is every bit as homogeneous as the country clubs of the days gone by you all yearn to recreate.

[Bonobo]

85. How come sometimes you say DU has NO influence on the broader world but

here you think that Sanders candidacy can be sunk by DU advocacy?

[MaggieD]

6. It's quite ironic - that's for sure

But hey, the HRC bashers are dedicated to their task! Whatever it takes.

[roguevalley]

24. if you can't forgive on and allow growth, you can't forgive the other. simple as that.

[BainsBane]

7. Meh, a few lynchings, give or take

Why you gonna get all preachy on me?

[beevul]

9. "We can never forgive a woman who voted 13 years ago to authorize a war!"

"We can never forgive a woman who voted 13 years ago to authorize a war!"

That's nothing!!


Bernie voted against the brady bill 22 years ago!

[smiley]

81. but she voted for war...

That resulted in the death and displacement of millions. I suspect Sander's vote 22 years ago was supported by much of his constituency. I doubt Clinton's vote 13 years ago was supported by the majority of her constituency. If it was then New York is filled with a bunch of murdering bastards.

[yallerdawg]

11. What's that word?

Oh -- hypocrisy!

But it could just be Hillary is held to a higher standard than anyone else.

What would that word be?

[leftofcool]

55. Yea, but if you said it, it would just get poo pooed by the Bernie crowd.

They can't see hypocrisy or irony.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

12. Octopi can also change their spots to blend in with their surroundings, unlike leopards.

[Thinkingabout]

13. Since HRC represented NY, she should be supporting the people of NY.

Was you privy to the phone calls in her office requesting she vote for the IWR? Also, every time I see this crap posted the poster ALWAYS forgets to add the resolution called for Bush to exhaust all means before invading Iraq, he did not exhaust all means, he did not allow for the completion of the inspections of the WMD's. If you want to get so pissed about the vote, then throw your pissy attitude towards Bush.

[MaggieD]

15. [phone]

[neverforget]

39. So it's their fault they didn't hold Bush accountable? They

were suckered? Lied too? The Senators and Representatives gave Bush the authority to invade Iraq. He may have been CINC, but it's on the Congress at the time for allowing him to do it.

[Thinkingabout]

61. WTH are you talking about? Do you think for one second a GOP Congress was going to hold Bush

responsible? You should explain how this was going to happen. Bush and Cheney made the decision to invade Iraq.

[neverforget]

63. So they're blameless for their vote? Powerless to enforce their own laws or votes?

[Thinkingabout]

65. She has addressed the vote, now are you willing to address the bill passed and understand it was

not HRC who made the decision to invade Iraq? She has said she is wished to retract the vote. You may never forget the vote, does not change the fact Bush made the decision so hopefully you do not forget who made the decision.

[neverforget]

67. Well no shit it's Bush's fault. Do you see me blaming Hillary for Bush's decision? No. She voted

to give him authority that's her problem. She took him at his word.

Here's my Senator Wyden (D-OR) who sat on the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time and still does. He figured it out. Why didn't Senator Clinton?

Madam President, I hold the Senate seat of the late Wayne Morse. Senator Morse lost his job in 1968, and many have attributed his loss to his outspoken opposition to the Vietnam war. Wayne Morse's election loss makes his words from that era no less true today.

In a 1966 debate on the role of the Senate with respect to the great issues of war and peace, Senator Wayne Morse said:

This is what the United States Senate is for. It is what the Founding Fathers created the Senate to do--take the long-range view of actions prompted in national councils that may be warped by some strong passion or momentary interest.

It is the long-term interest of our country, Madam President, that Wayne Morse so presciently focused on in 1966 that leads me to outline the following conclusion that I have made with respect to the Iraq resolution.

Saddam Hussein is the bad actor here and the United States of America is the good actor. I believe the authorization of a unilateral preemptive military attack based on the information now available will cause much of the world, unfortunately, to lose sight of this reality. This perception in a region racked by poverty and already marked by a deep mistrust in American foreign policy could foster decades, possibly even centuries of undeserved hatred of our great Nation that will threaten our children and our grandchildren.

Protecting our children and grandchildren after a unilateral preemptive attack on Iraq will require a staggering financial commitment from our National Government. Given the pressing financial needs here at home for public safety, for education, for health, where are the funds going to come from after our Nation wins such an engagement with Iraq ?

Protecting our children and grandchildren after a unilateral preemptive attack on Iraq will require an American policy of energy independence--especially independence from Middle East oil. We are a long way from there, and on some issues, such as saving energy and the crucial transportation sector, it seems that now we have been going backward.

Protecting our children and grandchildren after a unilateral preemptive attack on Iraq will require a plan for rebuilding confidence among many of the countries that stood with us during the gulf war conflict, but do not stand with us today. Many of those countries do not believe diplomatic and other steps have been fully exhausted. If our Government cannot convince them of that, it is certainly going to be tough to restore faith after a unilateral, preemptive attack.

For many weeks now, I have waited and listened patiently, I feel, for the administration to make its case for the resolution. I serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee. I followed this issue very closely, and I believe neither partisan politics nor the pressures of an anxious public should be factored into a decision of this magnitude.

Instead, I see my duty as an elected representative of the great State of Oregon to listen, to inquire dispassionately, and make the decision I believe to be in the best interest of Oregon and this great country, and leave the judgment to history and the voters as to whether I made that judgment in the right way.

In approaching the decision about whether to vote to authorize the military option this measure calls for, I laid out some criteria on which to base my decision.

My criteria were: If our security agencies were to provide me with compelling evidence of a significant threat to our domestic security if Hussein's Iraq is not defeated militarily, I would be willing to grant authority for the use of force. But I am unwilling to give my approval for a first-strike, unilateral attack until and unless there is assurance under the resolution that before such an attack, the administration exhausted all other reasonable means to accomplish our goals.

Second, I am convinced it is essential to have a workable plan to contain the situation if Iraq attacks Israel and Israel enters the conflict.

And third, I am concerned there has to be a showing such an attack will not make our Nation less safe by setting us back in the war on terrorism.

The President has made a compelling case--I believe a sincere one--regarding the danger posed by Iraq under the rule of Saddam Hussein, but his argument--and I say respectfully--does not meet the criteria I have laid out.

First, I am not convinced, regarding a clear and present threat, Saddam Hussein currently imposes a clear and present threat to the domestic security of the Nation. While my service on the Senate Intelligence Committee has left me convinced of Iraq's support of terrorism, suspicious of its ties to al-Qaida, I have seen no evidence, acts, or involvement in the planning or execution of the vicious attacks of 9/11.

While Iraq has aided terrorism for many years, there are any number of regimes who have aided terrorism, including some with far more direct links to Osama bin Laden's network of terror. In this regard, I note the first conclusion in the Central Intelligence Agency's declassified letter to Chairman Bob Graham of Florida dated October 7 of this year which states that at present, Iraq does not appear to be planning or sponsoring terrorism aimed at the United States.

Yet, had the administration met this threshold test, in my view, it has still not met the rest of what I consider to be prudent criteria. While the President has stated his desire to seek alternative means to accomplish his goals before beginning a military strike, to grant the President the authority to conduct a first-strike war before first witnessing the exhaustion of those efforts is to abdicate the obligations of this body in its most sacred role. The Founding Fathers surely envisaged a more challenging inquiry when granting the Congress the responsibility of authorizing armed conflict.

On my second point, while I am not privy to the administration's war plans, I am of the belief the administration is satisfactorily preparing for a potential enlargement of the conflict with Israel or other allies. I am concerned this issue has not been adequately addressed.

I do believe the administration needs to outline in further detail how they would address issues with respect to the enlargement of the conflict, and I want to make clear I do not believe that point has been addressed clearly and fully to date. The possibility this conflict would be enlarged with an attack on Iraq to one that involves Israel is one I think needs to be laid out and laid out clearly.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly for my purposes, I reached the conclusion that pursuit of a first-strike war, absent any credible sign Saddam Hussein is preparing to wage war against our Nation or other nations, will leave this Nation less secure than before. I believe we have to look at greater length at these key questions, and I do not believe that has been done to date.

It is the sacred duty of the Senate to focus and act upon the long-term interests of our beloved Nation. Saddam Hussein is an extremely dangerous and extremely despicable man. Time and again, he has demonstrated that to his enemies, as well as his own people. He lives in a part of the world where there is no shortage of dangerous and despicable men who pose a threat to the security of the United States. In my service on the Senate Intelligence Committee, I have not seen satisfactory evidence he is any more despicable than the threat presented by Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran.

In summary, those are the central questions. Making sure we have exhausted all of the diplomatic opportunities before one considers a first strike, making sure we are ready to deal with the region after a first strike and one that, in my judgment, we are clearly going to win, the unanswered questions of what happens when there is an attack on Iraq and the possibility of enlarging the conflict to Israel--these questions have not been addressed, and they have not been addressed fully.

There is no question in my mind Saddam Hussein represents a very real threat to this country and to the world, but I do not want to, in the days ahead, compound the problems we already face with Hussein in the region by authorizing a unilateral, preemptive military strike at this time, and that is why I will oppose the resolution.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

[Thinkingabout]

69. As your Congressman stated:

My criteria were: If our security agencies were to provide me with compelling evidence of a significant threat to our domestic security if Hussein's Iraq is not defeated militarily, I would be willing to grant authority for the use of force. But I am unwilling to give my approval for a first-strike, unilateral attack until and unless there is assurance under the resolution that before such an attack, the administration exhausted all other reasonable means to accomplish our goals.


Your Congressman stated "exhausted all other reasonable means to accomplish our goals."

This was also Hillary's statement, Bush do not do this. He had the inspectors remove before the completion of their work. Put this at the feet of Bush.

[neverforget]

70. So Hillary has no responsibility for her vote?

And Senator Wyden also said this:

"Yet, had the administration met this threshold test, in my view, it has still not met the rest of what I consider to be prudent criteria. While the President has stated his desire to seek alternative means to accomplish his goals before beginning a military strike, to grant the President the authority to conduct a first-strike war before first witnessing the exhaustion of those efforts is to abdicate the obligations of this body in its most sacred role. The Founding Fathers surely envisaged a more challenging inquiry when granting the Congress the responsibility of authorizing armed conflict."

[Thinkingabout]

72. I thought we had already discussed this but if we dod not her statement was

Bush was to exhaust all means before invading, perhaps her trust in the fact she trusted he would abide by the bill was a mistake on her part. I realize she happened to be a NY senator and may have responded to her constitutes. What I don't understand is there were other senators voting yes but mostly Hillary is the one called on this more.

[neverforget]

73. Well she is the one running for President now so she is going to get called out on it. It's

part of her record. Why did they vote for war? They knew Bush, Cheney, Runsfeld, Wolfowitz and all the other war mongering Republicans wanted it. They've never met a war they didn't like (as long as they don't have to fight it). Why did they go along with it? "Exhaust all means". They also knew according to the intelligence that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 yet responding to 9/11 by invading Iraq was an epic mistake of historic proportions. The Middle East is still paying for it in blood, war and treasure. So yeah, those who voted to give Bush this authorization are partly responsible for enabling Bush to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. We're talking about Republicans and war.

I will vote for Hillary if she is the nominee. I voted for Kerry in 2004 too knowing all of this.

[Thinkingabout]

74. I thought I had heard Bernie was running for president and his record will also be examined

And he will be held accountable for his votes or the lack of voting. You can run on and on about Hillary's vote on IWR. By Bernie's votes on national security indicates to me he is not ready for this issue as president and therefore disqualifies him to handle the job in my opinion.

[neverforget]

75. And that's why you don't think about much: we're talking about Hillary. Not Bernie.

She owns that record, just as Bernie owns his.

[Thinkingabout]

77. I did not realize GD was restricted to talking about only Hillary. But thanks for

Making my point that both own their records.

[neverforget]

79. You can change the subject all you want if you don't want to talk about Hillary. I understand

that you can't defend her vote so you change the subject.

[Thinkingabout]

83. As I saw in another thread today, it waa only a vote and it doesn't make any difference.

[neverforget]

87. Wow! Really???? That's a pretty cavalier attitude to the men and women who were killed in

that war, American and Iraqi. Holy fuck. It's just a vote and it certainly as fuck made a difference to the men, women and children who were killed or maimed. I served in the Army and am thankful there are people more concerned with the lives of people than you. Jesus H Christ. That's a disgusting attitude, not just towards the military, but towards humanity in general.

[Thinkingabout]

88. I thought it was also.

[neverforget]

89. Yeah that's why you repeated that disgusting attitude.

[stevenleser]

90. That's the correct history, not the revisionist one where they get to blame her and others

The IWR vote, like the UN Security Council Resolution 1441 passed at the same time were about pressuring the Iraqis to let the UN Weapons inspectors back into Iraq. And it worked.

[neverforget]

94. Revisionist? about what? She voted for the IWR

Senator Wyden didn't. He saw through that bullshit. Why didn't Senator Clinton?

http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-opposes-authorization-for-iraq-war

"Yet, had the administration met this threshold test, in my view, it has still not met the rest of what I consider to be prudent criteria. While the President has stated his desire to seek alternative means to accomplish his goals before beginning a military strike, to grant the President the authority to conduct a first-strike war before first witnessing the exhaustion of those efforts is to abdicate the obligations of this body in its most sacred role. The Founding Fathers surely envisaged a more challenging inquiry when granting the Congress the responsibility of authorizing armed conflict."

[stevenleser]

95. As I have said many times here that doesn't work

Every single member of the UN Security Council including temporary members Syria voted for UN Security Council Resolution 1441 that said Iraq was in violation of several UN resolutions regarding WMD and demanding Iraq allow the weapons inspectors into the country. Are you saying all of those countries are bad too?

You think guessing right on a Boolean proposition makes you or Wyden right or the good guys? It makes you both good guessers.

UN Sec Res 1441 was voted on within 2-4 weeks of IWR and for the same reasons. Folks who voted Yes on IWR were voting to put pressure on Iraq to allow the UN weapons inspectors into the country, and that worked, after IWR and UN Sec Res 1441, Iraq relented and did just that.

Here is one of several articles where I talk about this and lay it all out including links. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x252345

[neverforget]

96. The UN did it so it's okay! How many UN troops went to Iraq under the UN flag?

That would be ZERO.

And, Wyden sat and still sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee so he got it right. He had a good guess my ass. He knew and so did others who didn't sit on that committee.

[stevenleser]

97. Just the opposite. It is you who want to condemn one group but not the other and

It is you who are ignoring the facts of what was happening then and engaging in revisionist history.

I've laid it all out. If you are honest you will admit your mistake. But that would mean giving up the cudgel you seem to delight in using against Democrats who voted Yea on IWR.

The way to know there were no WMD in Iraq was to put the UN Weapons inspectors back into the country and the only way that happened was via IWR and UN SEC Res 1441. The only folks who are responsible for the U.S. Going to war after multiple UN Weapons inspector reports saying there were no WMD in Iraq are the Bush administration.

[neverforget]

98. Give me an f'ing break. Admit to what? That Clinton voted for IWR and was wrong

while others voted against it and were right? And those who were right are mocked here for revisionist history!

[stevenleser]

99. I have multiple links backing up my story and you have nothing.

Yes, you are wrong.

[neverforget]

100. Uh huh. Don't quit your day job

[stevenleser]

101. Politics is my day job. You might want to look into actually researching the facts

Before posting.

[neverforget]

102. I just read her speech.....AGAIN.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/01/12/435624/-A-golden-oldie-Hillary-s-floor-speech-to-invade-Iraq

President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.

This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.

She was wrong but she casted it with conviction so I guess that's okay.

[stevenleser]

103. Fact is it worked for the intended result. The UN weapons inspection teams were let in

They surveyed the suspected sites and found no WMD.

[neverforget]

104. Lol. it sure did as the authorization for war worked too.

Was she wrong to trust Bush?

[stevenleser]

105. No, that was not the intent and that's obvious from the wording and its also

Obvious from all the reporting of it at the time.

Only the Bush administration is responsible for that war. Congress is not responsible, nor are the countries who voted for UN SEC Res 1441.

[neverforget]

106. Bush is responsible for the war. But I get can't over the fact that those who voted for the IWR

Last edited Sat May 9, 2015, 02:02 AM - Edit history (1)

enabled Bush to do it. They gave him legal cover for it. You can't even admit that. Good grief.

[yallerdawg]

16. Any Obama fans?

Ever read "The Audacity of Hope"?

Obama didn't forget Mr. Byrd, either!

[freshwest]

19. Let 'em vote for Rand. He's only for bombing Israel's neighbors and going back into Iraq. Our hero!

If Sanders comes out in favor of arming Israel (oops, he already did that) and endorses Hillary, don't even hang out with the bucket to clean up the brains on the wall. It won't be pretty.

The primary is not over. It may not be HRC. It may be Sanders. Or vice versa. I'm voting for all of the above.

Oh, and I haven't heard such intense indignant self-righteousness since Ralph Reed and Jerry Falwell.

[MelungeonWoman]

21. Senator Byrd was not defined by a single vote.

He changed his views and his voting record reflected that.

Are you suggesting that Hillary is going to have an epiphany and start voting against the billionaire class? Or perhaps she is now going to start making those kinds of soundbites in her speeches?

Because Bernie is in the race?

[MaggieD]

35. Tell us which votes

...were pro-billionaire? There's a list of all her votes at this link:

http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/55463/hillary-clinton/?p=1#.VUxqEXBHaK0

[dreamnightwind]

22. If Hillary clearly establishes that she has changed

and is ready to do everything in her power to reign in U.S. military corporate resource acquisition wars, that would mean a lot to me. I would need to see a real committment to it, a full mea-culpa, coming out the other side as a transformed person, as I believe happened with Byrd and his racism. If I could feel the reality of that in Hillary, that would be huge.

And the Byrd thread was about a remarkable speech he gave against a decision to wage an illegal and catastrophic war, which is undeniable, he put his whole soul into that, you could see it and feel it. I was never a fan of his before that, and really know little about him except that he is an apparently reformed racist who got it absolutely right on probably the most important issue in recent history. I watched that speech in real time when he gave it, it was amazing how he put everything he had into it, going against a very strong political tide to not ony state his conscience but in an attempt to stop it before it started. That is leadership, and I'd love to see that from Hillary.

[Bonobo]

25. You are so eloquent and that is precisely, precisely how I feel.

In Japan they have a saying. "If saying "sorry" was enough, there would be no need for policemen."

And Hillary didn't even say sorry.

[dreamnightwind]

28. Not sure that she hasn't in some way indicated she regrets her vote

but in no way has she shown a transformation like what would be required for such regrets to mean much. And thank you for your kind words.

[msongs]

26. DUers conveniently forget they voted for a president who has perpertuated war for the last 6 yrs nt

[RiverLover]

47. Exactly. He just didn't ask for congressional approval.

On War, Obama More Like Bush Every Day
http://www.progressive.org/news/2014/09/187853/war-obama-more-bush-every-day

[Scootaloo]

27. Wouldn't support Byrd for presidency. Sorry.

[Bonobo]

29. Yeah, he's out of the running for me too. nt

[Scootaloo]

31. Wouldn't HAVE supported him, then

zombie Byrd isn't eligible; pretty sure citizenship lapses after death.

[Bonobo]

32. Oh. Yeah, me too.

I wouldn't support an ex-KKK member. But that doesn't prevent me from recognizing a great speech filled with heart and conviction.

Not really sure how a personal attack on the guy for his past has much to do with Hillary Clinton.

[Scootaloo]

42. yeah, not quite sure of the argument being made

I took it as "LOLOL SANDERS SUPPORTRZ R ST00PD CUZ TEH CRITICIZE CLINTON BUT LOOK ROBERT BYRD LOLOLOLZ ST00PD SNDRZ BOTS ROFL"

But i might be giving hte OP too much credit.

[Bonobo]

43. Ha ha ha ha. So funny! nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

36. "pretty sure citizenship lapses after death."

Naw,...it's more grounded.

I think it's a plot.

[Bonobo]

38. McCamy, may I quote your journal entry on this subject (The Iraq War)?

Here it is:

"How I wish that all you folks who claim to have been such vocal critics of the war back in 2002-3 had been a bit more...vocal. "

You know, that's funny that you should say that and suggest that opponents were not vocal. I am sure that like me, many marched and protested over and over. I myself drove from from Pittsburgh to D.C. to protest in 1991 and from Massachusetts to D.C. to protest in 2002 and 2003 as well as protesting every Sunday in my hometown on the street.

This might refresh your memory, but millions protested and I'm sure the vast majority on DU did as well. So let's not pretend that opposition to the war was by some elite Progressive cabal, ok? Talk about rewriting history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War

[neverforget]

40. amazing how it's our fault we didn't stop them but those in Congress

were powerless to stop Bush after they gave him the go ahead.

I marched in protests. I made phone calls and sent emails to my Senators and Representative. I enlisted my friends and family to do the same. But I wasn't vocal enough.

[Bonobo]

41. Yup, it's all on us.

Many of us worked tirelessly and screamed our fucking throats out.

Now we are called revisionists who just don't know what it was like.

Sorry, but I have been politically aware since watching the Contra hearings every day on TV and I know BS when I hear it.

[TM99]

44. False Equivalency Fail!

Sen. Byrd did reform. He not only apologized, but he worked for the rest of his life to attempt to earn back trust for his previous views. "I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times ... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened."

He supported legislation that fought against the hatred and bigotry he once expressed. He demonstrated not only in word but in action that he was remorseful and was going to change. In 2003/2004, the NAACP gave him a 100% approval rating on his votes. This man truly did change.

Now, on the other hand, Clinton did not reform. After ten years only when it was expedient for political positioning's sake did she say she regrets her vote. She did not go any further than that in either word or action. She did not apologize. She did not say that her actions were part of what got over 500,000 Iraqis and almost 4500 US service members killed. Not only that but as SoS, she jumped on the Neo-Conservative bandwagon that was behind the lies she bought into during the run up to the war in 2002/2003.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/clinton-on-qaddafi-we-came-we-saw-he-died/

That disgusting interview where she joked "We came, we saw, he died" was NOT the words of someone who is sorry for their part in the War in Iraq or the continuation of the War on Terror as dreamed up by the PNAC cabal.

And yes, had Clinton and the other asshole Democrats who bought Bush and company's lies had listened to Byrd, a lot of innocent men, women, and children would still be alive today.

If fucking only.....

[Bonobo]

46. Yes, but even more of a logic fail...

Since Senator Byrd's past has got fuck all to do with Hillary Clinton's vote on the Iraqi Wa Resolution and her qualifications to be POTUS.

[TM99]

48. Oh, I definitely agree.

I was solely addressing the OP's assertion of hypocrisy and equivalency.

[Bonobo]

49. I said the same in #20, but yes, it's comparing apples to apple orchards. nt

[cali]

45. How about her listening to Teddy Kennedy or Pat Leahy? Gonna try to slam either of them?

"Mr. President, declaring war, or providing the authority to wage war, is the single most important responsibility given to Congress under the Constitution. As history has shown, wars inevitably have unforeseen, terrible consequences, especially for innocent civilians.

Blank check resolutions, such as the one the President proposes, can likewise be misinterpreted or used in ways that we do not intend or expect. It has happened before, in ways that many people, including Members of Congress, came to regret. That is why a thorough debate is so necessary. And that is also why this Vermonter will not vote for a blank check for this President or any President. My conscience and the Constitution do not allow that."


<snip>

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4055401

[Motown_Johnny]

50. Her vote on the Iraq War Resolution isn't really the problem

It was her leadership role in getting the resolution passed. She didn't just vote for the authorization. She did much more than that. She even voted against an alternative to the Bush approach to the war.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/01/12/435624/-A-golden-oldie-Hillary-s-floor-speech-to-invade-Iraq#

^snip^

SAT JAN 12, 2008 AT 08:11 AM PST

A golden oldie: Hillary's floor speech to invade Iraq


UPDATE: Thanks to Play Jurist for pointing out that Hillary voted against the alternative to SJ Res 45, namely Carl Levin's Amendment on Iraq Levin himself explained the differences in the following way:



What my alternative resolution does is as follows:

It urges the U.N. Security Council to adopt promptly a resolution that:

* Demands unconditional access for U.N. inspectors so that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and prohibited ballistic missiles may be destroyed; and

* Within the same U.N. resolution, authorizes the use of necessary and appropriate force by U.N. member states to enforce such resolution in the event Iraq refuses to comply.

It also specifically authorizes the use of United States Armed Forces pursuant to that U.N. Security Council resolution if Iraq fails to comply with its terms, provided the President informs the Congress of his determination that the United States has used appropriate diplomatic and other peaceful means to obtain compliance by Iraq with such U.N. resolution.

My resolution affirms that, under international law and the U.N. Charter, the United States has at all times the inherent right to use military force in self-defense, affirming the fact that there is no U.N. veto over U.S. military action.

My resolution affirms that Congress will not adjourn sine die so that Congress can return to session to consider promptly proposals relative to Iraq if, in the judgment of the President, the U.N. Security Council does not adopt the resolution mentioned earlier.

Finally, my resolution provides that the President report to Congress every 60 days on the status of efforts to have the U.N. Security Council adopt such a resolution and, if such a resolution is adopted, to obtain compliance by Iraq with the resolution.

We need to be honest about what happened, she did much more than just vote to invade Iraq.

[leftofcool]

51. I don't want my next President following any KKKers advice, thank you.

[TM99]

56. Wow.

[PoliticAverse]

78. Well she did consider Byrd a “friend and mentor”. n/t

[leftofcool]

52. This is a good observation and well stated.

[magical thyme]

54. it's not just that one vote. it's a decades long tendency toward being an armchair warhawk

She has demonstrated that she is a war hawk over and over again. She pushed Obama into the disastrous Afghanistan surge (back when Biden argued for narrowing the focus there to strictly al qaeda).

Her rhetoric has been consistently pro-war, what do we pay soldiers for.

...rather than challenge President George W. Bush’s dramatic increases in military spending, Senator Clinton argues that they are not enough and the United States needs to spend even more in subsequent years. At the end of the Cold War, many Democrats were claiming that the American public would be able to benefit from a “peace dividend” resulting from dramatically-reduced military spending following the demise of the Soviet Union. Clinton, however, has called for dramatic increases in the military budget, even though the United States, despite being surrounded by two oceans and weak friendly neighbors, already spends as much on its military as all the rest of the world combined.

She has even fought the Bush administration in restoring funding for some of the very few weapons systems the Bush administration has sought to cut in recent years.

she was one of the chief advocates in her husband’s inner circle for the 11-week bombing campaign against Yugoslavia in 1999 to attempt to resolve the Kosovo crisis.
Gail Sheehy’s book Hillary’s Choice reveals how, when President Bill Clinton and others correctly expressed concerns that bombing Serbia would likely lead to a dramatic worsening of the human rights situation by provoking the Serbs into engaging in full-scale ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, Hillary Clinton successfully pushed her husband to bomb that country anyway.

She has also defended the 1998 U.S. bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan which had provided that impoverished African country with more than half of its antibiotics and vaccines, falsely claiming it was a chemical weapons factory controlled by Osama bin Laden.

Clinton voted to authorize the president with wide-ranging authority to attack Afghanistan and was a strong supporter of the bombing campaign against that country, which resulted in more civilian deaths than the 9/11 attacks against the United States that had prompted them.

More -- a bucketload more -- at the link.

http://fpif.org/hillary_clinton_on_military_policy/

[99Forever]

58. ...

[sendero]

60. HRC's Iraq vote..

... was not a "single vote" but a pattern of neocon-leaning decisions starting from day one.

But nice try though.

[Rex]

71. That sure is a lot of mind reading and projecting you got going there!

Of course I knew what would be in this OP, just like I knew what would be in the linked OP as soon as I saw the username.

[ucrdem]

76. Irony abounds.

It's a terrific speech as far as it goes but you know what? Byrd could have gone further in his truth-telling but when he got to 9/11 he kicked into official conspiracy theory mode, bringing us right back to Hillary's dilemma: if he knew more, and by now we all know more, why didn't he say so? And if he didn't, what's his excuse?

So it's a matter of degree and opportunity. Byrd had an opportunity, being at the end of his career, and took it. Great but Hillary was in a much different position and still is.

[Bonobo]

92. On other words, for Hillary, political calculation was more important.

You said it yourself. Thanks for the support.

[ucrdem]

93. I don't need to see her to ritually disembowel herself, no,

as long we're making up stuff. You're welcome.