Because I'm so damned sick of false claims about the IWR.

[cali]

Whether they come straight out of Clinton's mouth or they're being parroted, they are simply not true.

Enough is enough. That's why I'm posting this for about the tenth times.

This resolution, like others before it, does not declare anything. It tells the President "you decide." This resolution, when you get through the pages of whereas clauses, is nothing more than a blank check. The President can decide when to use military force, how to use it, and for how long.

That's Pat Leahy and he was fucking there. Here's a link to the entire speech.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0210/S00095.htm


Here's a bit more.

Mr. President, that trend started many years ago, and I have gone back and read some of the speeches Senators made. For example, and I quote:

"The resolution now pending is an expression of American unity in this time of crisis."

"It is a vote of confidence . . . but is not a blank check for policies that might in the future be carried on by the executive branch of the Government . . . without full consultation by the Congress."

Those quotes were not about Iraq. They were spoken thirty-eight years ago, when I was still a prosecutor in Vermont. At the end of that debate, the Senate passed the Tonkin Gulf resolution by a vote of 88 to 2.

That resolution was used by both the Johnson and Nixon Administrations as carte blanche to wage war in Vietnam, ultimately involving more than half a million American troops, and resulting in the deaths of more than 58,000 Americans.

This is not to say that the Administration is trying to mislead the Congress about the situation in Iraq. Nor am I comparing a possible war in Iraq to the Vietnam War. They are very different countries with different histories and different military capabilities.

But the key words in the resolution we are considering today are remarkably similar to that infamous resolution of 38 years ago, which so many Senators came to regret.

Let us not make that mistake again.

Here's a piece from kos about all this.

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/4/1479717/-Hillary-Clinton-claims-she-did-not-vote-for-war-in-Iraq


Up is not down. The earth is not flat, pigs don't fly, and this revisionist crap is not the truth.

[Puglover]

1. Thanks for the reminder.

I will never forget it.

I just finished reading this.



http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/01/historic-re-election-pattern-doesnt-favor-democrats-in-2016/

[boston bean]

2. Bush would have went anyhow.

The 2001 AUMF gave him the authority he believed. BTW bernie voted for that and that authorization is still used to this day for mitary intervention it was/is a blank check.

Did or did not the IWR include inspections??

Was it a wrong vote by her YES. Is she some hideous woman, that some like to make her out to be? No.

[Punkingal]

3. Not hideous, no. I just don't want her to be president.

[morningfog]

4. It is unforgivable. A million dead Iraqi civilians.

Civil war continues over a decade later. We ALL new exactly what the vote meant. It is something she cannot right. And when she trots out pathetic bullshit like Wall Street or "oh Bush tricked me!" It makes it worse.

[cali]

5. But she doesn't tell the truth about it.

[beam me up scottie]

6. Not this shit again. Bernie OPPOSED the Iraq war in the strongest possible terms.

You don't get to rewrite that chapter of history either.

[boston bean]

9. What history have I revised?

[beam me up scottie]

12. Oh please.

Every time the Iraq war is brought up some Hillary supporter inevitably brings up the AUMF and implies that Bernie is somehow also responsible for it.

Bernie Sanders stood on the floor and implored his fellow legislators to vote against the IWR - he gets full credit for that.

Period.

[boston bean]

14. Ok. But did he vote for the 2001 AUMF?

Why yes he did

Did the Bush admin believe that authorization gave them the right to invade Iraq.

Why yes they did

Was the IWR an alternative authorization specifically regarding Iraq requiring inspections before any invasion?

Why yes it was.

Without the IWR and only the AUMF would have Bush invaded.

Why yes he would have on that 2001 AUMF authorization alone.

I have not revised any history.

[beam me up scottie]

15. Did he realize that Bin Laden attacked us on 9/11? Yes he did.

Did he know Saddam wasn't harboring the terrorists who were responsible?

Yes he did.

Are you speculating about what Bush would have done?

Why yes you are.

You don't know that he would have invaded anyway, if every Dem had stood up to him it might have made all the difference in the world.

[boston bean]

17. Yes he would have. That was the reason for the IWR.

He already had the authority.

[beam me up scottie]

19. Then why the resolution? If he already had the authority he didn't need it, did he?

[boston bean]

21. As an attempt to prevent invasion prior to inspections.

[beam me up scottie]

25. What? See post #22.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1142006

[boston bean]

27. See post 26.

[beam me up scottie]

29. I disagree, if congress had oppposed Bush the invasion might not have happened.

You are speculating about what would have happened in order to absolve Hillary of her culpability.

In fact she endorsed the invasion:

There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm, and I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I have followed for more than a decade.

For now nearly 20 years, the principal reason why women and children in Iraq have suffered, is because of Saddam's leadership.

The very difficult question for all of us, is how does one bring about the disarmament of someone with such a proven track record of a commitment, if not an obsession, with weapons of mass destruction.

I ended up voting for the Resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision, and it is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution. That is not my preference, it would be far preferable if we had legitimate cooperation from Saddam Hussein, and a willingness on his part to disarm, and to account for his chemical and biological storehouses.

With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I do not believe that given the attitudes of many people in the world community today that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems were it not for United States leadership.

And after we were done destroying Iraq, she called what we did to the Iraqis a "gift":

Hillary Goes Orwellian on Iraq

Hillary Clinton may fancy she opposes the war in Iraq, but she has a funny way of showing it. On Monday night in Austin, she had this to say about what the United States military has done over the past five years:

"We have given them the gift of freedom, the greatest gift you can give someone. Now it is really up to them to determine whether they will take that gift."

There was nothing accidental about this line. She delivered it in response to two Iraq veterans introduced at a town hall meeting at the Austin Convention Center by her friend and campaign surrogate Ted Danson. She liked the line enough that she delivered it again a couple of hours later, at a campaign-closing rally at a basketball arena in south Austin.

"The gift of freedom" is, of course, a curious way to describe an unprovoked invasion and occupation causing hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths and leaving just about every aspect of life chaotic and fraught with daily dangers. To then lay responsibility for the mess on the Iraqis -- we did our bit, now you do yours -- is the worst kind of dishonesty, a complete abdication of moral principles. It's the sort of thing George Bush has said to justify his decision both to launch the invasion in the first place and then stay the course -- a course Hillary Clinton has spent many months telling primary and caucus voters she thinks was misconceived from the start.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-gumbel/hillary-goes-orwellian-on_b_89729.html

[boston bean]

32. What have I absolved. I added some context. I suggest

Reading all my posts in this thread.

[beam me up scottie]

35. Post #2: "Bush would have went anyhow."

In other words her vote didn't matter.

It did matter, it does matter and it will always matter.

[BlueStateLib]

57. if congress had oppposed Bush the invasion

there would have been no iwr vote, the republicans would have filibuster

Does Bush Need Congressional Okay to Invade Iraq?
Aug. 26 2002

On Aug. 26, White House lawyers issued an opinion that President Bush could order a preemptive attack against Iraq without a vote of approval from Congress. The lawyers based their opinion on two factors:

1) The president's constitutional authority as commander in chief of the military (Article II, Sec. 2)·

2) Terms of the 1991 Gulf War resolution they content remains in effect today

3) Terms of the Sept. 14, 2001 congressional resolution approving military action against terrorism (S.J. Res 23)·

[Fumesucker]

7. Clinton said last night that she was fooled by the Pretzeldent

It's really too bad that she had never heard of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, if she had there's a good chance she would be looking at the end of her time as POTUS now.

[farleftlib]

10. I agree. She wasn't fooled and her speech at the time demonstrates this.

I think it's completely disingenuous to say she believed he would only use the authorization as leverage and didn't believe he was actually going to go through with the invasion. It demonstrates complete lack of character to lay blame on anyone else but herself. She knew what she was voting for and she did it enthusiastically.

[cali]

11. And Leahy put it in blunt language. So did others. She knew

[farleftlib]

13. Yup. Of course she did.

These claims of being hoodwinked are not only ridiculous, they're nauseating.

[Karma13612]

16. reminds me of how she just turned 180 degrees in her

Iowa Caucus victory speech and said she is FOR universal healthcare.

WTF

The day before, she said we can't EVER EVER EVER have that.

[LibDemAlways]

23. Bill Clinton received a letter from the

neocon PNACers in 1998 urging him to go to war with Iraq. He ignored it. For Hillary to claim that she was fooled is just ridiculous. Her vote was cast out of political expediency, nothing more or less.

[mike_c]

22. no, the IWR did not "include inspections..."

On the first page it included a lie about inspections as part of the rationale for military force against Iraq, but nowhere in the resolution is there any call for WMD inspections. If you haven't read it before, you should read it. The whereas clauses that set forth the rationale are embarrassingly bombastic and mostly false, and the resolutions are a blank check for war, any time president Bush wanted to invade. The only requirement was that he inform congress of his decision.

Here is the only mention of inspections in the IWR:

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Reading that clause reminded me of this:

[boston bean]

26. Yes it did through the security counc resutio s regarding inspections.

The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

[mike_c]

33. you know that Iraq agreed to allow inspections to resume in Sept 2002...

...before the invasion, right? And that there really weren't any weapons of mass destruction other than the ones the U.S. brought to Iraq? That the whole enterprise was a tissue of lies? That the invasion of Iraq was a crime against humanity and an international war crime?

Thankfully, there were democrats who distinguished themselves by voting against the IWR.

[DanTex]

28. Exactly. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional. Bush was going to war, period.

[mike_c]

36. I'm thankful that there were democrats who stood up to him and voted against the IWR....

They demonstrated moral courage and true leadership. I'm very sorry to say that some craven politicians voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq for reasons that we can only speculate about now, after they've tried to obfuscate their role for more than a decade.

[DanTex]

37. Yeah, that was great. Meanwhile, in 2016, we need to stop the GOP from taking the White House.

[polly7]

39. Those people were heroes to those of us watching and hoping so badly. nt.

[Bluenorthwest]

50. Well if he was going to go either way then why not vote no? Why side with stupid, not to mention

war, not to mention the GOP when your opinion is moot? The only reason to vote in such a way for a person you assume can not be stopped from going to war is that you want him to. If you think he's going to do as he pleases and you oppose that war you would in fact vote against it. 'Bush was going anyway' is not a defense but an additional indicting detail about those who voted for that resolution and for that war.

[zeemike]

62. It's funny how on the one hand.

The congress is powerless to stop a president from doing things...and on the other hand the president is powerless to do things without the congress.

It just depends on whether you want to make excuses for something or not.

[islandmkl]

8. ooh la la...the Faces sound like some inner thoughts of someone

who cannot admit/acknowledge their past...

I wish that I knew what I know now
When I was younger
I wish that I knew what I know now
When I was stronger


Songwriters
RON LANE, RONNIE WOOD

[stillwaiting]

18. Thank you. I'm getting very dizzy from all of the disingenuous spinning going on. nt

[bbmykel]

20. Thanks for posting this!

I was naïve enough to think newly minted Senator Clinton would come out against this. After all, how often does history tee up a chance for leadership and this was an opportunity on a silver platter? Instead, she gave her carefully crafted capitulation allowing Bush to have the patina of bi-partisanship. How often even now do we hear "even Hillary Clinton supported it!" when the pukies try and justify this atrocity? Would there have even been a Howard Dean candidacy if she had come to the floor and delivered a full-throated "No"? or even "Wait"?

She couldn't have prevented this disaster, but she could have staked out the principaled ground. She could have been vocal opposition as the most famous member of the Senate.

This vote may have cost her in 2008 and it should cost her again. Hillary a leader? Not!

And let's be really honest here--this was political calculation all the way--not wanting to be on the wrong side of a (likely) popular war--because she had presidential ambitions. Both Kerry and Edwards made the same calculation much to their own detriment.

I don't mind pragmatism when it comes to budgets and other things, but not war. What a lefty loon I am!

[MisterP]

63. that's what I've been saying--suddenly it was a consensus, a serious crisis

the Dems did more than pass war by 27 votes, they made it all-American, no longer the pet project of the stupidest President in history, some oillionaires who rigged him in, and the baying baby-kicking jackasses of the GOP

same with the New Atheists--instead of a project by people who said Jesus told them to burn their kids' extremities off if they misbehaved (and incidentally to take out everyone on the PNAC list), now the biggest fighters of creationism and televangelism and heroes to many on the left are 101% behind it--well, maybe there's something to this and we can free Islam of its tyrants and imams

[Jefferson23]

24. Why does anyone want a hawk for president? Her revisions are telling enough, wake

the fuck up, people.

[valerief]

30. Don't forget the biggest antiwar protest in history was IGNORED by the U.S. media.

as were subsequent HUGE protests. I think there may have been a blonde white girl missing that the media NEEDED to talk about 24/7.

http://world.time.com/2013/02/15/viewpoint-why-was-the-biggest-protest-in-world-history-ignored/

By Ishaan Tharoor @ishaantharoorFeb. 15, 2013
Ten years ago today, the world saw what was by some accounts the largest single coordinated protest in history. Roughly 10 million to 15 million people (estimates vary widely) assembled and marched in more than 600 cities: as many as 3 million flooded the streets of Rome; more than a million massed in London and Barcelona; an estimated 200,000 rallied in San Francisco and New York City. From Auckland to Vancouver — and everywhere in between — tens of thousands came out, joining their voices in one simple, global message: no to the Iraq war.

[jmowreader]

31. You know Bush revoked the security clearances of almost all Congressmen, right?

The BS (Before Shrub) Congress was all cleared for almost everything the government has.

Bush pulled the clearances of all but four Members: the Republican and Democratic ranking members of each chamber's Intelligence Committee. While you and I 'know' the Iraq war was unjustified, government officials aren't allowed to go on gut feeling. They have to go by official sources - and what those official sources told them turned out to be absolute bullshit. (Which means, of course, that the first act of the 44th president of the United States should have been to point at the 43rd and say, "officers, hold that man.&quot

And sorry guys, but Bernie didn't want to go to war because he wanted to spend the money domestically. Which is a very good idea, but it falls into the "right thing, wrong way" category.

[A Simple Game]

43. BS is right, I knew they didn't have WMD's and so did most of the Country and the world.

All you had to do was read a newspaper, watch TV, and/or peruse the internet. Another option would have been listen to Rep. Sanders from Vermont.

From your last paragraph it's obvious that you haven't viewed the video in post #6, you should do so it may save some future embarrassment.

[jmowreader]

45. You mean, the embarrassment of getting replied to by you?

Why do you think we were all screaming for inspections? The fact is, none of us were ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN Saddam had no WMDs. (And neither did the Iraqi Army - there was a piece of intercept the Right was flogging where a senior Iraqi commander told one of his subordinates to go back and inspect all his ammo bunkers for any WMD that might be in there, but that they hadn't found yet.) This is why we who have been on the left more than a week were all pushing for Hans Blix to go in there and inspect the hell out of Iraq. Which he did, but before Hans Blix made his inspection we couldn't be absolutely certain. (Naturally, Bush blew off everything he was told and went in anyway, which he should have been impeached for.)

[A Simple Game]

56. Do you read what you post before hitting the post button? You said:

The fact is, none of us were ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN Saddam had no WMDs.

Read that, it's what you wrote. You even wrote part of the important part in all CAPS. "No one was ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN." Not we were absolutely certain he had, you wrote none were certain he did have. You admit we went in to a full scale war because no one was ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN Saddam had WMDs. Perhaps you took your clues from Rumsfeld and his known knowns and unknown knowns and the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns.

We weren't screaming for inspections because they were already being done. And how much more time did the inspectors want to complete their search? If I recall correctly it was around two weeks, that's what most of us wanted, more time. A full scale war on a whim or would you prefer to call it an assumption? I'm not certain my neighbor isn't preparing to murder me but I don't call the cops on him just because he could be.

Still haven't watched the video have you? And I don't mean the one of Powell trying to sell his lies to the UN. People knew the truth if they wanted to look for it that's why millions were in the streets. But if you didn't pay attention you didn't know about the marches either.

So we slaughtered a million people and displaced unknown millions of people and years later people are still dying and still being displaced because NO ONE ABSOLUTELY KNEW FOR CERTAIN! Smart, real smart.

And you weren't embarrassed until I replied to you.

[Mnpaul]

54. They didn't have to go on gut feelings

Everyone could go review the full intel themselves. They couldn't take notes or discuss it with others but they had full access.

Bernie did not want to go to war because removing Saddam would lead to further unrest and possibly civil war. He said so on video and it has been posted here numerous times.

[H2O Man]

34. Thank you.

You are The Best!

Recommended.

[asuhornets]

38. You are beating a dead horse..

Hilary lost the 2008 election to Obama because she voted for the Iraq war. She has paid the price for that vote. Even the Republicans don't used that against her. But Bernie supporters, instead of uplifting your candidate, you bash Hillary hoping it will catch on. It won't.
Because she has paid the price for that vote.

[polly7]

40. How has she 'paid her price'??

Millions have been killed, mutilated, driven out to live as refugees, and now die at sea trying to escape, yet she was one of the most fervent pushers of the Libyan fiasco, is more hawkish towards Iran than nearly anyone and wants the same no-fly zone over Syria as was gotten for Libya. HOW has she paid??? She's made millions for her foundation in trade for weapons sales deals to countries with human rights watch abuses, is still able to run for office - and not just any old office - what one single thing did she lose as a result of that horrific vote? And btw ...... she was fully aware of PNAC, Iraq having no WMD capability even when Bill was in office and de-classified emails from her private server show she knew Bush and Blair were cooking the intelligence. She had PLENTY of time to come forward.

How has she paid?

[asuhornets]

41. I explained that in my previous post..

Are you saying that she is responsible for the deaths of many people? Is that correct?

[polly7]

42. Oh, absolutely correct. As is everyone who pushes for war anywhere ........ and I don't

care who it is.

And no, not a single one of them have ever paid, nor will they. Trying to make a martyr of her for being criticized for not only her vote, but her participation in all of it isn't working for me. I don't see that she's even truly regretful, as she's still as hawkish towards Iran and Syria as for Libya - even after seeing what has been done to so many innocents.

[asuhornets]

48. If she had voted against the war

and I wish she had. GeorgeW. was going to war anyway. Her vote did not start the war. "Trying to make a martyr of her" who is doing that? I was against the war and she was not the President, so it was not her decision to invade Iraq.

[frylock]

44. You said she paid the price, but didn't say how.

[asuhornets]

46. She lost the 2008 election to Obama because she voted for the Iraq war..n/t

Do you think she belongs in jail?

[polly7]

47. No, that's not why she lost at all. nt.

[asuhornets]

49. That was one of the main reason. n/t

[polly7]

52. So that's how she 'paid the price'?

What has she done since to change anything - called for an end to intervention in the ME and NA? - ... no, just the opposite, Libya was destroyed in 2011. Why do you believe her vote shouldn't be just as harmful to her run this time knowing she's aching to get into Syria and pushing for Iran? No-one who had regret for that horrible vote would be doing so unless they just really didn't fucking care.

[asuhornets]

55. So Bernie Sanders

should be the Democratic Nominee because he voted against the war?

[polly7]

58. He's a good, decent, brilliant, trustworthy man who has worked all his

life fighting for everyday, struggling people.

There was 'much more' involved than a single vote for war, as was posted above, so your question doesn't even make sense.

[Bluenorthwest]

53. If losing the WH was the price she paid then giving it to her would be a refund of that price.

Is that really a price paid? That's more like a short delay for the best table.

[YOHABLO]

51. No No .. she lost because she ran up against a very intelligent charismatic

like Obama. He was also the first African/American (although technically, he's half white half black, but then no one wants to believe this) So it came down to, will we have the first woman President or the first ''Black'' American President. African American voters and more, came out in droves to elect him. IMHO

[frylock]

60. No, I think she should go make speeches and collect bank.

[Iggy Knorr]

59. K&R

the real DU.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

61. She trusted Dubya.....

That alone disqualifies her.