Hillary Clinton Told the Truth About Her Iraq War Vote

[applegrove]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2016/02/hillary_clinton_told_the_truth_about_her_iraq_war_vote.html

By Fred Kaplan at Slate


SNIP...........


“So,” she continued, “the question is, how do we do our best to both diffuse the threat Saddam Hussein poses to his people, the region, including Israel, and the United States—and, at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations.”


She went on to say that there was “no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma” and that “people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposing conclusions.” But, she concluded, “I believe the best course is to go to the United Nations for a strong resolution” that calls “for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded” from Saddam.


“If we get the resolution the president seeks, and Saddam complies,” Clinton added, “disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. … If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.” This international support is “crucial,” she added, because, “after shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable.”


Then came, from today’s vantage, the key passage: “Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first … I take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible. Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and 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 away with delay will oppose any United Nations resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.”



..............SNIP

[virtualobserver]

1. in other words.....I am naive

[dana_b]

12. and have bad judgment n/t

[arcane1]

2. Saying Saddam is a threat to the United States is not "truth" by any definition.

I can't believe people are still stupid enough to swallow that enormous lie

[hifiguy]

15. No deep water navy. Not much of an air force.

NO WMD. An army confined to his own territory. Yet he was an existential threat to the US.

And I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale. Cheap.

[guillaumeb]

3. One mistake is not what this is. She is a hawk.

Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, Pakistan, the list goes on

[Uncle Joe]

4. Saddam was complying and after the coup of 2000, I can't understand why any Democrat would trust

Bush in not abusing his authority and particularly as the overwhelming evidence proved the Bush Maladministration as being nothing but cold blooded liars.

BERKELEY – Speaking on the anniversary of the United States' invasion of Iraq, originally declared as a pre-emptive strike against a madman ready to deploy weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), the man first charged with finding those weapons said that the U.S. government has "the same mind frame as the witch hunters of the past" — looking for evidence to support a foregone conclusion.

"There were about 700 inspections, and in no case did we find weapons of mass destruction," said Hans Blix, the Swedish diplomat called out of retirement to serve as the United Nations' chief weapons inspector from 2000 to 2003; from 1981 to 1997 he headed the International Atomic Energy Agency. "We went to sites given to us by intelligence, and only in three cases did we find something" - a stash of nuclear documents, some Vulcan boosters, and several empty warheads for chemical weapons. More inspections were required to determine whether these findings were the "tip of the iceberg" or simply fragments remaining from that deadly iceberg's past destruction, Blix said he told the United Nations Security Council. However, his work in Iraq was cut short when the United States and the United Kingdom took disarmament into their own hands in March of last year.

Blix accused U.S. President George W. Bush and U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair of acting not in bad faith, but with a severe lack of "critical thinking." The United States and Britain failed to examine the sources of their primary intelligence - Iraqi defectors with their own agendas for encouraging regime change - with a skeptical eye, he alleged. In the buildup to the war, Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis were cooperating with U.N. inspections, and in February 2003 had provided Blix's team with the names of hundreds of scientists to interview, individuals Saddam claimed had been involved in the destruction of banned weapons. Had the inspections been allowed to continue, Blix said, there would likely be a very different situation in Iraq today. As it was, America's pre-emptive, unilateral actions "have bred more terrorism there and elsewhere."

(snip)


The important thing to remember, Blix said repeatedly, was that Saddam was cooperating with the inspections, despite the difficulties they create for a leader. "No one likes inspectors, not tax inspectors, not health inspectors, not any inspectors," Blix chuckled. Not only did Saddam have to endure the indignity of submitting to searches of his palaces, he explained, but the dictator also harbored the valid fear that the inspectors would pass on their findings of conventional weapons to foreign intelligence agencies, providing easy future targets.

(snip)

What Blix's inspectors had needed was more time, he emphasized. The Bush administration should have halted its military buildup in the area at 50,000 troops, the point at which the Iraqis had become much more cooperative, providing the lists of scientists and bureaucrats to Blix's team. "Given time, we would have been able to interview the many people who destroyed weapons of mass destruction after 1991," he told Amanpour.

(snip)

In a press conference held at Eshlemann Hall shortly before his interview with Amanpour, Blix had elaborated on this topic, citing the need to use the "carrot as well as the stick." Ironically, the man whose name is synonymous with the world's fears of nuclear, biological, or chemical annihilation says he has other concerns on his mind.

"Part of the hype is that proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is the 'greatest existential threat' - as I think Tony Blair put it," he said. "But to my mind, the north-south divide , the fact that hundreds of millions of people go hungry, the effects on the global environment, are just as big a threat," said Blix. "I personally am more worried about global warming than I am about WMDs.


http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/03/18_blix.shtml

Thanks for the thread, applegrove.

[Agony]

5. Hillary did not have the common sense to vote for the Levin amendment

she is simply not leadership material

occasionally she adopts the reasonable position after that fact

[cali]

6. Utter stinking shit. Here

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

[Fumesucker]

7. Indeed, the poor naive young woman from flyover country was fooled by the vast intellect of Dubya

Perfectly understandable that a smooth operator like the Pretzeldent could overwhelm such an insecure personality.

It's really too bad that Hillary never heard of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, if she had she might be finishing up her second term as POTUS right now.

[Carolina]

8. Touche!

Excellent post

[catnhatnh]

9. I don't believe it

But if you were right Hillary telling the truth definitely would be news.

[cherokeeprogressive]

10. The ONLY truth is SHE VOTED FOR IT.

[KingCharlemagne]

11. After Bush openly flouted international law by refusing to submit the

matter to the U.N. Security Council (where it faced certain veto), Hillary called for his impeachment and removal from office.

NOT!

She was an accessory before and after the fact.

[hifiguy]

13. There are two possible explanations for her vote.

1. She actually trusted Cheney 'n' the Chimp. This shows a lack of judgment so profound and complete that she shouldn't be allowed outside without someone to keep an eye on her.

2. It was a shameless, craven, opportunistic act of cowardly political ass-covering.

i vote for #2 but either is a pre-emptive disqualifier for the presidency IMO.

[AzDar]

14. Incompetent or corrupt...Either not suitable for POTUS.

...Because she said she cast her vote " with CONVICTION".

[hifiguy]

16. I'm all for conviction.

After a fair trial.

[Live and Learn]

18. +10,000 nt

[AtomicKitten]

17. It was titled AUTHORIZATION TO USE MILITARY FORCE for crissakes.

[MauriceLawrence96]

19. Here it is in her own words:

let's refresh our memories here:

[Skid Rogue]

20. I'm voting for her, but...

I think Hillary is telling a "1/2 " truth. I believe her vote was mainly political in nature.

She wanted to run for president and she was the Senator from NY. We had thousands of dead Americans.... mainly New Yorkers. Most Americans wanted to believe that our president had our best interest in mind. I know Hillary knew better than that, I did, but there was not anyway in hell that Hillary, or anyone else, could have foreseen the disaster that would unfold. She knew it was a immoral vote, but she thought it was a safe vote.

If she had been the deciding vote, I'd feel different.