Senator Hillary Clinton: "yea"

[Zorra]

Hillary Clinton’s Iraq Dilemma
snip---

Since 2007 or thereabouts, opinion polls have consistently showed that a sizable majority of Americans regard the Iraq invasion as a mistake. If the Democrats were likely to field a candidate in 2016 who opposed the war all along, they’d be in a position to exploit the issue for all it’s worth, just as Barack Obama did in 2008. But, unless something unexpected happens, the Democratic nominee will be Hillary Clinton, who, in October, 2002, voted for a congressional resolution that authorized the use of force against Iraq, and whose current take on the decision to go to war isn’t terribly easy to distinguish from the one that Jeb Bush has stumbled into.
snip----
Clinton’s public statements, like Bush’s, have gone through several iterations. In September, 2007, she argued that she hadn’t, in fact, voted for a preëmptive war, and said, “Obviously, if I had known then what I know now about what the President would do with the authority that was given him, I would not have voted the way that I did.” Since many people regarded the resolution, at the time it passed, in October, 2002, as a blank check (twenty-one Democratic senators voted against it), this explanation didn’t do Clinton much good, but she stuck with it throughout her 2008 Presidential campaign, refusing to describe her vote as a mistake. In her 2014 memoir, “Hard Choices,” Clinton changed tack, fessing up and saying that she had relied heavily on prewar intelligence about Saddam’s programs to build weapons of mass destruction. “I should have stated my regret sooner and in the plainest, most direct language possible,” she wrote. She went on, “I thought I had acted in good faith and made the best decision I could with the information I had. And I wasn’t alone in getting it wrong. But I still got it wrong. Plain and simple.”

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/hillary-clintons-iraq-dilemma

Not Good Enough, Hillary.

https://web.archive.org/web/20090908034123/http://www.takebackthemedia.com/onearmy.html

500,000 - Will Pitt

Numbers
By Scott Galindez

Saturday 24 September 2005 11:08 PM

It is safe to say that there were hundreds of thousands of people marching against the war in Iraq today. Police Chief Charles Ramsey's only statement was that the organizers achieved their goal of 100,000. The DC police refused to make any other estimate. C-SPAN estimated 500,000, a number that I believe was possible from my observations. I was on the corner of Pennsylvania and 15th on the steps of Riggs bank when the march began. People were still arriving from all directions. The massive amount of people moving in all directions prevented a front of the march from forming. People just started marching on their own with no marshals anywhere near the front of the march. Thousands of people passed me before any organized contingent. The first major contingent that passed me were thousands of students with signs that said, "college not enlistment." Thousands of people later I finally saw what was intended to be the lead banner. I saw Congresswomen Lynn Woosley, and Barbara Lee, the Reverend Al Sharpton and other dignitaries carrying that banner.

Thousands of people behind that came the Iraq Veterans Against the War. Joan Baez was marching with them right next to Marine Jeff Key and dozens of other veterans of the Iraq war. Behind them was Gold Star Families for Peace. About half a block later came Veterans for Peace, with Military Families Speak Out a short distance behind them. At the time I assumed that they were in the middle of the march. I later found out that while they were not near the front they were much further from the rear.

I moved down to Pennsylvania and 13th to catch the front again and noticed for hours that there were still people heading up 15th Street. I headed to the concert at 4:30 pm, 4 hours after the march began and people were still marching past the White House, only 4 blocks from the march's starting point.

To summarize, it took over 4 hours for people clear out of the ellipse area. I have been to several large marches in Washington, DC, since 1989 and this was by far the largest.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Late Blog
By William Rivers Pitt

Saturday 24 September 2005 10:42 PM

C-SPAN is reporting the crowd size at five hundred thousand. I trust their numbers.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4877296

[BlueStateLib]

1. If the vote was for war, why was Iraq invaded by Hans Blix and the U.N Weapons Inspectors

Last edited Wed Aug 19, 2015, 07:05 PM - Edit history (1)

Downing Street Memo July 23, 2002: The Defense Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

Do you really believe Senators Lincoln (D-AR), Feinstein (D-CA), Dodd (D-CT), Biden (D-DE), Carper (D-DE), Cleland (D-GA), Harkin (D-IA), Kerry (D-MA), Reid (D-NV), Torricelli (D-NJ), Schumer (D-NY), Edwards (D-NC), Dorgan (D-ND), Hollings (D-SC), Daschle (D-SD), Johnson (D-SD), Cantwell (D-WA), Rockefeller (D-WV), Kohl (D-WI) were hot to trot for WAR or just could it be possible that the democratic side were trying to divert war through United Nations and diplomacy.

Scott Ritter: Facts needed before Iraq attack
17 July 2002

Scott Ritter: I believe Washington D.C. is using the concept of inspections as a political foil to justify war. America doesn't want the inspectors to return. The best way to stop war is to get the inspectors back in. I believe it should be the policy of the United Nations to get the inspectors back in.

THE NATION: Half a Victory at the UN
December 2, 2002

In general, antiwar forces in the United States and around the world can claim the recent UN resolution as a partial victory. The resolution does not endorse the use of force; it redefines the Iraq crisis, at least in the international arena, as one of disarmament, not regime change; and it will at least delay a US attack. It provides a powerful tool to fight for US accountability to multilateralism and the UN. But it still reflects the heavy-handed domination of the UN and the rest of the world by the United States and ultimately sets the terms for war.


Hillary Clinton Floor Speech A.U.M.F. Use of Force Vote
October 10, 2002

While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq.

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.

If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.


Senate A.U.M.F. Debate 10/10/2002

Mr. KERRY : My vote was cast in a way that made it very clear, Mr. President, I'm voting for you to do what you said you're going to do, which is to go through the U.N. and do this through an international process.

Mr. KENNEDY :The better course for our Nation and for our goal of disarming Saddam Hussein is a two-step policy. We should approve a strong resolution today calling on the United Nations to require Iraq to submit to unfettered U.N. weapons inspections or face U.N.-backed international force. If such option fails, and Saddam refuses to cooperate, the President could then come to the Congress and request Congress to provide him with authorization to wage war against Iraq.

Mr. BIDEN: The President has not asked us to go to war. He has said he wants the power to be able to go to war

Mr. WELLSTONE. There is a critical distinction between going it alone and taking action in conjunction with our allies. Our focus should be going to the United Nations Security Council and asking for a resolution that makes it clear to Saddam Hussein that he must disarm. Saddam must give arms inspectors unfettered access. And, if he does not comply with this new UN resolution there will be consequences, including the use of appropriate military force. But we must do this together with our allies. We must bring the international community on board. This resolution allows for a preemptive, unilateral strike, which I believe would be a huge mistake.

Mr. DODD: As I said earlier, I accept the proposition that we must deal with the Iraqi threat. I stand prepared, as almost all of our colleagues do, to support the unilateral use of force against Iraq but only if U.N. or other multinational efforts prove ineffective, or if Saddam Hussein is using them as a guise to rebuild his offensive weapons capabilities

Mrs. BOXER: This administration did not want to bring the debate on this war to Congress. We have many quotes I have already put in the RECORD on that subject. They did not want the President to go to the United Nations. Indeed, they said he did not have to go there; he did not have to come here; he did not have to do anything.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suppose this resolution is something of an improvement. Back in August the President's advisors insisted that there was not even any need for authorization from Congress to go to war. They said past resolutions sufficed.

Others in the administration argued that the United States should attack Iraq preemptively and unilaterally, without bothering to seek the support of the United Nations, even though it is Iraq's violations of U.N. resolutions which is used to justify military action.

Eventually, the President listened to those who urged him to change course and he went to the United Nations. He has since come to the Congress. I commended President Bush for doing that.

I fully support the efforts of Secretary Powell to negotiate a strong, new Security Council resolution for the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq, backed up with force, if necessary, to overcome Iraqi resistance.

Mr. BIDEN. As late as August 29 of this year, the White House counsel--the White House counsel--reportedly told the President that he had all the authority he needs to wage war against Iraq--there was a big deal about leaking a memorandum from the White House counsel to the world that Congress need not be involved, Mr. President. I had two private meetings with the President myself, where I made clear that I thought that was dead wrong and he would be--to use the slang on the east side of my city--``in a world of hurt'' if he attempted to do that.

Mr. DURBIN. Initially the White House said: We don't need congressional approval. We can move forward. They went on to say: We can do it unilaterally. We don't need any allies. We can attack Iraq if necessary by ourselves. And the President said our goal is regime change. We want Saddam Hussein gone.

Mr. SPECTER. I commend President Bush for coming to Congress. Originally he said he did not need to do so and would not do so. Later, he modified that, saying that while he might not have to, he was coming to Congress. He initially talked about unilateral action, and since has worked very hard in the United Nations.

It may be that the practical effect of what the President is doing now, through Secretary of State Colin Powell, amounts to what was sought in the Biden-Lugar resolution, and I do believe the likelihood of getting UN action is better if we proceed to give the President the authority to act without UN support because if we said, as Senator Levin proposed, that his authority to use force would be conditioned on a UN resolution, it would be, in effect, an open invitation to the UN not to act, knowing the President and the United States, were limited from acting if the UN did not, and subjecting our national interests to China, Russia, or France's veto.

Mr. KOHL. The President has vowed to seek the support of the international community against Iraq, and my vote today is cast accepting and supporting that position fully. I Believe we should not commit U.S. troops abroad without the support of the international community. The costs are too great for us to take unilateral action unless we have no other choice. International involvement will strengthen our hand against Saddam Hussein, increasing the likelihood that we will be able to resume inspections and disarm Iraq.

Mr. BAUCUS. Last week, a bipartisan group of Congressmen and Senators brokered an agreement with the President and produced a resolution that strikes a good balance between diplomacy and force. The resolution supports exhausting diplomatic means to disarm Saddam prior to engaging in the use of force.

Mr. JEFFORDS: We should give the United Nations the opportunity to step forward and deal with Iraq and its infractions. In my estimation, the United States stands to gain much more if we can work with the United Nations to deliver a multilateral approach to disarming Iraq, even providing military force, if necessary. If the United Nations fails to press for the disarmament of Iraq or is blocked in its efforts, then I would expect the President to come back to Congress for further discussion of the alternatives

Mr. DASCHLE: Second, the resolution expresses the deep conviction of this Congress and of the American people that President Bush should continue to work through the United Nations Security Council in order to secure Iraqi compliance with U.N. resolutions. Unfettered inspections may or may not lead to Iraqi disarmament, but whether they succeed or fail, the effort we expend in seeking inspections will make it easier for the President to assemble a global coalition against Saddam should military action eventually be needed. Third, this resolution makes it clear that before the President can use force in Iraq, he must certify to the Congress that diplomacy has failed, that further diplomatic efforts alone cannot protect America's national security interests, nor can they lead to enforcement of the U.N. Security Council resolutions

Mr. BIDEN. Yes, with one caveat. He has expressed to me his ability to achieve a tough resolution would be enhanced by our not making it a two-step process. But he personally has told me and my committee he would consider and the President would consider a U.N. two-step process if they had to. The reason for my saying not two steps now is it strengthens his hand, in my view, to say to all the members of the Security Council: I just want you to know, if you do not give me something strong, I am already authorized, if you fail to do that, to use force against this fellow.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, the vote on the Levin substitute amendment is one of the most important votes we will cast in this process. I commend the Senator from Michigan for his fine work on this alternative. The Levin amendment urges the United Nations to take strong and immediate action to pass a resolution demanding unrestricted access for U.N. arms inspectors in Iraq. It also urges the United Nations to press for full enforcement of its prior resolutions on Iraq.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I applaud Secretary Powell. I think his is a vigorous effort to try to resolve the situation through diplomatic means, to send a message to Saddam that he should voluntarily disarm and let the inspectors in.

That might not work. But it is then up to the U.N., as the President said when he spoke to them, to take responsibility; to therefore authorize action to enforce their own resolutions so the United States of America is not doing this all by ourselves. It is not America versus Saddam. It should be the international community against Saddam because, I think you would agree, he is a despicable cad.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Clearly, we need to get United Nations inspectors on the ground immediately. The inspectors must have unfettered access to all suspected sites in Iraq. This is proving to be a major challenge for the United Nations, but the United Nations is much more likely to succeed if the United States is squarely behind its efforts, and not standing off to the side, secretly hoping that it will fail.

Mr. WELLSTONE. There is a critical distinction between going it alone and taking action in conjunction with our allies. Our focus should be going to the United Nations Security Council and asking for a resolution that makes it clear to Saddam Hussein that he must disarm. Saddam must give arms inspectors unfettered access. And, if he does not comply with this new UN resolution there will be consequences, including the use of appropriate military force.

Mr. BAYH. I believe this course presents us with the best opportunity to rally our allies and convince the United Nations to act with us. We should make every effort--as Senator McCain indicated in his colloquy with Senator Lieberman and as the President indicated last night--to convince the United Nations and our allies of the justice of our cause. We are stronger when we act together, so we must seek a consensus for this course of action

Mr. BYRD. We ought to let the inspectors go back in and have restrictions such that they will have a full and free opportunity to inspect wherever they want, wherever they think they should. So I am for all that. I am not one who says Saddam is not a threat; he is a threat.

We should utilize the time we have to let the U.N. marshal its forces and try to get other countries to assist this country in carrying the burden.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this amendment will provide an alternative to the Lieberman amendment. This amendment will authorize the President to use military force supporting the U.N. resolution that he seeks, but then provides that if he seeks to go it alone, if he wants authority to proceed unilaterally, he would then call us back into session.

Mr. BIDEN. only disagreement with my friend from Michigan is I do not think we need a two-step process. We should go to the United Nations, and the President says we should go to the United Nations. We should seek the authority to enforce the inspectors in disarming weapons of mass destruction. And if he fails, my friend says come back and get authorization to proceed anyway. I am prepared to give him the authorization now.

NOTE: The Levin Amendment would of gave veto power over the United States to France, Russia and China. IWR was meant to send a strong message to Saddam "you better comply" and he did

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I am reassured by statements made by the President in his address to the United Nations on September 12, which conveyed a major shift in the administration's approach--turning away from a preemptive strategy and, instead, engaging and challenging the U.N. Security Council to compel Iraq's disarmament and back this with force. I deeply believe that it is vital for the U.N. Security Council to approve a new, robust resolution requiring full and unconditional access to search for and destroy all weapons of mass destruction.

Ms. LANDRIEU. The new U.N. resolution the President and Secretary Powell seek is our best chance to avoid a war. But the threat of force must be present to enforce a new resolution because Saddam only understands force. Again, Charles Duelfer testified before the Iraqis were perfectly willing to thumb their nose at UNSCOM because the U.N. had not authorized force to make Iraq comply.

Mr. KENNEDY. Before going to war again, we should seek to resume the inspections now--and set a non-negotiable demand of no obstruction, no delay, no more weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.



Senate A.U.M.F. Debate 10/10/2002

Mrs. BOXER: This administration did not want to bring the debate on this war to Congress. We have many quotes I have already put in the RECORD on that subject. They did not want the President to go to the United Nations. Indeed, they said he did not have to go there; he did not have to come here; he did not have to do anything.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suppose this resolution is something of an improvement. Back in August the President's advisors insisted that there was not even any need for authorization from Congress to go to war. They said past resolutions sufficed.

Others in the administration argued that the United States should attack Iraq preemptively and unilaterally, without bothering to seek the support of the United Nations, even though it is Iraq's violations of U.N. resolutions which is used to justify military action.

Eventually, the President listened to those who urged him to change course and he went to the United Nations. He has since come to the Congress. I commended President Bush for doing that.

I fully support the efforts of Secretary Powell to negotiate a strong, new Security Council resolution for the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq, backed up with force, if necessary, to overcome Iraqi resistance.

Mr. BIDEN. As late as August 29 of this year, the White House counsel--the White House counsel--reportedly told the President that he had all the authority he needs to wage war against Iraq--there was a big deal about leaking a memorandum from the White House counsel to the world that Congress need not be involved, Mr. President. I had two private meetings with the President myself, where I made clear that I thought that was dead wrong and he would be--to use the slang on the east side of my city--``in a world of hurt'' if he attempted to do that.

Mr. DURBIN. Initially the White House said: We don't need congressional approval. We can move forward. They went on to say: We can do it unilaterally. We don't need any allies. We can attack Iraq if necessary by ourselves. And the President said our goal is regime change. We want Saddam Hussein gone.

Mr. SPECTER. I commend President Bush for coming to Congress. Originally he said he did not need to do so and would not do so. Later, he modified that, saying that while he might not have to, he was coming to Congress. He initially talked about unilateral action, and since has worked very hard in the United Nations
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011884.php
http://aumf.awardspace.com/

[Cheese Sandwich]

4. If Hillary says she made a mistake voting for the Iraq war, why are people still defending the vote?

[Zorra]

2. ^

[Cheese Sandwich]

3. Not Good Enough Hillary

Clinton: I Made a Mistake, plain and simple

Tables
The tables below summarize reports on Iraqi casualty figures.

Scientific surveys:

Source Estimated violent deaths Time period
Iraq Family Health Survey 151,000 violent deaths March 2003 to June 2006
Lancet survey 601,027 violent deaths out of 654,965 excess deaths March 2003 to June 2006
Opinion Research Business survey 1,033,000 deaths as a result of the conflict March 2003 to August 2007
PLOS Medicine Survey[2] Approximately 500,000 deaths in Iraq as direct or indirect result of the war. March 2003 to June, 2011

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Tables

Ten Years Later, U.S. Has Left Iraq with Mass Displacement & Epidemic of Birth Defects, Cancers
In part two of our interview, Al Jazeera reporter Dahr Jamail discusses how the U.S. invasion of Iraq has left behind a legacy of cancer and birth defects suspected of being caused by the U.S. military’s extensive use of depleted uranium and white phosphorus. Noting the birth defects in the Iraqi city of Fallujah, Jamail says: "They’re extremely hard to bear witness to. But it’s something that we all need to pay attention to ... What this has generated is, from 2004 up to this day, we are seeing a rate of congenital malformations in the city of Fallujah that has surpassed even that in the wake of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that nuclear bombs were dropped on at the end of World War II."

Warning this link contains graphic images of congenital malformations caused by US depleted uranium used against Iraqi civilians: http://www.democracynow.org/2013/3/20/ten_years_later_us_has_left

[Zorra]

5. Some Democrats are supporting a candidate who exercises this type of poor judgment,

who makes deadly serious mistakes that result in costly, unjustifiable destructive wars, and the tragic, unnecessary deaths and cripplings and maimings of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

The crushing heartbreak and sorrow of innocent loving mothers and fathers who lost their children to the consequences of this "mistake". The crushing heartbreak and sorrow of innocent orphaned children, whose mothers and fathers were brutally slaughtered as a consequence of "mistakes".

They're dead, and their families and friends who still survive, some of them physically maimed for life, will live for the rest of their lives with the horror, pain, and heartbreak that is the result of this "mistake" every single day for the rest of their lives.

A candidate who believed in George W. Bush and Bush's call to war for Wall St. profits and profiteers in a defense industry billions of dollars profit bonanza of blood, torture, and wanton destruction.

A candidate who believed in George W. Bush, and Bush's call to war, despite the constant, visible, vocal, desperate pleas and warnings of millions of liberal progressives, most notably the opposition of the Democratic Progressive Left in the US Congress.

The deaths of hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of people under these circumstances is not a mere "mistake".

It's a holocaust. (Definition of holocaust: destruction or slaughter on a mass scale, especially caused by fire or nuclear war).

And some Democrats actually want to put someone who exercised such poor judgment, who made such a tragic mistake, in the White House. Some Democrats actually want to elect someone with such poor judgment, someone who made the tragic mistake of believing in George W. Bush. Someone who believed George W. Bush's reasons for going to war and voted to give Bush unfettered license to begin his legacy, his murderous war on the innocent people of Iraq.

And as a result of this "mistake", we now have eternal wars for profit, and radical groups such as ISIS, raging out of control in the Middle East.

Some Democrats actually want to elect this person who made such a tragic mistake to the position of Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. It's unfathomable.

I want no part in any future "mistakes", except, hopefully, in preventing them by electing a candidate who voted "nay", a candidate who was not party to the "mistake" of giving Bush a license to kill with impunity.

A "mistake"?

Really?

[Cheese Sandwich]

6. There's no excuse for it. It's all the way bad.

Some politicians have this go-along-to-get-along outlook where they see their job as showing up and rising to the top of the system by serving well or whatever. Instead of what they should really do which is working to change the system. I don't see too much reason to trust Secretary Clinton at this point after Iraq, Libya, Syria, Egypt, Honduras, etc.

[Cheese Sandwich]

7. Worst. Mistake. Ever. nt

[Zorra]

11. 2002 War vote count. Notice that every vote against the War was Democratic

except for 12: Representative Bernie Sanders, (I-VT), Senator Jim Jeffords (I-VT), and Senator Lincoln Chafee, (R-RI), who voted "Nay", 6 republican Reps., and three others who abstained.

http://usiraq.procon.org/view.additional-resource.php?resourceID=001987

Every single Senate Republican who voted, except for Senator Chafee, voted for the war. Every single Republican in the House who voted, except for 6, voted for the war.

This fact alone would make any sensible, reasonable, sincere Democrat, (a Democrat who does not have a questionable alternative corporate agenda, of course), understand that voting with this group of Republicans on such a serious matter as giving war criminals George W. Bush and Dick Cheney license to go to war and kill, maim, torture, and destroy, with impunity, is completely insane.

Cripes, even 7 Republicans had the good sense and good judgement to vote against giving Bush and Cheney a free pass to commit mass murder in the name of profit, power, and solidifying global oligarchy.

[beam me up scottie]

8. K&R

[Cheese Sandwich]

9. Children of war: the generation traumatised by violence in Iraq

Growing up in a war zone takes its toll as young play games of murder and mayhem

Amid the statistical haze that enshrouds civilian casualties, no one is sure how many children have been killed or maimed in Iraq. But psychologists and aid organisations warn that while the physical scars of the conflict are all too visible - in hospitals and mortuaries and on television screens - the mental and emotional turmoil experienced by Iraq's young is going largely unmonitored and untreated.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/feb/06/iraq.topstories3

[Cheese Sandwich]

10. Are journalists lowballing the number of Iraqi war dead?

Some scientists think that’s what’s really needed: for journalists to simply learn more about statistics in order to better weigh the validity of new studies as they report on them. When asked about journalistic responsibility, Daponte explains that the press must “take each study and really look at what it does say and what it doesn’t say. This is where journalists really do need to have at least a rudimentary understanding of statistics and confidence intervals, and what sampling really means.” A confidence interval is the degree of certainty researchers attain that their estimates—in this case, of the death toll—fall within a certain range.

http://www.cjr.org/criticism/iraq_body_count.php