Bernie Sanders
Related: About this forumShe said, "I'm sorry, I didn't bother to read it".
You would think that if someone was going to vote to invade a country, and start a never ending war, they would have, taken the time to bother to read the latest intelligence report on the situation, at the very least!
Clinton strongly supported the 2001 U.S. military action in Afghanistan, saying it was a chance to combat terrorism while improving the lives of Afghan women who suffered under the Taliban government. Clinton voted in favor of the October 2002 Iraq War Resolution, which authorized United States President George W. Bush to use military force against Iraq, should such action be required to enforce a United Nations Security Council Resolution after pursuing with diplomatic efforts. (However, Clinton voted against the Levin Amendment to the Resolution, which would have required the President to conduct vigorous diplomacy at the U.N., and would have also required a separate Congressional authorization to unilaterally invade Iraq. She did vote for the Byrd Amendment to the Resolution, which would have limited the Congressional authorization to one year increments, but the only mechanism necessary for the President to renew his mandate without any Congressional oversight was to claim that the Iraq War was vital to national security each year the authorization required renewal.) Clinton later said that she did not read the full classified National Intelligence Estimate that was delivered ten days before the vote to all members of Congress, and that gave a more subtle case for Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction than the Bush Administration's abridged summary, but that she was briefed on the report.
Link --
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_career_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton
And then people wonder why I am going to vote for Bernie!
AzDar
(14,023 posts)Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)She is a follower, not a leader.
I'd very much like to see a female president, but not one of the GOP/ Third Way/ DINO variety. And not one who doesn't know how to lead without a poll or a focus group to compensate her lack of principles.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)personal and political interests over the lives of all the people affected. She put herself over everything. She is unfit to be in any leadership position. She even admits she didn't do due diligence. What a sorry specimen she is becoming every day.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)She didn't read it or she really did read it ?
Don't forget Bill Clinton, who got the real intelligence briefings being an X president, wrote an OP in British newspapers telling the Brits to trust Tony Blair on going and joining the US clusterfuck in Iraq at the same time.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Holy crap if he did.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)And to think that at one time I really respected the guy
And his wife wants more of the same
Aerows
(39,961 posts)This is "she needs to be nowhere near the Presidency" bad.
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)The thought of her being President is frightening. Her lust for war is not normal.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)n2doc
(47,953 posts)The political weathervanes known as the Clintons knew where the bs wind was blowing, and accordingly went with that.
The only times that they go against the prevailing wind are when big money is involved, or if it doesn't matter.
femmedem
(8,208 posts)when he voted?
He was excoriated for that--even though he had literally been sworn in that same day following the death of his father.
This was war, and she had ten days to read it. What could have possibly been more important? Either she was lazy, or she didn't care, or both.
Chafee was never my first choice for our nominee--I've been for Bernie since day 1--but I have tremendous respect for him and would have voted for him over Clinton based on that one decision.
Martin Eden
(12,875 posts)And also because they would not have re-elected her if she voted against it.
The above sentence and the subject title of this post are not my argument.
It's the argument of an ardent Hillary supporter, in the thread and the post linked below:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=790130
No, she's not stupid. Absolutely not. That's why she had to vote for both AUMF bills. She was Senator of New York State - the State hit by 9/11 the hardest. Do you think New Yorkers would've understood had she voted against the AUMF Against Terrorists and the AUMF Against Iraq when they believed that Saddam Hussein most likely had something to do with 9/11? Do you think they'd happily re-elect her? Or do you believe her political career would have ended? Think about it.
Hindsight is 20/20 and tanding on the moral high-ground is wonderfully noble, but that and $4 bucks will buy you a latte at Starbucks as a politician in a time when Americans wanted retribution for those attacks. Hillary Clinton was elected by the majority of voting New Yorkers, tasked with representing ALL New Yorkers. They'd been the victims of the biggest attack on American soil in American history and they wanted recompense. Had she voted NO on either bills, she would have been seen as a traitor to New York and her constituents' needs.
smokey nj
(43,853 posts)Martin Eden
(12,875 posts)... according to a Hillary supporter.
smokey nj
(43,853 posts)process.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Most New Yorkers were against the Iraq War and even the city council passed a resolution against it.
The vote in New York, however, was particularly significant given the deaths of nearly 3,000 people at the World Trade Center 19 months ago. The Bush administration has repeatedly invoked this atrocity as the principal argument for going to war, despite the absence of any evidence linking the regime in Baghdad to the terrorist attacks. In passing the measure, the council rejected this argument as well as explicit appeals to support the war in the name of the September 11 victims
Opposition to the looming war appears greater in New York City than in the country as a whole. Recent polls have shown less than 20 percent of New Yorkers supporting a unilateral US attack against Iraq and nearly half opposing war under any circumstances.
These polls, like the council vote itself, are a pale reflection of the overwhelming opposition that exists to the Bush administrations policy of military aggression.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2003/03/nycc-m14.html
So, she didn't even vote for what her constituents wanted! She DID, however, vote for what was popular, nationally. She always had her sites on the presidency and didn't want to hurt her chances in redder states - she knew New York would vote for a Democrat for president - even if that Democrat is a DINO.