Hillary backs off Iraq vote

[quaoar]

http://www.observer.com/thepoliticker/2005/11/hillary-backs-off-iraq-vote_30.html

Hillary Backs Off Iraq Vote

In December, 2003, Hillary told the Council on Foreign Relations, "I stand by the vote to provide the authority" to go to war.

In the message she emailed out to supporters, widely reported today, she wrote: "I take responsibility for my vote."

You take responsibility for mistakes. And unless she's reminding us that she, and not Bill Frist, physically cast her vote, that's what she's doing there. For the first time.

The Times kind of buried the story, and I'm not sure they or anyone else noted the importance of this shift.

But this is a subtle, important advance. She's said in the past that, had we known then what we know now, there never would have been a vote. Now, for the first time, she says she should have voted "No."

"f Congress had been asked, based on what we know now, we never would have agreed" to give the president the authority to go to war, she wrote yesterday.

[wtmusic]

1. "What we know now" is no excuse for the irresponsibility

of giving the President unlateral power to wage war. That's why there was a War Powers Act.

[quaoar]

2. Chris Bowers writes extensively about this at mydd

http://www.mydd.com/section/democrats

[EFerrari]

3. Well, gee. Too bad she didn't notice the MILLIONS

of Americans who protested the war BEFORE it started . . . and before this new position became the safe one.

Too late for thousands of dead and wounded and disabled people.

[FrenchieCat]

4. Hillary is not the only one......

Who "saw" the light by looking at polls as of recent.

However, many are so much harder on her, than say John "I'm sorry" Edwards.

He co-sponsored the IWR, but somehow he's a populist trying to locate money since the war that he backed caused the shut down of programs for the needy.....but yet Hillary is pure evil! :sarcasm:

I really don't understand the difference! :eyes:

[Adelante]

5. You know, I don't, either

What is the difference? I'm not seeing it. Clinton and Kerry both get raked over the coals on DU for this and Edwards is applauded.

This is a serious question for anybody who has an opinion. What is the precise difference between her mea culpa and his mea culpa? :shrug:

[FrenchieCat]

6. Mmmmm.....

As of now, I only hear Crickets!

[Cha]

9. Hillary is my senator and I

wrote and called her office many times and protested in the streets..it's taken hillary longer longer to do this than John Edwards, too.

Not too long ago hillary was calling for more troops on the ground.

[FrenchieCat]

10. I'm thinking it took Hillary 2 weeks more.....

But she didn't co-sponsor the IWR either.

So for me, they are about even. Neither is impressing me in reference to this issue!

[GreenArrow]

18. Edwards has nice teeth and pretty hair

he's as vapid and safe and plastic as a Ken doll. Oh, and gee! he talks about poverty. He was more hawkish than either Kerry or Clinton, and that's saying something.

Both mea culpas lack true humility and are purely politically motivated.

[Clark2008]

8. Because Edwards has better hair?

:shrug:

[GreenArrow]

16. I'm harder on Edwards

for a variety of reasons, but I have no use for either of them.

[SaveElmer]

26. There is none...nt

[Cha]

7. I can't believe she was

so dense when so many of her constituents were writing and calling her and protesting in the streets of New York City and the World on Feb 15, 2003. We were all brilliant and knew this day would come but not her.

[Adelante]

11. I understand, zidzi

But isn't that true of Edwards, too? Do you know what the difference in the retraction of support for the war is that gets so different a reaction from DUers? It's curious.

[Cha]

12. With me it's personal

as she is my senator. I'm pretty sure I saw a post that wasn't very forgiving of Edwards from someone who lives in North Carolina.

Other than that I would just have to guess as to why Edwards is more forgiven on DU than Hillary.

[ultraist]

13. Hillary didn't say, "I was wrong" or "I made a mistake"

As Kerry and Edwards did.

I don't see any real shift in Hillary's stand on the war. She's not fully taking responsibity, admitting her error.

http://www.mydd.com/section/democrats

OK, she has said it, but damn is that ever a tortured, dentist chair type of admission. It certainly is a far cry from the way Edwards went about it:
snip

If Clinton is going to struggle with her language the same way our last two nominees struggled, I don't want her anywhere near the national ticket no matter what her position on the war is.
By contrast, starting late in 2003, Edwards began to display the sort of strong communicative powers Democrats need in a national leader. It is clear from his blunt admission that his war vote was a mistake that he hasn't lost his touch on that front.

My basic point here is that in Feingold and Edwards I find a basic quality that Democrats need to win the Presidency that I do not find in Kerry and Clinton. Not even taking their policies or biographies into account, right now in Feingold and Edwards we can see the ability to lead through language. Edwards and Feingold can inspire people to think like progressives. When they say something, they seem to have the ability to actually leave people with a clear impression of their beliefs. I just don't see this quality in Clinton and Kerry right now, and considering how long they have both been on the national stage, I'm not sure if there will ever be a time when they have that ability.

[FrenchieCat]

17. Edwards co sponsored the IWR,

Edwards in early 2003.....

"Edwards had always been a firm supporter of the war. I was at the fateful California Democratic Party convention in early 2003 in which Dean exploded onto the political scene. Forgotten from that convention, Edwards was booed for announcing his support for the war just a couple days before bombs started dropping.

But then Edwards spoke in support of the Iraq war and all hell broke loose. The entire convention hall resonated in boos, the crowd chanting "no war! No war!" It was an amazing sight, and Edwards seemed a bit taken aback. Jerome thought it looked like '68. Edwards recovered with a line about Ashcroft, but the damage was done. The 20 or so brave souls waving Edwards signs were suddenly radioactive.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/10/165059/30

and in late 2003

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295

MATTHEWS:Were we right to go to this war alone, basically without the Europeans behind us? Was that something we had to do?

EDWARDS: I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn't let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage.

And I think Saddam Hussein, being gone is good. Good for the American people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the Iraqi people.

MATTHEWS: If you think the decision, which was made by the president, when basically he saw the French weren't with us and the Germans and the Russians weren't with us, was he right to say, "We're going anyway"?

EDWARDS: I stand behind my support of that, yes.

MATTHEWS: You believe in that?

EDWARDS: Yes.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about-Since you did support the resolution and you did support that ultimate solution to go into combat and to take over that government and occupy that country. Do you think that you, as a United States Senator, got the straight story from the Bush administration on this war? On the need for the war? Did you get the straight story?

EDWARDS: Well, the first thing I should say is I take responsibility for my vote. Period. And I did what I did based upon a belief, Chris, that Saddam Hussein's potential for getting nuclear capability was what created the threat. That was always the focus of my concern. Still is the focus of my concern.

So did I get misled? No. I didn't get misled.
MATTHEWS: Did you get an honest reading on the intelligence?

EDWARDS: But now we're getting to the second part of your question.

I think we have to get to the bottom of this. I think there's clear inconsistency between what's been found in Iraq and what we were told.

And as you know, I serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee. So it wasn't just the Bush administration. I sat in meeting after meeting after meeting where we were told about the presence of weapons of mass destruction. There is clearly a disconnect between what we were told and what, in fact, we found there.

MATTHEWS: If you knew last October when you had to cast an aye or nay vote for this war, that we would be unable to find weapons of mass destruction after all these months there, would you still have supported the war?

EDWARDS: It wouldn't change my views. I said before, I think that the threat here was a unique threat. It was Saddam Hussein, the potential for Saddam getting nuclear weapons, given his history and the fact that he started the war before.

SNIP

MATTHEWS: Were you misled by the president in the State of the Union address on the argument that Saddam Hussein was trying get uranium from Niger?

EDWARDS: I guess the answer to that is no.

I did not put a lot of stock in that.

MATTHEWS: But you didn't believe-But you weren't misled?

EDWARDS: No, I was not misled because I didn't put a lot of stock in to it begin with.

As I said before, I think what happened here is, for over a decade, there is strong, powerful evidence, which I still believe is true, that Saddam Hussein had been trying to get nuclear capability. Either from North Korea, from the former Soviet Union, getting access to scientists, trying to get access to raw fissile material. I don't-that I don't have any question about.

MATTHEWS: The United States has had a long history of nonintervention, of basically taking the "don't tread on me and if you don't we'll leave you alone." We broke with that tradition for Iraq. What is your standard for breaking with tradition of nonintervention?

EDWARDS: When somebody like Saddam Hussein presents a direct threat to the security of the American people and, in this case, the security of a region of the world that I think is critical.

MATTHEWS: A direct threat to us. What was it? Just to get that down. What is it? Knowing everything you know now, what was the direct threat this guy posed to us here in America?

EDWARDS: You didn't get let me finish. There were two pieces to that. I said both a direct threat to us and a direct threat to a region of the world that is incredibly dangerous.

And I think that with Saddam Hussein, they've got nuclear capability, it would have changed the dynamic in that part of the world entirely. And as a result, would have created a threat to the American people. So that's what I think the threat was.

MATTHEWS: Do you think he ever posed a direct threat...

EDWARDS: Can I say something? You sort of-implicit in that question was that the assumption that I believe that the Bush policy on preemptive strike is correct. I don't.

I don't think we need a new doctrine. I think that we can always act to protect the safety and security of the American people. And I have said repeatedly that Bush-President Bush's approach to foreign policy in general is extraordinarily bad. Dangerous for the American people. He doesn't work with others. He doesn't build coalitions. We were promised...

MATTHEWS: Wait, wait.

EDWARDS: Let me finish. We were promised a coalition on the ground right now. And we were promised a plan for what would occur at this point in this campaign in Iraq. Well, neither of those things have occurred. And as a result, we're seeing what's happening to our young men and women.

MATTHEWS: OK. I just want to get one thing straight so that we know how you would have been different in president if you had been in office the last four years as president. Would you have gone to Afghanistan?

EDWARDS: I would.

MATTHEWS: Would you have gone to Iraq?

EDWARDS: I would have gone to Iraq. I don't think I would have approached it the way this president did. I don't think-See I think what happened, if you remember back historically, remember I had an up or down vote. I stand behind it. Don't misunderstand me.

MATTHEWS: Right.
---------------

Once the polls came out with the majority AGAINST the War, Edwards said he was "sorry".

That's great, but in making that kind of mistake....whether one is sorry or not doesn't make one a Presidential contender in my book....a that goes for Hillary too!

[ultraist]

19. Edwards admitted his error. He said, "I was wrong,"

Liberals forgive those who make mistakes and make amends for their wrongs. What's in the past, is in the past. Time to move on and work towards stopping the killing.


As posted by H20 Man in another thread:

"In his 1964 book "Gandhi on Non-Violence," Thomas Merton writes, "It is no accident that Hitler believed firmly in the unforgivableness of sin.This is indeed fundamental to the whole mentality of Nazism, and its avidity for final solutions and its concern that all uncertainties be eliminated. Hitler's world was built on the central dogma of the irreversibility of evil ...." (page 12)"

*He did not post this in relation to Edwards and his vote---just to be clear but the idea applies: Forgiveness.

[Adelante]

20. How come Edwards deserves forgiveness

And Hillary and Kerry do not? That's the question.

[ultraist]

21. I think Kerry DOES deserve forgiveness for his IWR vote.

Hillary was not forthright.

[FrenchieCat]

22. ok....Sooo if Bush says he's wrong tomorrow,

should that make it all better?

See the pesky little problem with your approach and grand gesture of forgiveness is that when one is wrong and the results includes thousands of lives and treasures lost forever.....and then one
says "I'm sorry", that's really just not enough.

I don't know why you think that finally seeing your mistake 2.5 years and thousands of bodies later makes one "admirable" AND allows one to try to become President. That's the part I don't get. It might get you through the gates of heaven, but I'll be damned if it gets you into the doors of the White House!

As for me....I may forgive, but I'm sure in the hell not gonna forget how messed up one's judgement was, and what fucked up decisions one made which affected the lives of others in the negative. That would be just plain dumb!

We need a leader for this country....not someone who makes dangerous mistakes and then says they are sorry. I mean, how desperate are we anyways? :shrug:

[GreenArrow]

23. TOU-

CHE!

:thumbsup:

[FrenchieCat]

25. Time to move on ?

I could have sworn we were still fighting and dying in that war...but now we need to move on?

move to where? to the land where "Sorry" People become President?

Jeeze.....that is just so "sorry".

Yes...let's just all forget yesterday. Pass the Prozac please. :eyes:

[Andromeda]

14. Hillary doesn't make snap judgements...

She weighs everything carefully before she makes a statement.

Sometimes she's quoted out of context and many times she's been misquoted. Newspapers do it all the time and some don't retract their mistakes.

A good example is what the media did to Theresa Kerry when she told that reporter (can't remember the name) to go shove it. I love Theresa and it's refreshing to hear some honesty for a change. She's a smart, charming person who would have been a real asset as First Lady.

That's the way of politics and if you are a woman it's more difficult.

Every thing that comes out of Hillary's mouth is scrutinized and dissected so much it's barely recognizable from what she originally said.

I believe she has gotten a lot of grief for her IWR vote and I'm sure she regrets it. A large part of the Senate made the same mistake and many now express regret.

This IWR vote, however, does not erase all the positive things that Hillary has done for New York or all the other good things she's tried to do for the country.

[election_2004]

28. Then Hillary should continue....

....she should continue to serve the people of New York as their U.S. Senator well into the next decade. :)

[GreenArrow]

15. too late Hil ... even knowing what we knew then

there was NO justification for invading Iraq.

[Skittles]

27. giving bush the authority to do ANYTHING was a mistake

HE STOLE THE ELECTION - IT WAS OBVIOUS THEY WERE WARMONGERING....I'm disgusted with Hillary

[upi402]

24. groundhog day again

:boring:

DINO's are timidly testing the waters as the entire mass of
humanity on earth (even highly propagandized Americans)are resolutely against the war and its foundation of bullshit.