Did I just hear Hillary tell KO she was against the pre-emptive war

[WestHoustonDem]

before we went in?
:wtf:

[lisa58]

1. I know...

...what was that?

[Fridays Child]

2. I'm scratching my head, too.

[illinoisprogressive]

3. she's such an actress. pretending to be open and nice and decent.

she's a viper.

[lisa58]

7. It's the laugh...

...she laughs at every question. And not just with Keith - I heard it this morning when I put on the tv and she was being interviewed by some network.

I met her a few (couple?) years ago at a fundraiser and I really, really wanted to like her, but she pissed me off.

If she gets the nomination I'll support, but...

...anyone?

[arewenotdemo]

28. just curious how she pissed you off

Personally, I'll never forget her appearance on Letterman. He tossed her softball questions concerning the Iraq War, and her demeanor and replies all seemed so glib...as if people weren't being massacred there in part because she and her fellow Congressmen gave the Cheerleader-in-Chief the green light.

If she has a conscience she does a damned good job of keeping it under wraps.

[journalist3072]

8. Do you know her personally? Do you know she's not really "nice & decent."?

[lisa58]

12. No...

...I don't know her personally at all. It was a fundraiser and I didn't shell out that much money to be ignored.

[blm]

39. Siding with Bush and McCain to scold Kerry for Rove's lie that he insulted troops

was not a nice or decent thing to do.

Hillary scolded Kerry for a dropped pronoun when many of us Democrats spent YEARS defending her husband for dropping his pants.

[frogcycle]

55. that did it for me with her

[coalition_unwilling]

67. What do you expect? The husband flies back to Arkansas during

the NH primary campaign to preside over the execution of an inmate with an IQ of 69, all to show he's "tough on crime."

His Sec of State (Madeleine Albright) says she thinks the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children are "worth it" to have sanctions on Iraq.

Why would you expect Clinton's wife to display any common human decency regarding Iraqis and what we have done there?

[cadmium]

70. Revealing. We will be stuck with her unfortunately I fear. n/t

[babylonsister]

56. Bam! Too true. nt

[patrice]

15. This is NOT an attack. People like me would like very much

to see somekind of concrete fact(s) that support such strong characterizations.

There are no absolutes. I want reality in all of its complexity.

[Skip Intro]

4. She said she had said she was against it at the time

?

[karynnj]

52. Can you get a link to it

I seriously don't remember that - I assume that any Clinton would have had it reported. I did protest in DC in Jan 2003 and NYC in Feb 2003 and was hoping against hope that a groundswell would stop Bush. (and yeah, the Presidents' day weekend when there were huge rallies at least in London, Rome, NYC and SanFrancico happened)

I remember Gore, Dean and Kerry all having op-eds or speeches. I'm sure I missed a lot of people - but missing the Clintons is hard to imagine.
(was it in a Senate speech?)

[SOS]

64. She said she was against it (but voted for it)

Here we go again....

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. Did she? Could be an epic guffaw if she did.

Which is fine with me. The sooner she's out of the way, the sooner we can focus on real candidates.

[PresidentObama]

6. Excuse me?

OH GOD, if she's the nominee she just gave the RW their first television advertisement.

....Not that I believe she'll be the nominee, but I'm sure the RNC will hold onto this footage.

[Seabiscuit]

9. No wonder the right-wing bobble heads on TV have been fostering her

candidacy for so many years - they'd love to target her flip-flopping BS during the Presidential election campaign.

[patrice]

10. I remember her speech the day of the vote on the IWR.

I was listening to all of these speeches and you could tell from the speech how the Senator was going to vote. Her speech, I thought, indicated that she was going to vote against the IWR. She said some strongly skeptical things about Bush's handling of Iraq and Intelligence. When the role call came, I was shocked!! and even cried a little bit from disappointment, when she voted for the IWR. It WAS weird.

[Tin Man]

17. No doubt that's what she was referring to. But it was a classic exercise in political posturing...

...one foot on either side of the fence.

"I was for it." "I was against it."

Bullshit - you were neither.

[arewenotdemo]

29. She was neither (or both)

But she WAS complicit.

[patrice]

38. How about neither and both?

I'm like that sometimes, about some things.

[arewenotdemo]

53. mmmkay

[lyonn]

24. I too heard her speech and was confident she would vote no

Like you, it was a shock, who was this person? I wondered if she knew something via Bill that the rest didn't know? If so, she didn't express it in her speech. We need a copy of her statement.

[aquart]

26. I did more than cry. I screamed blue murder.

Most Dems, I think, who voted for IWR insist they weren't for an invasion of Iraq because they thought going thru the UN would prevent it happening.

I think the vote was a completely political decision because they were still behaving like whipped puppies terrified the media and Republicans would call them soft on terror.

[Captain Hilts]

34. She'd seen up close how Congress ties a Prez's hands. nt

[GeorgeGist]

71. Sounds like something ...

a chickenshit would do. They want to please everyone, and end up pissing off the decent ones.

[htuttle]

11. Invading Iraq wasn't a 'pre-emptive' war --it was theoretically a 'preventative' war

Difference being, in a pre-emptive war, you attack an enemy just before they attack you (classic example would have been if we'd sunk Tojo's carriers while they were approaching Pearl Harbor. In a preventative war, you attack an enemy because you worry that someday, somehow, they might decide to attack you or your interests.

A pre-emptive war is actually sanctioned under Article 51 of the UN charter, in certain circumstances. Preventative wars are considered wars of aggression and are illegal under international law in all cases.

[patrice]

20. Thank you for this correction to what is a widespread mistake.

I will apply your insight from this point forward.

[Tin Man]

13. I think she was channeling Kerry... against it before she was for it.

[regnaD kciN]

18. Maybe she can claim to have been against it while she was for it...

:eyes:

But, hey, it doesn't matter, does it? After all, she's the sure winner in the Democratic race. We owe it to our party to avoid the usual damaging primary battle by uniting behind her right now! :sarcasm:

[Seabiscuit]

14. If she did, she just flip-flopped 180degrees in the last 24 hours:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3073906&mesg_id=3073906

[merci_me]

16. You heard right. n/t

[DURHAM D]

19. I have not made my primary Presidential choice yet but

because of all the crap that is being posted against Hillary I am about to get on her bandwagon. What a bunch of immature brats we have here at the DU.

[WestHoustonDem]

21. I'd say the same thing if Kerry or Edwards made that

statement. They all voted for the war.

[patrice]

23. People who voted for the IWR are allowed to change their minds.

People who were of mixed-mind about the IWR are not necessarily bad or flawed. Having pro and con thoughts about a subject IS normal. Absolutists are dangerous, e.g. Bush.

What we need is to hear her tell us about her pros and cons, reveal the whys and wherefors of both sides of her mind, what made her come down on the side that she did in the vote, and what is making her come down on the opposite side now. All we are getting at this point is the end result of these chains of reasoning, rather than honoring our intelligence with the empirical reasoning itself, no wonder it looks so bad.

[WestHoustonDem]

25. Agreed. But she just denied she supported it. I'd have a lot

more respect for her if she said she made a mistake. But that's not what she said. She actually claimed she was against it war.

[patrice]

31. She definitely should not deny she supported it.

She did support it with her vote and, **because she did**, so did MANY others.

She needs to show us why, inspite of her misgivings, inspite of not supporting it, she voted for it anyway and why that was reasonable.

[DURHAM D]

27. "Absolutists are dangerous..." Thank you. n/t

[patrice]

33. Yes, and sometimes certain (possible or probable) payoffs are

worth certain risks. But when it comes to social issues, the definitions of those payoffs and risks and the probabilities must be shared, so everyone can make free and mature decisions about one's own involvement, instead of engaging in magic thinking, which is what we got in the IWR.

On edit: I just noticed that something that is only probable does not meet the definition of "absolute", so I guess I'm going to have to re-think what I just said.

[lyonn]

30. Did many Dems vote yes on the IWR to get the U.N to

force Saddam to let the inspectors back in, or, to get the backing of a coalition for any adventure into Iraq? bush had a jillion troops in the area already which told many we were going to invade as soon as Congress voted, or in spite of a no vote.?

[Captain Hilts]

35. Yes, it was to give Bush a bargaining chip that might spur the UN to act. It didn't work. nt

[patrice]

40. That's right, and that might have been the cover many were planning on.

When they should have based their vote on: What if Bush takes this "bargaining chip", uses it, the UN calls his bluff, and we end up going into War with a small, weak, or non-existent coalition?

Which is like what happened, except that Bush did not use "the bargaining chip" in good faith, but tried to dupe the UN on the evidence instead, so we got only limited support from them.

[patrice]

42. ? My memory isn't clear: Wasn't it Bush who ordered the U.S. inspectors

home?

[lyonn]

47. Right, later bush remarks in speeches that Saddam didn't

allow the inspectors in, ugh. That was a big indication we had been "had", not that I believed the bushco drumming from the beginning. They were afraid if the inspectors didn't find any WMD's, and at that point it was looking dim, they would have a harder time going to war. Unbelievable that all this was barely mentioned by the media. Oh how they love wars...

[patrice]

50. If it bleeds, it leads. Boosts ratings.

All of that "patriotism" is good for advertisers.

[Captain Hilts]

48. He ordered the UN inspectors [many of whom were from the US] out. nt

[enough already]

43. It's one thing to change your mind

It's another to flat out lie and say you were against the war all along after having voted for the fucking thing. Just one more reason I'll NEVER vote for her.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

57. IWR did not mandate a war. It authorized force, if diplomacy failed

In fairness to Congress, Bush was at the height of post 9/11 popularity and most of the country was still buying into every "terra alert" that Homeland Security put out. Many congressmen and senators were up to their necks in "terra" inspired phone calls saying "vote for it".

Some members of congress probably believed Bush would act in good faith and attempt to solve the "problem" diplomatically. I don't for the life of me understand why anybody who knows Bush would expect this, but I think some of them did.

There is something about being inside the beltway for an extended period of time that warps the perception of our leaders. They also knew that the media would breathlessly repeat every lie justifying the war and ignore the protests and people like Scott Ritter.

In many ways it was a test of political courage and some of our democratic representatives failed it, along with almost every Publican representative.

[enough already]

63. And some had the courage to do the right thing at the time and vote AGAINST bushit and his war

Hillary! wasn't one of them. Sorry, but I ain't buying her bullshit now.

[Tin Man]

22. Hey, I could get behind Hill. But I gotta call her out on her "I was against this war" declaration

...if she were really against it, why did she vote for it? Was it an accident or sumthin?

[Captain Hilts]

37. Agreed. She's my 3rd choice, at best, but the stuff said here is amazing. nt

[Greyhound]

66. Because name calling is the height of maturity?

Here's a quarter, buy a clue.
I am rubber, you are glue...

:eyes:

[jarab]

32. fcol, she was against the war ....

(privately!), but she couldn't go on record as being against it because she had intentions of running for President at some future time (now)- and to be against it publicly at any time might make her seem weak on foreign policy.
Take no chances - then and now. Ride the fence. Always aim for the WH.

But, she'd better position herself truthfully on this issue if it's the first time she's been truthful in her lifetime. mho

...O...

[trayfoot]

36. You heard right!

I did a double-take on that comment!

[Diamonique]

41. Surprised Me Too

Then I remembered that she did the same thing Kerry did. Got up and gave a speech on the Senate floor about how/why she was against an invastion, but voted for the resolution... supposedly in order to give Bush leverage against Saddam.

That would all make sense except that we peons out here in neverland knew that Bush would attack as soon as Congress gave him that go-ahead. He had no intention of living up to his side of the bargain. If we knew it, they should have known it too. That's the part I don't understand.

[enough already]

44. You can't possibly understand since you aren't a lying, conniving, two-bit political whore n/t

[Captain Hilts]

49. Flag on the play. Personal foul. Fifteen yards. nt

[patrice]

51. That sort of thing rather discredits whatever concrete evidence

it is based on. No matter how legitimate your concrete evidence is, you've just damaged your case.

Can you state your opposition to her in more rational terms?

[enough already]

62. Sure

She was against the war before voting for the war before being against the war but not being willing to vote to de-fund the war. An honest-to-goodness, real-life profile in courage. And a total political whore.

[paulk]

68. the thing is - it wouldn't have mattered

Bush would have invaded without the IWR. He could have done it under the war powers act. He didn't need a Congressional "go ahead".

I'm sure that many of the Senators who voted "yes" on this were aware that Bush wouldn't live up to his side of the bargain. But, they were caught between a rock and a hard place - with an election coming up, Bush with sky-high approval ratings, and with the usual "Dems are weak on defense" hanging over their heads (and don't forget, the war was initially popular), what else could they they do but take whatever cover they could?

Politics is all too often about living (politically) to fight another day. I was pretty pissed at the IWR vote at first, but since then I've come to understand that many of the "yes" voting Senators, and especially those who had their sights on national office, really had little choice.

[question everything]

45. Wondered the same thing and yet,

when you go to the video

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16773978/

she clearly expresses her regrets..

[Blue_In_AK]

46. That's what she said...

That raised my eyebrow, as well. Does she think we weren't all paying attention?

[KoKo]

54. That's WONDERFUL! She will pick up some votes withThat Statement!. n/t

[pdxmom]

58. I thought I also heard her say that she was the first woman to take a

run for the presidency in a very long time. I think that might surprise Carol Moseley Braun.

[erpowers]

59. Understand

I think many of us have to understand that many Democrats who voted for the resoultion did not think they were voting for war. In addition, Bush somewhat bullied his way thru Congress when people were voting on the resolution. First, the resoultion was not a resolution for invading Iraq. It was a resolution for giving Bush to right to declare war or to call for an invasion without the Congress. When many in the Senate started saying they were going to vote against the resolution Bush came out and said that even if the Senate voted against the resolution he would do what ever he wanted concerning Iraq anyway. In addition, he did this around election time so many Democrats were worried about losing seats. I think many Democrats looked at the situation and thought if we vote against the resolution he will invade the country anyway and we will lose. So, lets just vote for the resolution and then try to stop him from invading the country. I think many Democrats felt if they get kicked out of Congress they will not be able to stop him on Iraq or any other issue. I think many Democrats were a little shocked and angred when Bush just pushed for the war without listening to any of the war critics.

[Evergreen Emerald]

60. She had been in the White house, and understood likely better than most senators

about the threat of terrorism and the middle east--after all her husband agonized over the issue. And her husband did not get the support from Congress he needed.

So, she is skeptical, but trusts and believes the president when he says he needs the support--the bluff--to get Iraq in line. When Bush said it was a last resort she believed him. And she gave him the power trusting he would use it wisely. As a threat, a hammer to show unity and US strength. Not realizing that he would abuse that trust.

And Bush, being the lying thieving criminal that he is, took the generous trusting vote (that she and others gave) and put our kids in danger for nothing. And then--that vote that she so generously gave him--he has used against her again and again.

[SaveElmer]

61. As she explicitly stated in her floor statement...

On the IWR...her reasons for voting for it are laid out there for all to see...

[NMDemDist2]

65. i did a double take too on that, then read her statement before the vote

but what helped put it in context for me was the fact that came out yesterday about Biden, Lugar and ?another? Senator who's name escapes me took the IWR the White House sent down and totally scrapped the language and rewrote the whole thing to back Bushit off of having a blank check to invade anywhere in the MidEast

I'm thinking since Biden helped rewrite the language, it was felt that it would force Bushit to actually do what the IWR said, IE go to the UN, exhaust every diplomatic avenue before he used force. I am thinking the rewrite put pressure on the Democratic Senators to vote for the compromise bill that was written in bipartisan language.

there are wheels within wheels on this one I think

[Radical Activist]

69. This is the big "I was against before I was for it" mistake all over again.

She can't win. We need someone with conviction for a change. How many elections do we have to lose before people get the point?