Unprecedented? Hillary Clinton Invoked Al Qaeda to Justify Her IWR Vote

[DrFunkenstein]

"Finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation.

In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am."

-Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002.
Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.

As Delivered.
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

As the wife of the former President, Hillary Clinton was well aware that Iraq and 9/11 had nothing to do with each other. She even quietly acknowledges this in a throw-away passage in the middle of the speech.

But that didn't stop her from brandishing her "I'm tough on terrorists" card when it mattered. This is exactly what Obama meant when he said that we cannot claim we are "tough" by talking and acting and voting like George W. Bush, who also knew that Iraq was not involved in 9/11.

When Hillary Clinton weeps for the hundreds of thousands of people who lost their lives in a tragically unnecessary war, I will be moved by her misting up a little. Until then, she remains a cynical war hawk willing to play politics with human lives for her own political gain, someone willing to play upon our basest fears to keep us from allowing some sense of hope and unity to fight our common threat - a threat that cannot possibly be beaten through militarism.

Terrorists feed upon fear. It is their rationale for action and their best form of recruitment.

Hope is the greatest weapon against terrorism.

[RaleighNCDUer]

1. It was that particular statement that turned me from a supporter

who donated to her 2000 senatorial campaign, into an opponant. Her subsequent 4 years of refusing to disavow that statement moved me to 'anybody but Hillary'.

If she wants to stay in NY and serve as a purple Dem in the senate, fine. But I don't want to see her at the head of our ticket.

[Cha]

16. Purple or maroon?

Lately it's been too maroon for me.

[creeksneakers2]

2. That isn't a statement in support of war

And it didn't link Iraq to terrorism. It is a statement taken out of context made to look like something it is not.

[rodeodance]

7. I know that but you can say that till you are blue in the face--people do not listen when they do

not want to.

[IndianaGreen]

3. Hillary is a Joe Lieberman clone

She has yet to shed a tear for the million Iraqi civilians we killed, the 3 million that we displaced or drove into exile, and the non-Shia that were ethnically cleansed.

[GreenArrow]

6. as if John Edwards has.

He never mentions them.

[IndianaGreen]

8. Edwards repented of his IWR vote

Hillary remains defiant and unrepentant, and she voted to give Bush the green light to bomb Iran.

[GreenArrow]

9. ah yes, his "vote"

In the meantime, he has not as you put it, "shed a tear for the million Iraqi civilians we killed, the 3 million that we displaced or drove into exile, and the non-Shia that were ethnically cleansed." He doesn't mention them, though he does say that the ones we haven't killed or displaced yet need to be "responsible" never mind that we invaded their country illegally in an unilateral aggressive war resource and power grab that he co-sponsored and wrote op-eds in favor of, none of which things he has apologized for. He has apologized, so to speak, for that which effects him most directly and materially, namely, his "vote", which apparently, given his silence on anything else related to the issue, is the sum of the consequences he is willing to be responsible for.

As for Iran, while he didn't vote for K/L, who could forget his performance at the Herzliya Conference, where he not so famously said:

"Iran must know that the world won’t back down. The recent UN resolution ordering Iran to halt the enrichment of uranium was not enough. We need meaningful political and economic sanctions. We have muddled along for far too long. To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table."

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Edwards_Iran_must_know_world_wont_0123.html

Hillary is guilty as you said, but this slick fuck is just as much so; he's just less overt about it.

[creeksneakers2]

11. Hillary didn't vote to give Bush a green light to attack Iran

In fact, Kyl-Lieberman turned out to be a great idea. It worked out very well and made war with Iran far less likely.

[IndianaGreen]

13. After 9-11 Congress gave Bush the authority to go after terrorists anywhere on this planet

Kyl-Lieberman declares the Iranian Guards to be a terrorist organization, without any proof. This gives Bush the green light to bomb Iran.

Why do you think the neocons and the Israel Lobby wanted Kyl-Lieberman?

[creeksneakers2]

27. I showed you the law before

Bush only has the authority to go after terrorists WHO WERE INVOLVED IN 9/11.

The bill the lobby wanted wasn't passed. An amended version with potential war authorizations removed passed.

[RaleighNCDUer]

21. Uh huh.

So, today the terrorist organization known as the Revolutionary Guard was harrassing the US Navy, and if the Navy had opened up on them it's all OK because the RG is a terrorist organization, after all, and they have Hillary's blessing.

HOW THE FUCK IS WAR WITH IRAN LESS LIKELY?

[creeksneakers2]

28. Before Kyl-Lieberman the Bush's said Iran was

aiding insurgents in Iraq. The Bushies said Iran refused to negotiate. The Bushies gave that as a reason for war.

Right after Kyl-Lieberman Iran contacted the Iraqi government and promised not to interfere in the war. According the the Pentagon and others, that same month, just after Kyl-Lieberman passed, the Iranians stopped interfering in Iraq.

One of two things happened. It could be that the resolution frightened Iran into pulling out. Or, the resolution could have forced Bush's hand and made him stop saying Iran was interfering.

Either way, Iranian interference in Iraq was given as the #2 reason for war with Iran. Right after Kyl-Lieberman it stopped. So Kyl-Lieberman, which did not authorize war in the first place, made war far less likely.

[RaleighNCDUer]

30. Do you really BELIEVE what the Bushies say?

The BUSHIES said Iran was aiding insurgents. Top military and international analysts said there was no evidence of it. The BUSHIES said Iran refused to negotiate. When the terms for negotiation are the diplomatic equivalent of "have you stopped beating your wife - yes or no!" what the fuck do you expect?

The whole problem with IWR was that Hillary either believed what the BUSHIES were saying, over what well informed people is her own party were saying, or that she feigned to believe it for political purposes - one or the other. Now, with KL, it's the same fucking thing.

WHY WOULD SHE BELIEVE PROVEN LIARS?!

They were lying about Iranian support going to Iraq - no evidence has ever been found. By playing the gullible they gave themselves a propaganda victory. "Right after Kyl-Lieberman it stopped." There was nothing happeninig TO stop. They CLAIMED it stopped, just as they CLAIMED it had been happening in the first place. They saw the ethnic cleansing was nearly completed and could predict a reduction in violence, so they fabricated this crap to take credit for it - while at the same time getting a sovereign nation's military declared a "terrorist organization" so they could start their war at whatever little provocation they wished.

It's been seven fucking years - don't you understand these people yet?

[creeksneakers2]

33. Who said I trusted them?

If the scenario you propose is a fact, then Kyl-Lieberman led to the Bushies ending their claims that Iraq was interfering. That interference was given as the second biggest reason for a war. The excuse expired. Kyl-Lieberman made was LESS likely.

[RaleighNCDUer]

39. But it DIDN'T end the claim.

It legitimized the claim. It gave credence to the spurious assertion that Iran wants to go to war with the US. AND, it resulted in declaring an integral part of their military a terrorist organization, which give Bush ALL the cover he needs to attack Iran whenever he wants.

Geeze - they're playing chess, and you're playing checkers.

[creeksneakers2]

42. Nothing in it said Iran wanted to go to war with the US

And right after the resolution passed Condi Rice said that it WAS NOT an authorization for war. There was no way Condi would have said that if the Bush cabal wanted to use the resolution. Anyway, the resolution was amended specifically so it wouldn't be an authorization.

Bush doesn't have all the cover he needs. He declared the same group a terrorist organization and didn't need the congress to help him with that. He still didn't take us to war. Never even tried.

Bush cannot go to war with Iran. The Pentagon, the State Department and his own party won't allow it. Biden would impeach him.

Since the NIE came out the whole idea of war with Iran is shot.

I'm always three moves ahead of them. Part of staying that way is to know which bad things they'll do and which ones they won't. I look at both sides and follow evidence where it takes me, even if it conflicts with my previous beliefs.

[RaleighNCDUer]

43. OK. Here we go.

We are in a War on Terror. We are at war with terrorists.

We declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to be terrorists.

IRG = Iranian military.

therefore,

If we are at war with terrorists, and IRG are terrorists, they are a legitimate enemy; and, therefore, as IRG = Iranian military, then we can see Iran as a legitimate enemy.

WHAT THEY SAY DOESN'T MATTER!

Don't you remember "there are no plans for war against Iraq"?

Now, with the navy ratcheting up the tensions in the Straits of Hormuz AND * going to Israel for a 1 on 1 with them, AND a dem candidate looking likely to sweep the 08 election, don't you see a confluence of potentialities?

What could change the shape of the primaries better than a shootout in the Straits?

EVERYTHING they do is political.

[DianaForRussFeingold]

18. I agree,

When someone makes the same mistake again and again and they don't learn...
We can hope for change, all we want, but sometimes-- hope, is not enough!

Also,I'm concerned Obama will be just another pushover--for big Corporations, as they have contributed heavily to his candidacy... I hope not!

"When challenged about her vote for the Kyl- Lieberman Amendment, reminiscent of her vote for the Iraq War authorization,
she laughs and responds that it is her "understanding" that terrorist activity justifies her vote." From the Democratic Debate in New Hampshire on September 26, 2007"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npzN3dZR6JM

[harun]

31. That group is all cut from the same (bow bloodied) cloth (n/t)

[Horse with no Name]

4. This is the substance of why I don't support her n/t

[Avalux]

5. This and her inability to admit her vote was wrong.

The biggest reason I can't support her. It's all about the war.



(If for some reason she gets the nom however, I will vote for her)

[Evergreen Emerald]

14. ummm. yes she did. Where the hell have you been?

What? do you want her to cry? Is that it? Will that be enough for you?

My god

[Skip Intro]

20. Just amazing, isn't it? Maybe a stoning would satiate their perverted desires...

[redqueen]

38. You seem to be clued in to her admission that her IWR vote was wrong...

Would you please be so kind as to tell us when / where she made this stunning 180?

Please... we're waiting with bated breath!

[redqueen]

34. She admitted her vote was wrong?

This is news to me.

Source please?

[JVS]

37. 2nded. When, where, how?

LINK!

[redqueen]

40. Hello? Still waiting for that citation about Hillary admitting her IWR vote was wrong.

Thanks!

[Skip Intro]

10. She also said at the time that it was not a vote for preemptive war.

Obama had the luxury of not being there for the vote. Not that that didn't stop him from being against it at the time, then later saying there was no difference between he and bush on Iraq (and that he didn't know how he would have voted on the IWR itself).

[origin1286]

12. You spin me right round baby right round

Like a record baby right round right round
You take me out of context right round
Blah blah blah blah blah blah baby right round

[Skip Intro]

15. Wow, 63 posts in one day and rude as well. Pat yourself on the back. Don't let facts get in your way

[RaleighNCDUer]

22. Who cares what she SAID it meant - the reality is that * used it

exactly as those who voted AGAINST it said he would. So either she's trying to have it both ways, or she has absolutely NO political instincts. IMO, it's both.

[Skip Intro]

23. I thought this thread was about what she said...

[RaleighNCDUer]

24. If that's what you thought, you might want to re-read it.

But take it any way you like it. Your choice. Is is a liar, or merely incompetant?

[Skip Intro]

25. Well, the OP, which (selectively) quotes her words, would indicate that what she said

is the subject at hand.

Maybe you should re-read.

[SOS]

32. What she said is irrelevant

Only the text of the AuMF matters.
Her speech is not US law.

The law authorized Bush sole determination to start the war, without any conditions.

[Thrill]

17. This is the very statement that

makes me think she has no chance of beating a Repuke in the election.

[Skip Intro]

19. My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism...

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

same link as the op

[RaleighNCDUer]

26. Again, what SHE says she voted for is immaterial. She voted, and he used

it, just as thousands, tens of thousands of us said he would, to go to war. So what she says is disingenuous, if she knew how he would use the vote, or she was naive and incompetant if she didn't know how he would use it.

All that is, is a signing statement trying to excuse herself for what she knew was a bad vote which she was too afraid of not voting for.

[sendero]

29. She does this ALL THE TIME..

.... she votes one way and give a statement saying her vote doesn't mean what it CLEARLY AND OBVIOUSLY MEANS.

If she's against pre-emption and unilateralism, DON'T CAST A YES VOTE.

Actions speak louder, way way way louder than words. HRC's actions are INDEFENSIBLE.

[SOS]

35. "I think New Yorkers...may be more attuned to the risk of not acting"

What utter nonsense!

Acting against the perpetrators of 9/11 is one thing, but the topic is Iraq.

Acting against the wrong country was, in General Odom's words, "the worst strategic mistake in the history of the United States".

[JVS]

36. What a dumbass!

[WHAT]

41. Obama speech ...

Delivered on 26 October 2002 at an anti-war rally

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama\'s_Iraq_Spee...

***********************************************************************************************

Did cm forget the Iraq war? I bet a lot of Obama voters didn't...