Did Clinton criticize W's attack on Iraq at the time of or soon

[chieftain]

after the invasion? The Senator now says that she voted for the IWR to give diplomacy a chance. If that was the case then the natural course would have been for Hillary to strongly take exception to the unleashing of shock and awe. I have no recollection of any contemporaneous speeches from her descrying Bush's misuse of the authority granted in the IWR. If such exist, I would appreciate a link. Without such a timely expression of disapproval, Clinton's current defense of the vote rings very hollow.

[TexasObserver]

1. NO, she didn't. She was still hawking the war in 2006.

She was the last Dem candidate to come around on the War.

[ClassWarrior]

2. She entered the Senate with such potential to be a leader... then failed to lead.

Sad.

NGU.

[SoFlaJet]

3. Remember when we ALL used to defend her?

Trent Lott saying "maybe she'll get struck by lightning on her way to the building" after she won the seat in 2000-we all said what a scumbag Lott was and rooted for the junior senator from NY right after 9/11. I outed Rush Limbaugh right here on DU as a junkie before the story broke nationally BECAUSE of shit he was saying every day about her.Then she comes out right after John McCain does and throws Kerry under the bus for the joke-after that one she lost me forever. We were even able to continue defending her for the IWR vote and blamed it on Bush. She NEVER made amends to us for that one when every other senator did. She jumped the shark and I want her gone-first as a presidential candidate and then as a senator-Booby Kennedy Jr for senator in 2012

[ElsewheresDaughter]

53. She was and is an excellent leader for NY

[ClassWarrior]

56. I'm sure she's a fine regional leader. But that's not the job...

...she's seeking. And as a leader for the people of America, she's been a failure.

NGU.

[Exilednight]

59. I live on LI and I strongly disagree with that statement. I hope another Democrat has...

the guts to run against her in the next election.

[ClassWarrior]

54. Call your Senators' offices TODAY.

Dear (CW),

I appologize for the mistake. The actual number for the Congressional Switchboard is: 202-224-3121. They will be voting this afternoon. Please make this call today and make your voice heard one more before we take ACTION on March 19th.

Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) has offered a bill that would cut off funds for deployment of US troops after 120 days and require that any money be used to withdraw troops and fund limited missions. The Senate will vote on it this Tuesday.

We cannot wait for a new president to take office to demand a withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. The momentum must continue, with Congress keeping up the drumbeat for a change in Iraq policy.

Call your Senators' offices and talk directly with their staff. You can reach the congressional switchboard at 202-244-3121.

As we approach the fifth anniversary of the war in Iraq, it is as clear as ever that the cost of the war in Iraq—in money, lives, US credibility in the global community—remains alarmingly high. Thank you for contributing your time and energy to the ongoing fight for a new direction in our foreign policy.

Sincerely,

Kevin M. Martin
Executive Director
Peace Action

NGU.

[blm]

4. Exactly what I've been saying. Kerry voted for IWR and stood against the DECISION to invade

when weapon inspections were working to prove force was not needed. He did so BEFORE the attack, during and after. He repeated that stand throughout 2003-4, and he had Hillary and most wellknown Dems siding WITH Bush's decisions.

This was especially true of Bill Clinton - who even boasted throughout his 3 week, HIGH-PROFILE book tour in summer of 2004 that he supported Bush's decisions on Iraq war and that he repeatedly defended Bush from the 'criticisms of the left'.....has that EVER happened before in ANY election, where the last Dem president sided with the Republican president and NOT the Dem nominee's position on a major issue of the campaign?


http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/

[chieftain]

9. Thanks for the reminder about Senator Kerry. I thought that

all of our then potential presidential candidates took the politically safe position of voting for IWR while making speeches that could be trotted out as proof of their opposition to the war if it went bad. It is good to be reminded that one of our candidates spoke out against the war long before the American people soured on it.

[jasmine621]

48. Hillary's interview in 2004. Why not just read the entire thing?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/

[jasmine621]

50. Here is Kerry in 2004. Show me a dime's worth of difference.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/09/kerry.iraq/index.html

[blm]

51. She didn't oppose it AS IT WAS HAPPENING - Kerry was and the only REASON HRC even

came OUT sounding even similar to Kerry when she did that one interview was because they believed there was a CHANCE Kerry might pick her for VP, no matter what she said here, and there were some in her camp actively SEEKING she be picked.

Man - you really hate looking at the BIG picture don't you?


You do understand that potential VPs go out and strut some stuff, don't you? The Clintons provided ALOT more for Bush in 2003 and 2004 than they ever did for Kerry.

And don't even TRY and snow me - you think I don't KNOW who Tony Blair's top advisor was from 2001-2007?

You LIKE all the mixed signals sent from Clintons and don't even know how to differentiate the VERY PUBLIC STATEMENTS supporting Bush's decisions and a the paltry CYA moves made in a much quieter way. If Hillary HAD INTENDED to stand up loudly and OPPOSE Bush's decisions on Iraq, we would have SEEN IT. They certainly make heavy rotation on less important matters when they choose to, don't they?

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. But Obama didn't vote on it at all!

(Since no Hillary supporters have shown up in her defence, I offer on their behalf the sum total of that defence.)

[Fire_brand]

6. nope, she hid

[chieftain]

7. Welcome to DU and I love your button. (eom)

[Whisp]

8. google shows no "Shame on You, George!"... n/t

[sandnsea]

10. In Nov 2003, "stay the course"

She was saying we had to "stay the course" in Iraq and Afghanistan during her trip overseas. Not only did she not oppose the invasion in any meaningful way, but she actually supported winning the war until the polls changed.

[Ravy]

11. Not criticized until late in the year, but was urging different action before..

http://www.americablog.com/2007/02/hillary-responds-to-wsj-iraq-smear.html

[Ravy]

12. Here is more saying what she did in 2003 based on a letter

to her constituents in 2005.

[blm]

23. Pretty low-profile stuff for a LEADER. You ACCEPT that CYA stuff and want to sell it

to the rest of us who know better?

[Ravy]

28. So, a speech in 2002, reversal to say "I probably would have

voted for the war" two years later, then reversing again and mischaracterizing your opponent's stance is stuff for a LEADER???

Your kind of leader, maybe.

[cali]

33. Why are people so consumately dishonest about what Obama

really said? Like all Clinton supporters you left the last sentence off Obama's comment- and it completely destroys your argument. I don't even know why I'm bothering anymore. It's over. She's done.

[blm]

36. Reply to what was posted - Clintons WERE the face of the Dem party and did WHAT?

Trying to palm Clintons' staunch and PUBLIC support of Bush as leaders of the Dem party onto someone who wasn't even in the Senate till Jan 2005 is pretty damn desperate.

YOUR type of politics, maybe.

[Ravy]

13. More on President Clinton opposing the war against the beginning:

http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=4406

[chieftain]

24. This is interesting but not germane to Senator Clinton's

position on the war as it was launched.

[Ravy]

26. They are attacked with the same lies from the same liars, and

never corrected by the media.

I thought you might find it interesting.

[chieftain]

27. Read my post. I did think it interesting just irrelevant to whether

Hillary's explanation of her IWR vote holds water.

[Ravy]

30. Well, if what she said to the AP while Bush was moving the

troops into the theater won't do, I can't help you much.

The game changes when the war starts. Thoughtful leaders stop the whining and worry about what to do next. I know the Clintons were furious when the republicans relentlessly attacked the action in Kosovo. I suspect she was living what she preached on that issue.

[chieftain]

34. Speaking out against an immoral, disastrous war is not

'whining". It is called statesmanship. Concocting an after-the-fact defense that does not stand up to scrutiny shows a disregard for the intelligence of the American people. That is what her campaign was counting on and they are finding out that it just won't work.

[Ravy]

40. March 3, 2003 was *before* the war. About 2 and a half weeks before.

So that is no concocted "after-the-fact" defense.

Speaking out against the war when your vote isn't on the line and people will die whether you are right/wrong, then saying you "probably would have voted for the IWR" in 2004, mischaracterizing your opponent's position as a warmonger by saying she "voted for war", yet voting for funding to continue the war.... and saying you have been against it from day 1...

now THAT's concocted.


I thought when you posted you really wanted to know the answer, so I tried to provide it. I may be slow, I am beginning to think you just wanted another back-slapping Hillary-hate lie-filled thread that is so prevalent now on GD:P.

I will move along now.

[chieftain]

43. Think what you want. Neither you or anyone else can point

to the kind of statement at the beginning of the war that you would expect from someone espousing the defense she now makes.You have posted a lot of links but none of them responsive to what I am seeking. Your obvious intelligence and perseverance leads me to the conclusion that if you can't find such a statement it is because it is not there.

[chieftain]

14. As I read the link, Senator Clinton criticized the conduct of the

war not that W failed to give diplomacy the chance it needed to avert the need for war. I understand that Hillary has been a long-time critic of the ineptitude with which the war has been carried out and the poor planning involved in the occupation. What I am suggesting is that for her defense of the vote on IWR to ring true, there should have been a contemporaneous critique of starting the war with the inspections still possible.
We all can agree that the war has been mismanaged. That is painfully obvious to almost everyone. What has been and is still missing from Hillary is a clear statement that to attack another country without provocation nor imminent threat is wrong.

[Ravy]

17. Here is part of the link that you may have missed:

JANUARY 2003: HILLARY SENDS LETTER TO POWELL, URGES HIM TO CONTINUE ROBUST INSPECTIONS: "If our words about supporting UN inspectors have any meaning and if we truly want the United Nations to be effective, we must act to support the UN arms inspectors and act to unite the UN Security Council behind the use of U2 aircraft in Iraq...Additionally if we are truly serious about supporting the UN inspections we should increase our intelligence support to the inspectors."

MARCH 2003: HILLARY URGES 'PEACEFUL SOLUTION,' PUSHES BUSH TO 'ENLIST MORE SUPPORT' FROM ALLIES: "'It is preferable that we do this in a peaceful manner through coercive inspection'...he senator said the Bush administration still had work to do at convincing the American public and the rest of the world that Hussein presented a real threat that might require military action. 'The administration should continue to try to enlist more support,' she added."

[chieftain]

21. The question that remains unanswered was whether she

spoke out against the war after it was launched on the basis that diplomacy was not given a sufficient chance. So you have not given a link to such a statement, which I believe is consistent with an after-the-fact justification of a terrible vote that does not square with her silence as the war began.

[blm]

22. She wouldn't do ANY OF THESE THINGS IN A PUBLIC WAY. This is CYA stuff done

for the purpose of having something to show later on IF she needs it. Man you fell for one of the oldest political manipulations in the book.

Leaders don't do that - leaders will find a camera to stand up and OPPOSE so the public CAN BE INFORMED and LED even when it RISKS their careers.

[Ravy]

25. Yeah, well that Mar 3, 2003 quote was from Associated Press, perfect

place to spout stuff you want hidden away.

[chieftain]

32. Again this is a quote prior to the war's commencement.

Where is her public denunciation of W's failure to give diplomacy sufficient time to work.
Ravy, I applaud your persistence but so far I have not seen the kind of public pronouncement of Senator Clinton that is consistent with her current defense of her vote. Don't you think that if her support for the IWR was truly to give the inspections a chance, she would have spoken out against the rush to war ? The lack of statements from her at the commencement of the war is more consistent with one of 2 inferences. Either the current line is bogus or she thought that W had given diplomacy sufficient time to work. What other conclusion can be drawn from her silence?

[Ravy]

35. I was replying to the poster saying she hid her comments in the Associated Press

[blm]

37. She finds cameras when she WANTS to be seen and heard on issues. Just not THIS issue, eh?

Sell it to the gullible - there are few gullible Dems left here at DU who will buy what you want to sell.

[Ravy]

41. She took the war seriously. She was a leader,

not a pundit.

[blm]

42. She did NOT. Ever hear her interview with Iraq Study Group? HAHAHAHAHAH

All she offered was "What can we in the senate do to help?"

When Kerry was interviewed he outlined an entire plan for how to secure Iraq, impose political solutions, and begin to withdraw the troops.

Go sell your line of hooey to the uninformed.

[Ravy]

15. Sorry Chieftain, didn't mean to kill the thread by countering the

Obama supporters comments with facts and links.

[chieftain]

19. Thanks for your crocodile tears. Note my response to your post.

[Ravy]

20. I did.

[catgirl]

16. Actually Bill Clinton suggested Bush could bypass the UN

and invade Iraq. I believe it was a Larry King interview. He didn't speak
out against the impending war at all.

[Ravy]

18. Link please. I provided them, you should, too.

[catgirl]

29. Here you go- Clinton's 2003 Larry King interview (Iraq comments)

In an exclusive interview Thursday on CNN's "Larry King Live," the former president said he sees a good possibility that the international community will unite to force Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to disarm.

"I still hope the United Nations can act together on this, and I still think there's a chance we can, and there's still a chance that Saddam Hussein will come to his senses and disarm," Clinton said.

He said Bush is "doing the right thing now" by gathering international support, but said he doesn't believe another U.N. resolution is needed to go to war with Iraq.

"As a matter of international law, I don't think it's required," Clinton said.

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/07/clinton.iraq/

This is Iraq today:

http://edition.cnn.com/

[blm]

39. This was Blair's reasoning, too. No doubt discussed with Bill. Bush didn't NEED a new resolution

and had enough LEGAL cover with the original UN res from 1991. Bush wanted the Democrats to be FORCED into voting for IWR for POLITICAL REASONS ONLY.

This is also why alot of those who think IWR led this nation to war are really underinformed. Bush was going in anyway, but Rove was able to get the media follow his storyline that IWR was a vote FOR war. The media had no interest in telling the WHOLE story.

[jasmine621]

46. Here is the full quote of what Bill said in 2004 book tour.

"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life."


He did go on record to say that he thought Bush should have waited until the inspections were over. This is just a simple case of a former President trying to support a current President during a time of war. Jimmy Carter did much the same.

[catgirl]

65. This quote was after the fact

In his interview with Larry King, he was essentially saying it was acceptable
to invade, even without a new U.N. resolution. The Clinton's are good at
changing their stories.

[jasmine621]

73. It wasn't a bypass of the UN. He felt the first resolutions covered subsequesnt action. nt

[Individualist]

31. DLC members are pro-war. nt

[catgirl]

38. Please see post # 29 for link which shows Clinton's (Bill's) true stance

[VotesForWomen]

44. clue: O's no better than hill, and the time to make a stand on IWR was 2002 and 2004, not 2008 fer c

christ's sake. the dem party has been supporting this thing since day one for the most part, and that includes saint obama, but now all of the sudden people are trying to out-anti-war each other? all that's going to do is make dems look weak and fickle. and btw, i voted nader in 2004 over IWR. the time for that has come and gone.

[chieftain]

47. Yeah and Gore was no better than Bush and Kerry was no

better than Bush and now Obama is no better than Clinton on the War. Anyone who admits of their vote for Nader has absolutely no credibility with me. I hope you and St. Ralph are happy with the carnage that has been wrought with Bush and his criminal gang in the WH.

[mdmc]

45. She was proud to be part of the strong and wrong crowd

gotta support the trOOPS.

[andyrowe]

49. When was the first instance of her stating that Shrub

didn't give diplomacy a chance. I'm betting it was at least 3 years after Shrub failed to give diplomacy a chance. Quite revealing.

[hfojvt]

52. Ouch. This video I found on a search is extremely damning to Clinton

http://bogartmedia-now.blogspot.com/2008/02/hilary-on-iraq-in-march-2003.html

Here she is in March 2003, standing up to NOW spokespeople who say that their 500,000 members are against the upcoming Iraq war. Hillary says nothing about Bush, she blames it all on Saddam. Only Saddam can avoid the war by disarming, which he as not (according to Hillary (and Bush)) and by co-operating with the weapons inspectors which he has not ((according to Hillary (and Bush)). She also says that the United States (meaning the Bush administration) is providing leadership in disarming Saddam, and compares Bush to her husbands actions in regard to Kosovo.

Unfreaking believable. How can she blame it all on Bush, when she was propagating Bush's own talking points.

She certainly is a fighter though. She didn't fight Bush, but she stood right up to NOW and Code Pink.

[chieftain]

57. Thanks for the link, I had not seen this. What it tells me is

that she believed in the move to disarm Sadaam then and her only real criticisms of the debacle are limited to the way the war was conducted and that taxes were not raised to finance it.

[blm]

58. The posters find some crumb HRC handed out at some point and they hang their hats on it

as if any of those wishy-washy crumb statements make a dent in her staunch support for Bush for YEARS - - till Joe Lieberman lost his primary race she pretty much stayed on the same page with him supporting Bush.

[chieftain]

62. You're right and it is analogous to the RWers who watch

Faux for anything that will keep them from having to concede to reality and conclude that Bush is an immoral, lying incompetent.










Edited because spelling sometimes eludes me on the first try.

[suston96]

55. Before.......On the Senate floor......

"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.


......... A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.

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

[chieftain]

60. You touch a key part of her problem Why would anyone

vote to "...put this awesome responsibility in the hands of our President..." when that president was George W. Bush? Why would anyone believe that George W. Bush would "...use these powers wisely and as a last resort"? These statements alone ought to disqualify someone from being president.

[suston96]

64. "These statements alone ought to disqualify someone from being president."

Except that those statements relied on the constitutional balance of powers that the whole Congress which passed the resolution expected would be honored by the President.

If there is that much unreliability on the balance of powers and the checks and balances between the branches of government, then Hillary Clinton's vote is trivial compared to the fatal flaws in our constitutional form of government.

Time for a second constitutional convention that will change us to a parliamentary form of government which can be tossed when elected leaders start wars based on fabricated intelligence.

[chieftain]

67. I have long favored a parliamentary system of government but

my point is not that Senator Clinton could have stopped the war singlehandedly. I just choose to not support someone who entrusted the awesome responsibility to go to war to George Bush. And I don't buy her explanation that she was merely voting for the IWR to give diplomacy a chance. I would have thought there would have been a statement from Clinton at the start of the war expressing outrage, or at least disappointment,that W did not honor the resolution for which she voted. No such a statement has yet to be posted here. Although explaining that to a particular serial poster is worse than talking to the wind.

[subsuelo]

61. talk about having it both ways! n/t

[Ravy]

63. You are talking to the wind.

They know fully well , and have been provided links, that Clinton's vote was exactly how she was saying it then, and continues to say it until this day.

They know fully well, and have been provided links, that Bill Clinton was telling the truth when he said that he was against the Iraq war.

These people refuse to believe they have been lied to, over and over and over, by the MSM and the Obama campaign, no matter how much contemporaneoous proof you give them, they are incapable of admitting that they have been duped into believing something that is simply not true.

And they cheer when hearing about the US Military being used in an act of war against another nuclear power.

Let's hope that if a whoever is elected, the chance never comes up.

[hfojvt]

66. that does not square with the video I posted above

where she gives credence to a couple of key Bush talking points in March 2003 (before the war had started). She said "Saddam has not disarmed." and "Saddam is not co-operating with the inspectors."

She said essentially the same thing in a CNN interview in February 2003.

The people there are questioning her and trying to oppose the war, and she's there arguing for the war and finally deflecting the conversation into discussion about the economy.

She simply was not against the war when it mattered, when I and others like me were on the streets saying "don't goto war!" She went beyond a bad vote in order to make the case for war.

[Ravy]

68. And she was right in doing so.

There is a difference between a leader and a pundit. Pundits don't decide who lives and who dies.

There is *another* side of the IWR, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis due to UN sanctions. People were dying. It was a bad situation and something had to be done. Not let it fester on.

Playing tough with Saddam eventually allowed the inspectors full access, and for Saddam to seek asylum. The French wanted more time for the inspectors, and were villified for it then, and "proven right" today. Hillary wanted more time for the inspections, and is villified to this day. And will be tomorrow, and the day after. Over and over and over.

Taking a tough stand was all Saddam would respect.

Bush didn't let the inspectors do their job.

[hfojvt]

69. she wasn't arguing for more time for the inspectors

she was saying that Saddam was defying the inspectors. There's nothing right about that. She did not put pressure on Bush to let the inspectors do their job, she put it all on Saddam.

[Ravy]

71. She did in the Associated Press interview on 3/3/03, posted above.

The question asked in the video concerned why would we ever invade, not if the conditions to go to war were met or when they might be met.

She was clear, as was Bill Clinton in his remarks prior to the illegal invasion.

[hfojvt]

72. the AP interview is pretty weak

not so much saying we should not goto war, but that Bush should get more international support. Kinda funny, but at our anti-war rally in February 2003, there were not a lot of signs asking Bush to 'get more international support' for the stupid war that we were trying to stop.

Here's how Asp at Kos, summarizes March 2003.

"In that same month, Hillary let go her tepid admonitions not to rush to war and to give inspections a chance and offered the president an equally tepid, ambivalent support. On March 2, Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines said that "Sen. Clinton fully supports the steps the president has taken to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction." On March 17 -- the day after Obama told a Chicago crowd that the war could still be stopped -- Hillary rallied round:

'Tonight, the President gave Saddam Hussein one last chance to avoid war, and the world hopes that Saddam Hussein will finally hear this ultimatum, understand the severity of those words, and act accordingly. While we wish there were more international support for the effort to disarm Saddam Hussein, at this critical juncture it is important for all of us to come together in support of our troops and pray that, if war does occur, this mission is accomplished swiftly and decisively with minimum loss of life and civilian casualties.'

Instead of trying to stop the war, Hillary jumped on the 'support the troops' bandwagon. Does she ever get tired of promoting Republican talking points?

edit: link to Kos
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/3/74627/10857/761/448763

[superkia]

70. If you look at her speech, she was spewing the same propaganda...

that bush was about Saddam as if he had something to do with 9/11 and thats why we went to war. Here, she points out that we left him alone before because he had "OIL, showing that the oil in Iraq is something we are interested in.

Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.

Here is mention of 9/11 and al CIAda and the bullshit old information about nuclear weapons:

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

AND here she mentions her EXPERIENCE in the white house:

And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation.

AND HERE IS THE BEST PART OF ALL, HER MENTIONING GIVING POWER TO THE PRESIDENT TO GO TO WAR WITH A LITTLE FEAR MONGERING!

I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction.