Has Hillary Clinton ever apologized for voting for the IWR?

[Perky]

Ever?

[aquart]

1. No. Hasn't affected her poll numbers though, has it?

So maybe you'll have to stop beating that horse.

[Dawgs]

11. Maybe most people don't know it yet.

I, for one, won't stop pushing it until everyone knows. If they still want to vote for a Bush war supporter then so be it.

[ElizabethDC]

18. I think most people who care enough about it know

I mean, she's asked about it in just about every interview she does. I think that anyone whose vote in the primary depends on how someone voted on the IWR would know about Hillary's vote by now.

[Captain Hilts]

2. No, she hasn't, nor should she.

Having lived in the White House for 8 years and seen R's try to hogtie Prez. Clinton's ability to conduct foreign policy, there's no way she was going to vote to tie presidential hands on this issue.

The IWR was a bargaining chip and Pres. Bush did not ask for it, or enact it in good faith. The Iraq War is Pres. Bush's fault, not the senate's.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

4. they knew damn well they were voting for war in october 2002

i get so sick of that cop-out. we all knew it was coming. we knew he was going to do it. we took to the streets. they caved.

[Writer]

5. And so did the bloody American people!

WE ALL CAVED.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

12. speak for yourself

some of us did everything we could and organized our asses off to try to convince the rest of the u.s. to resist it
we werent helped by the hillary-lieberman wing of the party and their bush-enabling

[Captain Hilts]

14. And Edwards, and Kerry, etc.

They leave their keys in their car, and the car gets stolen, you don't blame the thief?

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

19. at least they've apologize-i'm still pissed, but it's better than hillary

who'd do it again in a heartbeat

[Writer]

22. Edwards isn't in office. He can afford to apologize.

And a few more of those Dem candidates votes for the IWR. Why don't we ask that they apologize as well?

[Elidor]

30. Nice strawman

Some of us still remember how certain dems colluded with the thief:

From the pressure I was subjected to in the days leading up to that meeting, I had already learned, first hand, the answer to Dean's question. It was, political calculation. Democrats lacked the confidence to confront the president on an issue involving national security. Despite the public's ambivalence about President Bush and his march to war, Democrats would repeat the tired mantra: "We stand shoulder to shoulder with the president in the defense of our country." Some Democrats wanted to appear strong on national defense, ignoring the reality that "strong" and "smart" are not always the same thing.

They would criticize Bush's tax cuts, his failure to address the healthcare crisis, or his relationships with corrupt corporate officials, but when it came to the war, different calculations were made.

It was this inherent weakness that allowed the president to win support for his war resolution in the fall of 2002. Some Democrats, to be sure, had opposed the White House in principle. But too many others made the calculation (actually verbalized to me by one senator) that "we'll give him this vote, get it out of the way and then be able to focus the 2002 election on the issues we do best on: the economy, education, healthcare, corporate corruption."

The calculation failed. Dean was right, as was the Democratic base. The party leaders were wrong.

In the end, it was, this political calculation and insecurity of some Democrats that gave Bush all he needed to drag the nation into war. As I have said before, invading Iraq without defining a compelling enough case to win international legitimacy for the effort and armed with no plan (other than what I have called the "infantile fantasies" of "shock and awe", "flowers in the streets", "blooming democracy", etc) and without understanding the consequences of this war on our nation, on the Iraqi people, or on the region as a whole was at best, an act of "criminal negligence." And some Democrats were as complicit as the president in this crime.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-zogby/four-years-later-leaders_b_43601.html

Maybe you can cough up something better on the next try.

[MannyGoldstein]

10. Funny... Most Democrats Voted *Against* The IWR

I guess they should apologize to the American People, and not Mrs. Clinton.

[Dawgs]

13. Bullshit!!!

If Hillary trusted Bush then she's even worse than I thought.

[Captain Hilts]

15. Not more than Kerry and Edwards, etc.

[Dawgs]

25. Yes, but did they apologize for falling for the bullshit?

[leftofthedial]

21. you are right

Clinton was just as much the corporatist imperial wannabe as king george is

[wtmusic]

45. A bargaining chip paid for with Iraqi blood

Seems to me the job of POTUS requires a little more leadership than that.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

3. nope and that's why i'll never vote for her

even if she's the nominee. i just don't trust the former goldwater girl/head of the college GOP/wal-mart board member

[rodeodance]

6. In reading her statement (reasons)---it is apparent that she felt, that as a

Senator from ny, (WTT)----she had a special obligation to after al-quida.
There is nothing for to apologize for.

[Dawgs]

9. WHHHAAATTTT!!!!

Are you saying Al-QAEDA was in Iraq in 2002? Holy Shit!!!

[Captain Hilts]

16. And didn't want to do to Prez. Bush what the R's had done to Pres. Clinton in tying his hands...

on foreign policy.

[bluestateguy]

7. It's too late now anyway

If she apologized now she'd just be called an opportunist and a "flip-flopper" (heaven forbid a politician ever change his/her position in this day and age of blogs and 24 hour news).

The time to apologize was two or three years ago. Now, she is better off just promising to end the war.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. Nope. But she did assure that the "insurgency" was "failing".

[Toucano]

17. No, and don't hold your breath.

As wrong as it is, a majority of the American people supported the invasion and she wants a majority of the American people to vote for her for president.

There'll be no apology.

[Stephanie]

20. NO, she refuses to.

She wants to be an Iron Lady like Margaret Thatcher, so she must stick with her warmongering. Nothing is about principles with her, it's all about her career. Whatever serves her ambition, that's where you'll find her.

[Individualist]

23. Hear, hear!

She has blood on her hands.

[Katherine Brengle]

28. What would an apology accomplish?

I don't agree with her vote, or a lot of other things she's done, but apologizing will only make her look weak at this point. She's very smart and knows this.

[Stephanie]

44. Right, how would admitting how WRONG she was help her CAREER?

God knows we wouldn't want truth or principal or doing the right thing stand in the way of Mrs. Clinton's ambitions.

[leftchick]

37. well said Stephanie!

:thumbsup:

[Bitwit1234]

24. I don't view the news on TV or read newspapers much BUT

she has OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER said if she knew then what she knew now she WOULD NOT have voted for bush's war. So everytime she appears in public I guess she has to open her remarks with the same phrase. BUT even then it will not satisfy those who want another to be the candidate.

[msongs]

26. lovers of the new- messiah come to save humanity will never vote for hillary

so an apology even though earnestly made would not satisfy them. thus their statements that "I will never vote for hillary clinton even if she is the democratic party nominee" etc.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[Katherine Brengle]

27. She has no choice - she can't apologize.

It would be political suicide for a woman presidential candidate to apologize for a poorly made decision (though I agree with others who have said she and everyone else knew what they were voting for and only view it as a "mistake" in hindsight) -- it will open her up to accusations of weakness.

The male candidates can apologize if they like - it won't have nearly the same impact as Clinton's doing so.

[durrrty libby]

29. I don't apologize for things I'm accused of, but did not do

She shouldn't either.

It is sad when even so-called dems are propaganda machines.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

31. No and being on the Foreign Relations Committee was privy to the same "Intelligence",

with all the caveats that we didn't know about & that Barbara Boxer was privy to. Meanwhile Clinton spoke loud and strong for action, and Boxer opposed it.

I am also disturbed about Edwards being a co-sponsor for that resolution.

[ElizabethDC]

32. Hillary isn't a member of the Foreign Relations Committee

she is, however, currently on the Armed Services Committee but was not yet on it at the time of the IWR.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

35. My apologies for my mistake. eom

[Stephanie]

39. I think you mean THIS report, available to the entire Senate to read >

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/28/clinton.iraq/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A new biography of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has once again raised the issue of whether members of Congress read a key intelligence report before the 2002 vote to authorize war in Iraq.

Clinton did not read the 90-page, classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, according to "Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton."

For members of Congress to read the report, they had to go to a secure location on Capitol Hill. The Washington Post reported in 2004 that no more than six senators and a handful of House members were logged as reading the document.

The Clinton biography, written by New York Times reporters Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr., summarizes the intelligence estimate, which combined reports of U.S. intelligence agencies about Iraq.

Clinton, a New York Democrat, was briefed on the intelligence report multiple times, a spokesperson told CNN.

Clinton is one of six presidential candidates who were in the Senate in October 2002 who voted for the resolution to authorize the invasion of Iraq.

***

Misleading report
The National Intelligence Estimate concluded that the United States had "compelling evidence" that Iraq was restarting its efforts to develop a nuclear bomb and had concealed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons from U.N. inspectors after the cease-fire that ended the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

That was wrong, but that wasn't established until after a U.S. -led army toppled Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's government in April 2003.

The intelligence report did contain passages that raised questions about the weapons conclusions, said John McLaughlin, then deputy director of the CIA.

"I think if someone read the entire report, they would walk away thinking the intelligence community generally thinks he has weapons of mass destruction, but there are quite a bit of differences," he said.

McLaughlin, now a CNN contributor, said dissenting views by the State Department, Department of Energy and the Air Force made up about 10 to 12 pages of the report -- but critics say those dissents were not highlighted.

[sniffa]

33. nope, and why shouLd she?

her apoLogists don't need one.

[Forkboy]

34. I don't want a fake apology that she doesn't even mean.

[leftchick]

36. NO! Clinton:"I was MISLED"!

so that makes it all okay! :grr:

[leftchick]

38. "Helen Thomas: Will the real Hillary Clinton stand up?"

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_6243731

Helen Thomas: Will the real Hillary Clinton stand up?
By Helen Thomas
Hearst Newspapers
Article Last Updated: 06/27/2007 05:58:18 PM MDT

WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has great political skills, but her war-and-peace compass leaves something to be desired.
Clinton has blown hot and cold on Middle East issues, including Iraq and the Palestinian-Israeli dispute. She is at best pragmatic. Principles? Well, that's another story.
Before and during her early years in the White House, she supported Palestinian statehood, but she apparently forgot this after successfully running for senator from New York as a Democrat.
The rest is history. She obviously had to cater to a new constituency, make the ritual trip to Israel and forget any sympathy she once had for the Palestinians. But is her 180-degree flip-flop on that festering issue a portent of her leadership if she attains the White House?
As for Iraq, she voted in October 2002 to authorize President Bush to do what was necessary to unseat Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Unlike former Democratic Sen. John Edwards, she has refused to say she made a mistake when she voted for the war.
She cannot claim she was misled. During the lead up to the war when she was briefed on the latest U.S. intelligence about Iraq, Bush was shouting from the housetops that he was going to attack Iraq.

[NNN0LHI]

40. No but the Republicans sure wish they could get her to

I hope they hold their breath while waiting for her to do so.

Don

[wellst0nev0ter]

41. She Has Made Her Vote And Is Sticking To It

“If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from,”

Hillary Clinton, Feburary 17, 2007

Thanx, Hil, for making my choice that much easier for me :sarcasm:

[mondo joe]

42. We complain about Dems having no spine, then we complain about those who play it tough.

:shrug:

[wtmusic]

43. S'Okay, her legislation to rescind IWR will restore Iraq

to its former state; bullets will fly back into guns, children's appendages will magically re-attach, and the rank-and-file Iraqi al-Qaeda will be resigning in droves. :eyes: