There is an important reason why Hillary refuses to admit she made a mistake with the IWR vote

[Herman Munster]

It's the only way she can win.

Hillary is not a stupid woman.

Sure, admitting she made a mistake now may help her with liberals and get her the nomination but it causes her many headaches in the general election.

She'll be branded an indecisive woman. And while it's a woman's perogative to change her mind, to do so as a potential first woman commander in chief makes her look weak and impotent.

She rather lose in the primaries than take a position that will cause her to win the nomination but lose the general election.

[Colobo]

1. Yep

Smart woman indeed. Her strategy is more than understandable.

By the way, Viva Obama!

[suston96]

57. I heard her admit......

...that she wouldn't have voted to support the war if she had known that the intelligence was flawed. That's a huge admission - saying that she made a decision on intelligence presented to her by the leaders of this country and that she takes responsibility for her vote.

I take responsibility for my vote, and I, along with a majority of Americans, expect the President and his Administration to take responsibility for the false assurances, faulty evidence and mismanagement of the war.

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=264263

That sounds like admitting to a mistake to me. Not her mistake. But the intentional mistakes of a scheming White House.

One more thing, have y'all read this by Hillary in 2002?

So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. 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/news/statements/details.cfm?id=233783 The quote above is her very first on this topic - in 2002.

If you are interested in what Hillary really did and said, then Google Hillary at: http://clinton.senate.gov/issues/nationalsecurity/iraq/

If not, then do go on as you were......The other side is enjoying the hell out watching us trash our candidates here.

[illinoisprogressive]

2. She is afraid of being labeled a flip flopper in the general - like she is going to make it there.

[Herman Munster]

5. well that's the point

If you take positions that will win you the nomination but lose the general, what is the point of it all?

She's in it to win it. Not to run a suicide campaign.

Like I said, she rather lose the nomination than take positions that will make her lose the general.

[Breeze54]

15. Is she afraid of being labeled as having poor judgement?

:shrug:

[Matariki]

77. She is currently the front-runner, so why the sarcasm?

She might not win the primary, but she has as good a chance as anyone at this point - and actually the best chance at this point, as far as the current polls are concerned.

[Katherine Brengle]

3. Absolutely.

Just think of how the Reps made Kerry look, and he was a man - ammunition like that would be even worse against a woman.

[youngdem]

4. Yep.

She feels she has to out-tough talk the guys in order to seem up to it. Problem is, her party went anti-war at just the moment she needed the Dems to be hungry for a tough talking military minded gal. We don't need candidates like this right now. We need someone who's personality demands respect and who treads carefully, and hopefully someone who has disaster management.

Her real problem is that she spent the past six years courting and preening for this race in the post-9/11 haze in New York, and as the fog has been lifted by the anger at Bushco's Patriot Act, illegal war and other innumerable transgressions, it has become clear to the majority of Americans that they don't want a heavy handed, over-involved foreign meddler government that Hillary has wed herself to in a series of poor decisions on the foreign policy front.

America doesn't want to be the world's police. We can't afford it, we don't like it and it doesn't work.

The party passed her by. She built bona fides by being a DLC AIPAC shill, and now that it isn't popular, she's screwed.

[Herman Munster]

7. screwed?

She's ahead in every single poll out there and has bill clinton and more money than god.

Yeah, she's going to have to work for it but for anybody to say she doesn't have at least a 50/50 chance of winning the nomination is not living in the reality based community.

Those are a lot better odds than any other candidate has.

[youngdem]

10. Mark my words. She will not win the presidency

She is too divisive. And the only turnout she increases is wingnuts. NOT good.

He isn't my first choice, but Obama I think will beat her.

I'm a staunch Dem, but I would have to swallow a little puke to pull the lever for her. I just can't take another Repuke lite, pro-war AIPAC presidency, and neither can many other Dems. Add to it that she is the only candidate on either side that will motivate a high Repuke turnout, and I think that she is frankly looking at a tough battle.

The right is gonna lay off of her until we nominate her, and then she will be vilified non-stop. I know it will happen with either nominee, but I think a bunch of white rich guys picking on Obama's past is gonna strike a poor chord with many and I think they would have to be more respectful in order to not be accused of being racist.

[tomp]

33. in general, i agree, but...

...you don't think obama will bring out the racist vote?

[Tellurian]

38. You've got to be joking-- right?

You are so far off the mark in predicting the outcome of events-

and staunch Dems don't eat their own-- You have no idea. This is going to be the nastiest campaign in the history of the World.
Our dem candidates will need your protective support...That is if you value Dem Values.

FYI- Hillary is Left of Center..with the exception of the liberal Kucinich, the rest are all centrists.

You may have missed this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3119299

The campaign is one thing- when a dem takes the WH it will get much worse before it gets better.

Republicans will not go quietly.

[KittyWampus]

52. Joe Lieberman is also "Left of Center", however, his enthusiasm for Lukid foreign policy stylings

makes him anathema to United States interests overall.

Same for Hillary. Her total lack of candor when it comes to her support of dangerous, regressive foreign policy makes any other of her positions immaterial.

This isn't about being a single-issue voter. It's about being Realistic.

If the US is embroiled in the Middle East as an imperial/colonial power the way the NeoCons and the AIPAC loving Dems continually acquiesce to, we ultimately will not have the money or opportunity to regain balance on social issues.

[Tellurian]

56. What does Lieberman have to do with anything..

He isn't a democrat.

Hillary is pressing for a deadline to bring the troops home!

She's introduced legislation showing Bush a viable exit strategy!

Clinton Plan to End War:

Reject the President's Escalation; Protect U.S. Troops in Iraq; Begin Redeploying Our Troops;

Enables President to End War Before Leaving Office

Introduces the Iraq Troop Reduction & Protection Act of 2007

WASHINGTON, DC - Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton renewed her call on President Bush to reverse course and endorse the plan she outlined several weeks ago that would cap the level of U.S. troops in Iraq at the number prior to his escalation plan, and begin the long overdue phased redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq beginning in 90 days. Senator Clinton outlined her plan when she returned last month from her third trip to Iraq and is formally introduced the legislation yesterday.

"I came back from Iraq more determined then ever to stop the President's escalation of troops into Iraq, and to start the long overdue redeployment of troops out of Iraq," Senator Clinton said. "The Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction Act that I proposed last month and introduced this week caps the number of troops in Iraq at the level before the President's escalation. It would be against the law to send more. The legislation also protects our troops who are performing so heroically, by making sure they aren't sent to Iraq without the body armor and training they need - empty promises from the President just aren't enough anymore. And it calls for the phased redeployment of our troops out of Iraq. I've been pushing for this for almost two years. Now it's time to say the redeployment should start in ninety days or we will revoke authorization for this war. This plan is a roadmap out of Iraq. I hope the President takes this road. If he does, he should be able to end the war before he leaves office."

The Iraq Troop Protection & Reduction Act of 2007 presents a comprehensive approach to Iraq that halts the President's escalation policy and provides an alternative strategy in Iraq with the goal of stabilizing the country so American troops can redeploy out of Iraq. Senator Clinton's legislation puts real pressure on the Iraqi government, requiring the Iraqis to make political progress or lose funding for their military and reconstruction, require the Bush Administration to begin a phased redeployment and convene an international conference within 90 days or a new Congressional authorization would be required to remain in Iraq. Finally, the legislation would prohibit the use of funds to send troops to Iraq unless they have the proper equipment and training. If the President were to follow the provisions in this legislation then the United States should be able to complete a redeployment of troops out of Iraq by the end of his term.

A Summary of the legislation:

STOPPING THE PRESIDENT'S ESCALATION OF THE WAR: This legislation would cap U.S. troop numbers in Iraq at the January 1, 2007 level - prior to the announcement of the troop escalation by President Bush. It would require Congressional authorization to exceed the cap.

ENDING THE BLANK CHECK FOR THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT: Recent press reports have indicated that U.S.-trained Iraqi security forces may be infiltrated by Iraqi militias and thus U.S. funds may have been used to train the very people that our men and women in uniform are fighting. In order to exert leverage on the Iraqi government, the legislation would cut off funds for Iraqi security forces, including private contractors as well as reconstruction funds within 90 days unless the President certifies that the Iraqi government has met certain conditions. The legislation would require that the Iraqi government meet a number of conditions, including:

• The security forces of the Government of Iraq are free of sectarian and militia influences;

• The security forces of the Government of Iraq are assuming greater responsibility for security in Iraq;

• The government of Iraq provides for an equitable distribution of the oil revenues of Iraq;

• There has been significant progress made in political accommodation among the ethnic and sectarian groups in Iraq.

If Congress disagrees with the President's certification, Congress would have 60 days to "disapprove" of the Presidential certification resulting in a cutoff of funds for the Iraqi government.

STARTING PHASED REDEPLOYMENT AND INVOLVING COUNTRIES IN THE REGION IN THE FUTURE OF IRAQ: The legislation requires the U.S. begin a phased redeployment of U.S. troops in 90 days or the authority of the use of force would cease. Specifically it requires that a phased redeployment of United States military forces from Iraq has begun including the transition of United States forces in Iraq to the limited presence and mission of:

• Training Iraqi security forces;

• Providing logistic support of Iraqi security forces;

• Protecting United States personnel and infrastructure; and

• Participating in targeted counter-terrorism activities.

The legislation also requires that the United States has convened or is convening an international conference so as to:

• More actively involve the international community and Iraq's neighbors;

• Promote a durable political settlement among Iraqis;

• Reduce regional interference in the internal affairs of Iraq;

• Encourage more countries to contribute to the extensive needs in Iraq; and

• Ensure that funds pledged for Iraq are forthcoming.

PROTECTING OUR TROOPS SENT INTO IRAQ: The legislation would prohibit funds from being spent to send troops to Iraq unless the Secretary of Defense certifies to Congress that the troops being deployed are adequately equipped and trained for their mission in Iraq.

Statements and Remarks by Senator Clinton Concerning the War in Iraq:

http://clinton.senate.gov/issues/nationalsecurity

[bigluckyfeet]

8. Go Bake

Some cookies Hillary.

[Nedsdag]

75. Don't forget the tea.

That went along with the cookies if you remember.

[Hardrada]

17. Yeah, we caught on.

[western mass]

6. The cowardly let-Repukes-define-the-debate strategy...

Always a winner!

[Herman Munster]

9. the only democrat to win an election in the last 30 years

was Bill Clinton and he did precisely that.

[mmonk]

11. I disagree.

Politically calculating and parsing is a bigger turn off now than some think.

[Herman Munster]

12. for maybe the politcally obsessive on message boards

98% of voters are not like DU'ers.

[mmonk]

14. We'll see how it all holds up in debate.

[Tellurian]

40. Yes, you're right about that...DU is a magnet for the Far Left

and so-called progressives- which none of our candidates represent.

It makes you wonder- why are they here?

[Forkboy]

76. I'd consider myself "Far left" and Kucinich represents me just fine

And as much as some here would like DU to be MyCandidateOnly.Com they're just shit outta luck.

[sandnsea]

13. It was her strategy

She's the reason the Democrats took the Bush warhawk route in 2002. If she admits the Clintons made the wrong political calculation, the entire premise of "Clintons know how to win" flies right out the window. That's why she can't admit what a disastrous mistake backing Bush was. And that was the mistake, backing Bush for years and years, way beyond that one vote.

[ConsAreLiars]

16. She is standing by her vote because she supported the PNAC plan.

She supported that plan because transnational corporatism was behind it. She was loyal to them then, and she remains loyal by declaring that the plan was good but Chimpy and the monsters messed up.

She is both loyal and consistent in her alliances. And she knows who she serves.

(edit formatting)

[Hardrada]

19. Good point! She will have her place at the table.

[Tellurian]

39. How can you people tell such bold faced lies?

Please show me a link where Hillary supported the PNAC plan?

[dysfunctional press]

18. i'm confused- how does one lose in the primaries, yet win the nomination...?

nt

[Cocoa]

51. they are two separate possibilities

either lose the primaries OR win the nomination and lose the general election.

[GreenTea]

20. Another keen politician...Her career above all...A DLC & Bill strategy...Can one respect this game?

Kids are dying for what...politics?

[mmonk]

21. Here's what is going to happen.

Politicians, political consultants, the media, etc. are going to take the various speeches and quotes of hers (where her position seems to move or seems obviously parsed depending on who she was talking to) and make her look bad.

[Tellurian]

44. and yourself included...right?

[jab105]

22. But she really was wrong...

screw politics, she was wrong...and not saying it, well, to me, that simply means that someone else should be our nominee...

I also disagree with Kerry, if he wasn't such a wuss when asked if he would have still voted for it, he could easily have turned it in his favor...remember, most of america was feeling the same way at the time...

Currently, Hillary Clinton has the view that only a handful of Republicans still hold...

[mmonk]

24. She was wrong and if she doesn't disarm her opponents

by admitting it was, they will use it against her by continually hammering her. The more she tries to parse words or not take responsibility about it, the more people will talk about it.

[Tellurian]

41. None of the Democrats were wrong-

Hillary is standing her ground- There isn't any need for her to apologise.

Take a minute and read her floor statement-

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=233783

[MGKrebs]

23. It could be that she believes that for 210 years the President held a

certain amount of trust to execute the will of the Congress and therefore the people.
The Congress voted to allow the President to use his discetion and judgment and THIS PRESIDENT violated that trust. It was a game of chicken, and Bush chose to ignore all the precedent, all the trust, and all the judgment that is required for a functional democracy. HE chose dictatorship, HE chose a "unitary executive", and HE chose to disregard the will of the community of nations. It is unprecedented in the history of the United States.

We can sit back and say "they should have known", but when it coms time to fish or cut bait, the people who are supposed to make the decisions are supposed to be right. Many are trying to say that we should have tried to curtail presidential power at the very moment when the entire nation was yearning for a strong response to a horrific attack on our country. But it was THIS PRESIDENT who chose the wrong response. THIS PRESIDENT who ignored history. THIS PRESIDENT who misused the trust given to him. Ironically, he has damaged the office of the Presidency to an extent that will take decades to repair. Future Congresses will be very wary and protective of their responsibilities, and much more rigorous of their oversight that we have seen for many years (I hope).

If Saddam were to have behaved differently, we would have wanted the President to have the authority to act swiftly in response. THIS PRESIDENT exercised thsat authority even though the threat was never fully realized.

[KAZ]

25. Perfect reply!

I struggled with a reply, and came up with nothing but flames. Thanks for the cool head, and wise thoughts.

[Breeze54]

29. Also could be that her judgement sucks!

Along with all the other asshats that voted for the IWR!!! :grr:

[ConsAreLiars]

30. Were you as gullible as you claim she was? Most who cared knew about

the PNAC plan and the utter depravity of the gang who stole the office of the president. You say you think she was truly ignorant about all this, and just trusted Chimpy, Cheney and this whole cabal of monsters to "to make the decisions are supposed to be right."

I don't believe stupidity was the reason for her vote, although you may want to argue that case in her defense.

[MGKrebs]

32. It's easy to look back now and claim to have "known"

there were no WMD's, or chemical stockpiles, or terrorist connections. Yes, we knew the administration was manipulating evidence, and thwarting the UN teams, but that doesn't mean we- you and I- KNEW there weren't some real issues at the root of all that. Saddam was a bad guy, he WAS killing and turtoring people, he DID attack Kuwait, he DID fight a war with Iran and use chemical weapons. While we might wish that this administration had not attacked without justification, at the time, there was good reason to be prepared for a broad range of eventualities.

Who knew that Bush would defy the UN? Who knew that the combined weight of the leaders of France, Germany, Russia, and China and many others would have no influence on the boy king? Yes, it looked like he was spoiling for a fight, but are those who had to make the tough decisions to be perpetually condemned for the sin of trusting the institution they are sworn to serve? While I respect and honor those who voted against the Iraq war resolution, I do have trouble continuing to punish those who, after all, only voted to allow the administration to enforce the UN resolutions, and only attack if and when all other efforts had failed.

And I think that yes, one year after 9/11, I did not comprehend the utter depravity and incompetence of these guys. I knew about PNAC, I protested against the war before the war, I never saw anything that convinced me that the attack was justified. But preparation is different than an unprovoked attack in violation of the UN and common world opinion.

If we hadn't have expressed our intention to enforce the UN resolutions, would Saddam (or Assad in Syria or Khamenei in Iran) have acted differently? No one really knows.

[Tellurian]

43. Great post...MGKrebs

Makes me wonder how many have ever actually read the PNAC agreement in it's entirety-
yet toss the initials around like they know what it involves and who wrote it!

thanks for your balanced and reasoned posts-

Senator Clinton's Floor Speech:

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=233783

[MadHound]

58. Who knew? Oh, I don't know, maybe those millions and millions of people

Who contacted their Senators and represenatives urging them to vote NO on the IWR(counts at the time showed that the messages coming into Congress were running 268-1 against the IWR). It seems as though those millions upon millions of people nationwide who didn't want Congress or the President to do a damn thing until the inspectors finished their job knew something(68% of the American public took this stance before the vote on the IWR). Or those millions who were out in the street, I think that they knew.

Sorry, but ignorance is not an excuse. It seems that most of the American people, and the citizens of the world knew that empowering Bush with such a resolution was not a good idea. I suspect that even Hillary herself felt this way. Yet at the urging of her corporate backers, and out of the desire to not appear "soft on terra", the politically ambitious Mrs. Clinton decided to put her own career ahead of the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocents, and voted to unleash the dogs of war. And she has continued to support this illegal, immoral war, long after it has become painfully clear that such support is a mistake.

Hillary failed in a spectacular way. She failed to control a bloodthirsty group of people, she failed to listen to her constituents, and she has failed to correct her actions. Such failure should not be rewarded with the highest office in the land

[Tellurian]

60. Get a grip...Read her floor statement on the IRW..

Then the ignorance you accuse her of...you are not guilty of projecting yourself-

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

Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.

I am honored to represent nearly 19 million New Yorkers, a thoughtful democracy of voices and opinions who make themselves heard on the great issues of our day especially this one. Many have contacted my office about this resolution, both in support of and in opposition to it, and I am grateful to all who have expressed an opinion.

I also greatly respect the differing opinions within this body. The debate they engender will aid our search for a wise, effective policy. Therefore, on no account should dissent be discouraged or disparaged. It is central to our freedom and to our progress, for on more than one occasion, history has proven our great dissenters to be right.

Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. 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.

In 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait, losing the support of the United States. The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab states, and threw Saddam out after forty-three days of bombing and a hundred hours of ground operations. The U.S.-led coalition then withdrew, leaving the Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to Saddam's revenge.

As a condition for ending the conflict, the United Nations imposed a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to do the work. Saddam Hussein agreed, and an inspection system was set up to ensure compliance. And though he repeatedly lied, delayed, and obstructed the inspections work, the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities.

In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated "sovereign sites" including the so-called presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.

In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.

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.

Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?

Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.

Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it. This too has great appeal for different reasons. The UN deserves our support. Whenever possible we should work through it and strengthen it, for it enables the world to share the risks and burdens of global security and when it acts, it confers a legitimacy that increases the likelihood of long-term success. The UN can help lead the world into a new era of global cooperation and the United States should support that goal.

But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto, on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act. In Kosovo, the Russians did not approve NATO military action because of political, ethnic, and religious ties to the Serbs. The United States therefore could not obtain a Security Council resolution in favor of the action necessary to stop the dislocation and ethnic cleansing of more than a million Kosovar Albanians. However, most of the world was with us because there was a genuine emergency with thousands dead and a million driven from their homes. As soon as the American-led conflict was over, Russia joined the peacekeeping effort that is still underway.

In the case of Iraq, recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve force against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons.

So, Mr. President, the question is how do we do our best to both defuse the real threat that Saddam Hussein poses to his people, to the region, including Israel, to the United States, to the world, and at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations?

While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.

If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.

If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.

If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls for Saddam's compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving some nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose any Security Council action. They will say we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only support the United Nations when it does exactly what we want.

I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein's biological and chemical weapons. Today he has maximum incentive not to use them or give them away. If he did either, the world would demand his immediate removal. Once the battle is joined, however, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and to give what he can't use to terrorists who can torment us with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed by this possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it. And according to recent reports, the CIA agrees with this analysis. A world united in sharing the risk at least would make this occurrence less likely and more bearable and would be far more likely to share with us the considerable burden of rebuilding a secure and peaceful post-Saddam Iraq.

President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.

This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.

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. 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. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them.

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.

Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.

And 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.

So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. 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.

Thank you, Mr. President.

[MadHound]

65. Get a grip yourself. First off, if you believe every speech that is read on the floor is gospel

I've got a couple of fine bridges and some excellent farmland in the Everglades to sell you.

Secondly, in our system of government, our reps are voted in to voice the collective will of the people. This is a job that she failed to do, even when it became painfully obvious that our war with Iraq was an illegal, immoral war and that we should get the hell out. Instead, she kept voting for more funding everytime it came up, thus allowing more and more innocents to die.

Sorry, but her speech simply doesn't fly with me. She tells half-truths and lies. Let us examine just one of these, her claim that Saddam wanted sanctions lifted back in '98, or he was going to kick out the inspectors. This is true, but only half the truth. Do you know why Saddam was intent on this? Hillary knew, for it was her husbands policies that were killing tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis each and every year via the sanctions and the thrice weekly bombing runs the US was running over Iraq.

Another point to ponder, Hillary buys into the whole WMD notion, at least she says she does. Yet apparently millions and millions of people around the world didn't, nor did 23 of her fellow Senators. Gee, why was she so ignorant while everybody else was so knowledgeable?:eyes:

Sorry, but her speech doesn't mean a damn thing. It is full of lies and half truths. What matters are her actions, which speak loud and clear. She was willing to unleash death on hundreds of thousands of innocents, and has continued to support it, even in the face of facts that prove it was uneeded, illegal, and immoral. She refuses to admit her mistakes, or compromise with a large segment of the party. She continues to behave autocratically, taking a my way or the highway approach. Gee, sounds like the attitude our current president has.

All of this means is that she is unfit for the highest office in the land.

[Tellurian]

70. FYI- ALL the Senator's floor statements are a matter of historical record..

Too bad you're unfamiliar with Congressional protocol-
you could have rendered a "useful" post rather than something
of so little articulate value.

MEANWHILE:

GO HILLARY!

[MadHound]

74. Wow, what a total non-sequitor that was

Instead of addressing my points you would rather fling insults and offer ad hominem attacks. One of the sure signs that your defense is weak, and your arguements flaccid. Not the best way to win friends and influence people there. Perhaps you should consider actually addressing the arguements next time. Or will you simply continue to hide behind mindless slogans and patriotic symbols. Oh, yeah, right, you're a Hillary partisan. Never mind, carry on:eyes:

[sampsonblk]

64. In other words, YOU didn' know?

Sounds like you have summed up the position of those who had a small amount of faith in Bush during the run-up to the war.

There were a lot of people who had figured him out long before the IWR vote. From where I sat, I thought all these years that Saddam had something. I didn't know the exact nature or quantities of his WMDs. But I was pretty sure he had something.

But the more Bush talked, the more I was convinced the US gov't had nothing on Saddam. Bush obviously had no real understanding of the region, and the "evidence" he trickled out to us was "garbage after garbage." (That according the the UN inspectors who were supposed to act on these tips from the USA) Which led me back to the only reliable source of evidence: the UN. And the inspectors didn't find anything.

[MGKrebs]

72. Yes, but you didn't have to vote on it. And neither did Obama, or

Wes Clark or Richardson, and a few other candidates. Another post above mentions that there were 23 Senators that voted against the IWR. Of course, that means there were 77 Senators who voted for it, as well as 296 Reps. Anyone else can say they would have voted against it, but we don't really know.

I'm no big fan of HC. It is unlikely I will vote for her in the primary if there is another viable candidate available. But I do think it is an overreaction to disqualify her for this vote. How many times in the past have we, as a country, approached the brink of a crisis and stepped back? How many times have extraordinary circumstances caused people to change their behavior? Could we have taken the nuclear option out of Trumans' hands? Should Congress have denied Lincoln the ability to use the military to prevent secession? These things can look very different with the benefit of hindsight and certainy of outcome. And one other thing we can see with the clarity of hindsight: It wouldn't have made a damn bit of difference to Bush whether that resolution passed or not. He clearly didn't follow the restrictions that were put in there anyway, why would we think having no resolution at all would have restrained him?

The more we help the right wing blame anybody but George W. Bush for this epic disaster, the more we obscure his culpability.

Among the other Senators who voter for it: Edwards, Dodd, Biden, Max Cleland, Schumer, Rockefeller, Reid, and John Kerry.
I don't think any of the Senators who voted against it are running for President.

[sampsonblk]

73. I definitely get your point

I was chiming in only on the "Duh, I wuz fooled" issue.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

61. The "Duh, I wuz fooled" excuse doesn't hold water.

Not to mention that anyone dumb enough to fall for it shouldn't be in any elective office.

Hillary certainly isn't dumb, it's her ethics and honesty that's deservedly in question.

[Tellurian]

62. It certainly does...Congress was lied to..

and the day of reckoning will come for Bush and his minions..


GO HILLARY!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

63. And, the day of reckoning is here for the ones who voted in support of Bush.

Are you saying that Hillary isn't politically astute enough to have realized that Bush meant to invade Iraq at the time of the IWR?

Did she think all those troops in Kuwait were there just to improve their tans?

I don't think she's that stupid.

[tabasco]

26. I think it's because she lacks the moral courage to do so.

But you're entitled to your opinion.

It's not really winning anything when you sacrifice your principles to "win."


Just another flim-flammer.

[mmonk]

27. That's just it. People will continue to debate it

as long as she doesn't accept responsibility. She can't have it both ways and expect the issue to go away.

[Tellurian]

45. She doesn't mind waiting...history will prove her right..

I commend her Courage under fire!


GO HILLARY!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. She didn't make a "mistake". It was a calculated as much as her refusal to apologize.

Which speaks volumes about her political astuteness and ethics. Which are obviously in short supply.

[elfin]

31. She is "articulate" and calculating

and she turns me OFF.

The Big Dog money coat tails plus her own more narrow but enthusiastic and moneyed followers will last her for only so long.

Any primary wins will be due to money for ads and name recognition and a wistful hope that Bill will be back running things.

I fear she may eke it out due to those things plus the media hype to gain ratings from her polarizing effect.

IMHO she should be a senator for life and return to her liberal roots and assume the Ted Kennedy mantle when that awful time comes.

[Tellurian]

47. The most convoluted post describing Hillary in this thread..

what you should fear is people knowing how little you know about which you speak!

[Rosemary2205]

34. I agree with her.

Putting Iraq on her shoulders or any other D's is just wrong. Iraq is a Bush/GOP endeavor and the guilt for it should be entirely at their feet.

[DemCam]

35. Well-said, Rosemary

[RubyDuby in GA]

36. sorry,

I posted on my wife's id by mistake.

[Tellurian]

48. Exactly...I have little respect for people getting caught up in nuances!

The Iraq War is all part of Bush's NeoCon agenda generated and supported by the Republican Party.


GO HILLARY!

[BEZERKO]

37. Why doesn't she say

that she voted for the IRW, not for a direct invasion. Dubya was not given a green light to invade Iraq without regard to world opinion. Dubya is the bad guy, not the Senators who voted for the IWR.

You're wrong HM, letting the Republicans define the terms and the frame of the debate is a huge mistake. Individuals win elections sometimes by incorporating the other side's talking points, but they do so at the expense of their party. Polarizing figures like Bill and Hill, Dubya, Lieberman, and (I predict) Mike Huckabee are polarizing, meaning they reduce the number of swing voters and ignite the base of the opposition, precisely because they use the other side's language and frames. Bill said "the era of big government is over," but he was insincere and unauthentic, and people sensed it. The Toxic Texan talked about "clear skies," "healthy forrests," and "clean" coal, but most people, especially people like us, know he's full of shit. Unless Hill learns the art of reframing, she could hurt the national Democratic Party like Joe did.

[Tellurian]

49. Yes, read Senator Clinton's floor statement.. it says it all!

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=233783


GO HILLARY!

[Alamom]

53. Yes, it does say it all. Thank you for continuing to post this information, however

we have Hillary Haters and we will always have them.

On one thread, maybe this one...there are so many it's hard to keep up...

One poster said if she blew her brains out on live TV , it would not be enough for "some" on DU.

With that, I will say the nomination will not be controlled by the "some" and HRC is doing well in the polls at this point.


It seems as each day passes, SHE is deemed responsible for more and more that has gone wrong.

She is one Senator. She has one vote.


I could post some real shit stuff about the other candidates, but that is not my way so I will leave it for the "some" who live to eat our own......

I will say, there are no perfect people. so WATCH CLOSELY & eat your fill....EVERY candidate's skeletons will be dragged out at some point and "someone" else will be doing the eating.


Who needs enemies (the old saying goes),

and the repukes laugh as we tear our own to shreds.

[Tellurian]

59. If she is willing to stand up for US and FIGHT the RIGHT...

I can surely STAND UP for her to keep pounding away at the LIES and derogatory remarks-

The posters who are sincere are willing to listen. Those who are here to obfuscate and stir the pot, I ignore
them as provocateurs. They know who they are...They love the sound of their own voice and enjoy scaring uninformed posters.

Yes, you're right! Everywhere but here, Hillary is leading in the polls-

So, the DU has no relevance to mainstream America. It represents a small microcosm of people willing to have Republicans succeed in stealing yet another election...via their hate filled posts!


Thanks for your insight and support.

GO HILLARY!

[in_cog_ni_to]

42. AHEM.It doesn't paint the MALE candidates as weak? Just the FEMALE? I smell a Double Standard here.

The voters will not hold that against her if she admits it was wrong. MOST voters KNOW THE TRUTH. CONGRESS was LIED to. If the male candidates can apologize and admit it was wrong without being thought weak and impotent, so can Hillary.:grr:

[Beelzebud]

46. If it's for purely political reasons, like the ones listed, she doesn't deserve to be president.

Didn't we slam Bush for 4 years for not admitting a mistake?

She doesn't get a free pass.

[Tellurian]

50. She doesn't need a free pass...because she's right!

If you care to know what you're talking about you'll read Sen Clinton's floor statement..

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=233783

GO HILLARY!

[Alamom]

54. You are fast. I replied to your 49....& YES, SHE IS!!!!!!!n/t

[Tellurian]

71. Hillary doesn't need to apologise...thanks!

[treestar]

55. But is it either that or be as stubbornly impervious to reality

as Dubya is?

It's a false choice - either flip-flop or stay the course. If you stay the course no matter what you learn along the way, that is another form of absurd stupidity.

We need to stop letting the conservatives have this frame. You can learn and change along the way. Things can change and be different. Admitting your mistakes and learning from them is supposed to be a good thing that makes you wiser.

[HuffleClaw]

66. yer kidding right?

she's already proved her indecisive nature.

[Alamom]

67. Indecisive? Like this?

“I take responsibility for my vote,” Senator Clinton replied. “And it was a sincere vote based on the facts and assurances that we had at the time. Obviously, I would not vote that way again if we knew then what we know now.

But I have to say that, if the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or who has said his vote was a mistake,then there are others to choose from.


“But to me, the most important thing now is trying to
end this war,” she said, drawing strong applause from the audience.


Sounds like she is standing her ground & telling anyone who needs groveling, to go elsewhere....


BTW, Canada, she is leading in the polls - all of them.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

68. Hillary: "..the failing insurgency" and "..much of Iraq is functioning quite well."

Clueless or calculating?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-02-19-iraq-senators_x.htm

Clinton says insurgency is failing
BAGHDAD (AP) — As 55 people died in Iraq on Saturday, the holiest day on the Shiite Muslim religious calendar, Sen. Hillary Clinton said that much of Iraq was "functioning quite well" and that the rash of suicide attacks was a sign that the insurgency was failing.

Clinton, a New York Democrat, said insurgents intent on destabilizing the country had failed to disrupt Iraq's landmark Jan. 30 elections.

"The concerted effort to disrupt the elections was an abject failure. Not one polling place was shut down or overrun," Clinton told reporters inside the U.S.-protected Green Zone, a sprawling complex of sandbagged buildings surrounded by blast walls and tanks. The zone is home to the Iraqi government and the U.S. Embassy

"The fact that you have these suicide bombers now, wreaking such hatred and violence while people pray, is to me, an indication of their failure," Clinton said.

"It's regrettable that the security needs have increased so much. On the other hand, I think you can look at the country as a whole and see that there are many parts of Iraq that are functioning quite well," Clinton said.

[Alamom]

69. Everything probably looked different (to everyone) 2 years ago. n/t