There is 0% (ZERO) chance Clinton would have initiated the war in Iraq (or Edwards)

[Proud2BAmurkin]

Or that any of the other D's who voted for the IWR would have INITIATED the war in Iraq even though they gave leverage to Idiot in Chief.

ZERO chance we would have gone to Iraq with a Democratic president Kerry or Edwards or Clinton.

Lieberman is the exception.

[rurallib]

1. And I recall McCain saying he would have been in sooner than W

with more troops and recently said he would stay 100 years to attain victory.

[regnaD kciN]

2. Doesn't matter...

She had one choice in the matter: to authorize military force or not to authorize military force. She chose to authorize it, and is therefore responsible for what Bush did with that authorization. End of story.

[aquart]

5. Fine. She deserves to be battered for IWR.

But you also can't call her a liar when she's telling the truth. That makes YOU a liar. She would never on this planet have done what Bush did. If you say she would have, you have no relationship to the truth.

[still_one]

7. Those who voted for the IWR deserve to be battered because they over-road the War Powers Act

If Hillary was my candidate, I would have encourage her not to even bring it up

The problem is that it is being used as a talking point. Edwards came out early and said he screwed up, that is in my view what she should have done. Unfortunately, it is too late for that. In addition, she also voted for the Kyle/Lieberman bill, i.e. the Iran War Resolution, which really puts her in a difficult position to justify it

[joshcryer]

10. Politics is not black and white.

She lacked spine when she voted for it, so the fuck what. She was barely halfway into her senate seat. Almost everyone else voted yes, too. It's called politics. She got a few good graces for playing along most assuredly.

Comparing actually pushing to go to war and voting politically correctly is just assinine.

[still_one]

16. That wasn't politics, that was cowardice, and not supporting existing law

already on the books. In fact in destroy the check and balances that the War Powers Act intended

[aquart]

3. Not even him.

You would have to be able to leap from A to Z quite nimbly and his mind is not that good. If you're thinking Israel, nope. Saddam was a secular dictator. Upset the balance and the fundies seize control (oh wait) and that is NOT good for Israel. So, no. Not even Lieberman.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

4. That's probably right, good point nt.

nt

[still_one]

6. Agreed, but there was no reason for them to vote for the IWR either

What people may forget is that the War Powers Act was effectively made obsolete because of the IWR

The war powers act was created as a result of the Viet Nam War

What it did was the following:

If the president commits troops to an area without Congress, after 60 days, Congress would need to do one of three things:

1. Declare War
2. Immediately withdraw the troops
3. Extend the period for 30 days more to allow clean up operations

Those who voted for the IWR knew exactly what they were doing, they thought they wouldn't be accountable.

Only one problem, IT WAS THEIR JOB TO BE ACCOUNTABLE

[Ravy]

9. Reason: To get weapons inspectors back in Iraq, for one thing. nt

[still_one]

14. They didn't need the IWR for that. The war powers act would have taken care of everything

The truth is that Congress thought they didn't have to bear any responsibility

THEY WERE WRONG

[Ravy]

25. I disagree.

Not about them bearing responsibility.

It was primarily to break the stalemate in Iraq to get the Security Council to enforce their resolutions.

After the IWR, the security council put their weapons inspectors back in. Diplomatic relations began in ernest with Iraq from not just the US, but other countries.

UN Inspectors returned to Iraq.

Saddam allowed for some of his missles to be destroyed, even though they were questionably in compliance with the UN mandates.

Saddam allowed surveillance flights, provided what documentation he had about the distruction of WMD. Was even in negotiations to leave the country in exile.

Bush and Blair still were yearning for war, and they promised to go back to the Security council to authorize it. When certain security council members said they would not agree without giving the inspectors more time (France for one), they decided that they would act on a MAJORITY vote of the security council.

When it became apparent that they would not even get a majority vote of the Security Council, they (Bush and Blair) met to see if they would go in, essentially alone.

A good number of people that voted for the IWR were trying to put on the brakes during this time, but the administration was releasing only the evidence that supported their position, and making shit up about mobile labs and balsa wood model planes.


At least, that is how I recall it.

As the OP said, any president who was not truly spoiling for that fight would have let the UN inspectors determine that there was no threat.

[still_one]

36. Not sure, but I do recall Hans Blik being quite upset with our actions /nt

[Proud2BAmurkin]

11. It was a defensible vote if the president isn't a liar or a thug.

I'd say they knew enough to have been wrong on that vote but it's a close enough call that I don't write them off for it because in a normal situation it would be the right thing to do. We just happened to have a liar and a thug in office at the time.

[still_one]

15. Undefensible. The War Powers Act took care of everything. What the IWR did

was provide NO OVERSIGHT FOR THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH

Their was a reason the war powers act was created, and those who voted for the IWR knew it because they were around during Viet Nam

[Mr Rabble]

8. Right. Because Bill never bombed Iraq for no reason.

Look, I hate to burst your bubble here, but there isn't a politician alive that wouldn't have at the very least tried to blame 9/11 on Iraq and/or bombed the hell out of the place.

You do remember the 1990's right? When we were enforcing the "no fly zones"?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. SSShhhh! You'll upset the apologists.

[still_one]

19. Except the CIA and State Department knew 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq /nt

[Mr Rabble]

37. Those same people knew what was happening in the 1990's.

Didnt make a bit of difference.

[still_one]

40. I agree, that is why we supposedly have our representative /nt

[The Crazy Canadian]

13. I disagree, Clinton would have gone to war in Iraq. No doubt about it.

She supported giving Bush the green light to invade and has never apologized for it. She is a warmonger and the people who support her, policy wonks like Kenneth Pollack and Micheal O'Hanalon and others are warmongers too.

I remember her pushing legislation a couple of years ago to punish those who burn the American flag, while the country of Iraq was falling apart.

I hope Clinton goes down in a humiliating defeat during the primaries.

[still_one]

17. The president didn't need the IWR to go to war with Iraq

What the IWR did is over-ride the War Powers Act, and take all Congressional oversight away. That was the real crime of any congressperson who voted for it

[Rex]

18. NO Dem would have initiated a war in Iraq.

I'm not sure how many Congress RW Critters would have either - it was a lawless move on the part of the Executive Branch. And make no mistake - George was going to invade Iraq with or without Congress.

Edit- not an excuse, just the truth.

[still_one]

22. and if he didn't go through Congress after 60 days the War Powers Act would

become effective, and Congress would then either have to Declare War, Remove our troops, or extend clean up opperations for one more month to get out of the country

[Dr Fate]

27. That "Remove our troops" option you mention seems better than a "yes" vote.

n/t

[still_one]

33. That is why the IWR vote was such an outrage. Congress removed itself

from the process INTENTIALLY

[Rex]

32. Like they've done before in the past.

Under different administrations. And we didn't leave those areas in 90 days.

Edit - I have ire with ANYONE who voted for the IWR, not saying that. Congress should have never ABDICATED their powers to the Executive Branch in the first place. The WP acts were wrong then and remain wrong to this very day. They let that genie out of the bottle, go tell them to put it back in yourself.

[still_one]

34. Is that the point? No the point is that law existed for Congress to be part of the process

http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32267.html

[Rex]

35. Yes that is the point, Congress dropped the ball and needs to fix it.

Still waiting.

[still_one]

38. It is quite simple, repeal the IWR, but I don't see that happening /nt

[otherlander]

20. I don't think she would have started a war with Iraq.

I just don't like her ideas.

[OzarkDem]

42. I don't think she would have wanted to

but I think she would have caved into pressure from the GOP and neo-cons and done it anyway. Obama would have too.

[frazzled]

21. But they enabled Bush to

And they supported it (especially Edwards, emphatically and boldly).

Getting a nation into a war is easy, getting it out is not. There is no doubt in my mind that the impact of the IWR vote was ten-thousand times greater than any difficult vote that would have deprived troops on the ground of safety. (Bush would never have withdrawn them: he only would have left them there with no support.) The first vote was a no-brainer: it should have been a nay. The subsequent funding votes have been very difficult.

[still_one]

23. Wrong, bush could have gone into Iraq with or without Congress

The important point is that if after 60 days troops were still in Iraq, the War Powers Act would have kicked in requiring Congress to either Declare War, or bring our troops home

The IWR effectively made the War Powers Act obsolete, and provided no Congressional oversight to the executive branch. That is unforgiveable

[Dr Fate]

26. All the more reason to stand up and vote "no" to the invasion...

...and continue to vocally oppose it.

Something few DEMS did- and certainly not Time Machine Hillary.

What makes this a rub for Hillary is her previous stubborness towards the base on this issue.

[still_one]

30. We are essentially on the same page /nt

[Dr Fate]

24. Hillary's comment would be believable if she had voted "no"...

...or at the least, retracted and changed her postions on Iraq years ago.

If she really held views different from Bush on the initial invasion, then the "yes" vote makes no sense.

If she truly opposed invading Iraq, she never said so before it happened.

So is she saying she was for the invasion or is she saying she was against it?

I think voters should look at the "yes" vote and her general stubborness on the issue, not what she says now, years after the fact.

[still_one]

28. This is weakess point among Democrats, especially since she also voted for the

Kyle/Lieberman ammendment or the Iran War Resolution

Hillary's supporters would be wiser NOT to bring this up. However, among the other Democratic nominees it will definitely be an issue

This is the main reason among liberal or progressive Democrats why they don't like Hillary. She has put herself into a very bad spot because of it, and voting for the Iran War Resolution

That is not bashing her, that is just the facts

[morgan2]

29. hillary would have easily

The media would be saying she didnt have the balls to attack Iraq, and she would have felt the need to prove she was tough enough to be president and done it.

[Jacobin]

31. They also knew that their voted enabled Bush to do it

and that Bush was bound and determined to do so.

that's like giving a six year old the keys to your car, and after the predictable wreck saying: "hey, I didn't drive the car. I wouldn't have had that wreck"

[HysteryDiagnosis]

39. It would be a cold day in hell when the American Military Complex

cuts up missiles because they can fly 15 miles too far... and Iraq has a tizzy over it. A cold day indeed.

[OzarkDem]

41. Bending to GOP pressure - crucial differences in Dem candidates

This is one of the most important questions we have to ask ourselves when choosing who to support - which candidate is least likely to make bad decisions under pressure from the GOP and corporate news Wurlitzer?

I've said this before - whichever Dem is elected is going to be under monumental pressure from the right wing and the news media to hew to their agenda. Its going to make the Clinton years look like a walk in the park.

I don't see Clinton or Obama being strong enough to adhere to the agenda that voters want. They'll capitulate and bargain it all away because they've spent too much time "inside the bubble" in DC.

Edwards is the only candidate left who has a chance of standing up and leading under pressure.