Hillary voted Yea on the IWR and Kyle-Lieberman

[sidwill]

It doesn't matter why, it doesn't matter if she voted this way out of ignorance, or out of political expedience, or just because she chose to believe what the war pigs were selling at the time, the fact remains she voted both times to give George W. Bush and Dick Cheney a blank check to commit our nation to war.

She is complicit in the US agression in Iraq, she shares the responsibilty for the unnecessary deaths of Iraqi civilians and US servicemembers.

In doing so she is also complicit in the blatant, massive, and organized transfer of US taxpayer money directly to the coffers of the US military Industrial Complex, feeding the very mechanism that funds the punditocricy into pushing our political elite to undertake these heinous actions.

In light of this I find it absolutely revolting that anyone who calls themselves a progressive or liberal can even contemplate supporting her candidacy.

Is it that they are OK with pre-emptive warmaking when a Democrat happens to be the one to make it?
Or is it that they are just as attracted to US political "royalty" as the sheeple Republicans were with Bush the lesser?

I don't have the answers to these questions but I do know that Mrs. Clinton gave Bushchimp a free pass to bomb, maim, kill, orphan, cripple and decapitate thousands of human beings while enriching the very same corporate war oligarchy that gave Bush and now give her tons of campaign cash.

Peace.

[MonkeyFunk]

1. She did?!

OMG! I had no idea!

Who's this Kyle guy?!

[sidwill]

3. Figures,

Figures, you missed the overarching point of Hillary's war votes and concentrate on my inability to correctly spell a Republican subhuman's name. I'm sure though that Hill can spell it correctly since she signed on to his Iran war blank check.

I guess I should thank you, you spelled out exactly the kind of thinking that corrupts a progressive's mind into thinking Clinton deserves the nomination i.e. mispelling a Reukes name is < reprehensible than actually voting for said Repukes war mongering.

Thanks.

[MonkeyFunk]

7. Beleive it or not

neither Kyl-Lieberman nor the IWR were votes for war. You should read the resolutions when you get a chance.

[sendero]

10. You are a moron..

... they were, and they are.

[MonkeyFunk]

12. aww

that hurts my feelings.

[sidwill]

15. Do me a favor

Explain to me her IWR vote.

Give me the why and then contrast it with what YOU knew at the time. Tell me if YOU supported the IWR and why.

[sendero]

25. You...

.... make my gorge become bouyant. As does HRC, who continually talks a good game and then does the opposite.

[indimuse]

36. Hillary's Floor speach on her vote! Enlightening...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4020176&mesg_id=4020176

[sendero]

38. In what way?

Enlightening in that like Bush, she says one thing and then does (votes) the opposite?

[indimuse]

40. did you read it?

you mean ...THIS BUSH LIKE??? Obama's vote as a U.S. Senator was in support of confirming Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State. He also voted to confirm John Negroponte as Director of National Intelligence, despite Negroponte's involvement in Iran-Contra and other situations that clearly raise questions about his ethics and discretion. Obama also voted for a bill to limit citizens rights to seek legal redress against abusive corporations. During the bankruptcy debate, he helped vote down a Democratic amendment to cap the abusive interest rates credit card companies could charge. And now, Obama cast a key procedural vote in support of President Bush's right-wing judges.A BIG Lieberman supporter.:nopity:
OR THIS????
Obama was using PAC money secretly to pay- YES PAY other members of congress who would endorse him. For all those "feelings voters" - this meant quid pro quo i.e. I'll contribute to your future election if you endorse me. Please review Obama's statements about not taking any PAC money. This was a direct contridiction to the fact, let alone using it to push monies to other cnadidates who ONLY chose to endorse him.
:think: OR..we'll equate this to Bush on Vac most of his Presidency befroe 911..It also reported: “Mr. Obama had failed to convene a single policy meeting of the Senate European subcommittee, of which he is chairman.”....How about this!()()()en. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told "the Chicago Tribune on September 26, 2004, 'he big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures , including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point ... if any, are we going to take military action?'

"He added, 'aunching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in' given the ongoing war in Iraq. 'On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse.' Obama went on to argue that military strikes on Pakistan should not be ruled out if 'violent Islamic extremists' were to 'take over'," Joshua Frank wrote January 22, 2005, for Antiwar.com.<1>

[Carolina]

22. spin, spin, spin

IWR was certainly a vote for war... that's why 23 other DEM senators voted against it. That's why Robert Byrd gave such an impassioned and eloquent speech against the resolution, against the haste to cast such a vote, and yes, against THE RUSH TO WAR.

The OP is absolutely right.

[sidwill]

29. Exactly

Is it any coincidence that those with the most ambition for the presidency sought to throw principle out the window and voted for the IWR as way to play both sides of the street?

What if Kerry, Edwards and Hillary had LED, had acted bravely and LED their party against this boondoggle they could have saved lives and squashed any uncertainty about where there stood.

Instead they made a calculated political decision, one that cost lives.

None should be rewarded for this act of political cowardice.

[Gman]

35. Reminds me of "The Oxbow Incident"

Word comes that a rancher was murdered, his cattle rustled. A group of men at the saloon hear the rumor, intimidate somebody into deputizing them. They take off, find 3 people camped out with cattle and no bill of sale. They lynch all 3 of them and are real proud of theirselves. The real sheriff shows up and tells them the rancher is alive and well. The mob is shocked and dismayed at what they did. One man commits suicide.

[cali]

27. Are you truly that ignorant?

The IWR was a blank check? Kyle/Lieberman. Nope. It was a resolution with no force of law that explicitly stated that it was not an authorization for war. And in case you've never read the Constitution, bushco needs zip from the Congress to bomb Iran.

[sidwill]

31. So far the Hillary apologists

have called me a moron and ignorant while defending her politically callous IWR vote.

I will not lower myself to hurling insults back, I will only ask Cali in particular (since others will not answer) wether or not she/he supported the IWR themselves and if the answer is no why?

[cali]

34. Please read the other post I wrote

I don't support Clinton. I will not support any candidate who voted for a blank check for war. Your OP is filled with crass insults to other posters, so don't even begin to criticize others for what you did when you started this thread.

I NEVER supported this fucking war- or the first Gulf War. I organized against both. I marched against both. And it is a huge issue for me.

You made an assumption. You're wrong.

[sidwill]

43. Could you humor me?

You state that my original post is full of crass insults to other posters, could you specify where I was being insulting?

[shaniqua6392]

2. I ain't never heard such a thing!!!!

Wow. Thanks so much for letting us know about this recent development! :sarcasm:

[Uben]

4. belongs in GDP nt

nt

[sidwill]

5. Amazing

I make a valid case against a Hillary candicacy and all I get in response is spelling correction and forum placement critique.

Pathetic.

[Uben]

6. Who did you vote for in 2004?

John Kerry or George Bush?

[sidwill]

16. I voted Kerry

But I held out the same criticism of him that I have for Hillary.

Make no mistake, in a general election I'll vote D but we are trying to decide our choice NOW, do we want another Kerry? Do we want another politician who went along with Bush due to political expediency?

I say no, we have other choices.

[Carolina]

24. exactly, what choice did we have

two who voted for this fucking disaster. For me it was a hold your nose vote for that very reason.

[sidwill]

32. But now we do have a choice

We need to reject those who voted yes on IWR, if that fails then hold nose, but until that time we should work to not reward the war facilitators.

[MonkeyFunk]

8. What's pathetic is the idea

that this is new or meaningful.

[sidwill]

11. Let me simplify it for you since

You refuse to see what is right in front of your face.

Hillary voted for the IWR.

End of story, spin it as you will, set it aside, overlook it, forgive her for it whatever, but it doesn't change what she did.

You knew better didn't you?

You knew that Bush was elling the country a pig in the poke, you knew it was all bullshit, right?

Didn't you?

How then can you forgive her mistake and/or calculation to vote for the IWR?

You knew, I knew, we knew, she had to know....yet she still gave Bush what he wanted.

Now you say it's not relevant?

[MonkeyFunk]

14. Let me make it clear to you

do you think you were providing new information? You weren't.

[sidwill]

17. You have done nothing but deflect

Just like your avatar you have deflected without justifying or explaining the WHY of her IWR vote or youre apparent support of it.

Now did you or did you not support the IWR yourself and why?

Please try to do more than just deflect or dismiss, try to actually defend your position.

[MonkeyFunk]

18. My position was reflected in my first post here

as for the rest, I guess there's a place you could shove it, but far be it from me to suggest where that might be.

[sidwill]

19. First off

Being rude doesn't make your argument or rather lack of one, any more compelling.

Secondly you have yet to defend your position, you have yet to tell the board just why it was ok for Hill to vote for Bush's boondoggle and you haven't yet told us if you supported the IWR yourself.

So did you support the IWR and why?

I don't really expect a real response from, but I suppose I should give you another chance to explain your position.

[denem]

9. The Democratic Party is a party of war

WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, JFK's 'missile gap', which was the very policy that prompted Ike to talk about the military industrial complex in the first place. There were plenty of progressives and liberals in the party in those times who were not revolted.

The responsibility for the Iraq war lies with one man: The Decider. You can talk about enabling all you like - this is a Republican war, and they will be judged accordingly.

[sidwill]

13. And the callous cowardly Democrats who voted with Bush

Should recieve a free pass?

Brilliant!

[denem]

20. No one gets a pass - they have to live with themselves

but one party gets the out the door prize, the party whose leader man who declared the war. And I get the point, you have to live with your vote. But preaching old news is not the way to go. Hillary, Edwards, Biden, Dodd, supporters have all had to come to terms with the IWR. You don't care what HRC's motives were. That's fine, you are not interested in what sort of President she would be them. Other Democrats in good conscience, have a different view.

But to repeat my view: blaming the Democrats for a Republican war is a losing strategy and highly counterproductive.

[sidwill]

21. Votes have consequences

If we ignore Hillary being swayed by the military industrial establishment on Iraq how do you know for sure she won't take us into another ill advised war for fun and profit?

The mere fact that she's a Dem does not excuse her, no way no how and if we forgive this and pass her through to the nomination we will have rewarded a politician that sat by and allowed the worst foreign policy disaster of our lives to go on without substantive complaint.

[denem]

26. I am not excusing anything

but with all this talk about apportioning blame we are getting distracted from pinning the tail on the Elephant. Listen to John McCain for example - we should be in Iraq for one hundred years if necessary. Thats an extension of the military industrial complex if ever there was one.

As for HRC, I would note that the Clinton administration was very reluctant to use military force and actually cut the military budget.

[sidwill]

30. Only half true

Never forget, Bill bombed civilian targets in Serbia including bridges and a television station.

True he decreased spending so he is to be commended for that, but he was never shy about bombing, see Iraq in 98 as well.

[denem]

39. You might remember, Wes Clark had to talk him into it.

Bridges and a TV station are legitimate military targets.

[desi]

41. Oh the irony

Who is that person in your Avatar?

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2004_cr/s012804b.html

As we all well know, a president had recently been impeached for his "perjury" regarding a consensual sexual relationship that mainly consisted of a few blow jobs. Yes some lawmakers, along with millions of us, did not believe what the Bush Junta was selling them and the general public about the "dreaded WMD's" and the "imminent danger" to the USA from that "evildoer" Saddam. However, neither those of us who sensed that we were being lied to, nor the millions world-wide who shared our doubts, were fed the classified misinformation that the lawmakers were. Those lawmakers were the people that had to be convinced of our "imminent danger" since they were the ones who were going to have to vote for the resolution. Yes some saw through the smoke screen but others trusted the Junta. Would a president ever risk being impeached for lies which would take our country to war? Some obviously thought not.

"I want to take this occasion to inform the Senate of specific
information that I was given, which turns out not to be true. I was one
of 77 Senators who voted for the resolution in October of 2002 to
authorize the expenditure of funds for the President to engage in an
attack on Iraq. I voted for it. I want to tell you some specific
information that I received that had a great deal of bearing on my
conclusion to vote for that resolution. There were other factors, but
this information was very convincing to me that there was an imminent
peril to the interests of the United States.
I, along with nearly every Senator in this Chamber, in that secure
room of this Capitol complex, was not only told there were weapons of
mass destruction--specifically chemical and biological--but I was
looked at straight in the face and told that Saddam Hussein had the
means of delivering those biological and chemical weapons of mass
destruction by unmanned drones, called UAVs, unmanned aerial vehicles.
Further, I was looked at straight in the face and told that UAVs could
be launched from ships off the Atlantic coast to attack eastern
seaboard cities of the United States.
Is it any wonder that I concluded there was an imminent peril to the
United States? The first public disclosure of that information occurred
perhaps a couple of weeks later, when the information was told to us.
It was prior to the vote on the resolution and it was in a highly
classified setting in a secure room. But the first public disclosure of
that information was when the President addressed the Nation on TV. He
said that Saddam Hussein possessed UAVs.
Later, the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, in his presentation to
the United Nations, in a very dramatic and effective presentation,
expanded that and suggested the possibility that UAVs could be launched
against the homeland, having been transported out of Iraq. The
information was made public, but it was made public after we had
already voted on the resolution, and at the time there was nothing to
contradict that."

[Carolina]

28. sadly, no.

Every Dem who voted for the resolution is culpable too. It's called aiding and abetting just as in a crime.

IF Dems had NOT voted for it, then yes, Bush and the GOP would own it. But instead those quisling, political cowards on the D side of the aisle who voted 'yea' or 'aye' gave Bush political/bipartisan cover. That's exactly why, in the 2004 campaign, they could call Kerry a flip-flopper and say he was for it before he was against it. And that's exactly why Dems look WEAK!

[denem]

33. Do you think Kerry took the vote lightly

or was concerned about being turfed out by the good citizens of Massachusetts. What none of them can admit (politically) is they were fooled. Negligent - yes, criminally negligent, perhaps. What was not expected was if no WMDs were found, Bush would go in anyway. One Democrat alone spoke strongly in favor of going to war at that time: John Edwards.

[Carolina]

42. fooled my ass

I wasn't fooled. I saw Bush for the lying, cheating bastard he has always been. Kerry knew what the Bushes were capable of because of Iran-Contra. Besides PNAC spelled it all out!

And as for WMDs, spare me. It was a ruse. how could a country bombed to hell in 1991 and then subsequently kept under sanctions have them or be an imminent threat. Meanwhile N. Korea, Pakistan, and India DO and DID then have WMDs...

No, Kerry's vote and HRC's vote (along with those of Biden, Dodd, Edwards...) were votes of political calculation and political cowardice. They failed the leadership test when it mattered and that's why they're losers.

Don't let HRC's narrow victory, 39% which is less than half, fool you. She won't win the GE because repukes LOVE to HATE her, independents will not stomach her and support among many Dems is lukewarm.

[cali]

23. And John Edwards was worse.

He co-sponsored a terrible IWR with Lieberman. He cheer led for bushco. He endorsed ignoring the U.N. He was gung ho to start the bombing.

And the IWR is why I won't vote for either in the primary.

"I'm so sorry" doesn't cut it when hundreds of thousands of civilians are dead, in part, as a result of those votes.

[nealmhughes]

37. Let us not forget Feinstein-Leahy nay, either. Why does HRC like cluster bombs?

[leftofthedial]

44. If we knew now what we knew then about what we don't know

was the real truth then, NOW, we'd know now that what we didn't know then was what we now KNOW, but didn't then. Capiche?

Don't make her cry for the cameras again. Don't do it! By bringing up her record, you are clearly showing yourself to be a sexist/racist who forgot how wonderful hubby was. She'll tear up again and it will be your fault. You have been warned.