I just happened to post about this down below on another thread, so I'll move it up here.
I know a lot of people have a big big problem with Clinton's vote for the AUMF, but you know, I just don't. To me it was a threat, a stick. A necessary one. If I recall correctly (and maybe I don't) it kinda worked. Saddam started cooperating. The problem is that a) GWB was already hell-bent on going to war and b) you can't prove a negative so no amount of cooperation or lack of evidence for WMD was good enough because of a). I know I'm in the tiny minority here, but I just have no problem with her vote, didn't have a problem with it at the time and I'm glad she hasn't apologized for it.
Posted by CG at February 4, 2008 06:43 AMShe knew what she was doing, all the Dems did. It was a political calculation. At least Edwards could admit he was wrong. Why can't Hillary flat-out say that instead of excusing it or asking for it to be excused.
Murder is never justified.
Posted by Brian Bell at February 4, 2008 07:26 AMOf course, Obama doesn't have this baggage, because he got the answer right.
Posted by Brian Bell at February 4, 2008 07:28 AMGosh this website should be renamed Clinton Coastals
Posted by John at February 4, 2008 07:31 AMThe post represents very good analysis. It attempts, way too late, to show that Obama's strongest, only?, card is not as strong as it played out. I agree and will suggest additional reasons.
1. Obama took his anti-war in Iraq stance in conditions that are drastically different and more clear cut than Hillary stance. He had no responsibility, no background, no colleagues to relate to and in a different context. His vote was in the abstract; it had no consequences. Under Obama's conditions there are no shadows of gray, only yes or no. Hillary had a totally different context. Therefore, comparing the votes is comparing apples and oranges.
2. Once Obama got to the Senate, he assumed Hillary's context and, not surprisingly, his and her vote record on Iraq is identical.
3. We are electing a president not a messiah. Human beings make mistakes and many of them. Choosing one over the other over an assumed mistake is downright silly. In other words, we in the gallery should have said way back, "stop it kids, what's done is done grow up now!" Not only didn't we do our bit, the grown ups turned into toddlers. (That's of course a benign view of the feuding camps.)
Posted by Koshembos at February 4, 2008 07:34 AMAn excellent analysis, eR. I have always been troubled by Obama's use of his speech as an example of fine judgment, when he had nothing to lose, and his speech was of no consequence. I also don't buy the argument that since joining the senate his voting record is similar to Hillary, thus he is no different from Hillary. He showed some good judgment, but for heavens sake it is not like he parted the seas. IMHO, a clear example of leadership and fine judgment would have been specific actions or initiatives advanced by him since he became a Senator to stop the war. What has he done? I cannot name a single thing he did which was in contrast to Hillary.
So, sorry cult members. I don't believe in the "Yes We Can" religion. I have still not yet made up my mind, but am certainly not falling for the Obama rhetoric. If I do, I will at least be honest that I am voting for someone who I HOPE will support progressive causes, as opposed to someone who I KNOW has done a lot for the progressive movement. I will concede I am being delusional and optimistic.
Posted by BA at February 4, 2008 07:47 AMbecause he got the answer right.
Actually, since he couldn't vote because he wasn't in the senate, we really don't know that. He says he would have voted against it now, even though he'd indicated he had no idea how he would have voted back then. His continued voting for funding pretty much shows he probably would have voted for the AUMF. You can believe in magical ponies, but unless someone else sees them, they're just a figment of your imagination.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 4, 2008 07:51 AMAnd thanks for this post - it pretty much goes along with my understanding of Clinton's vote back then. Like CG, I've never been hung up on it because I knew Bush would have gone into Iraq no matter what, and he did. He ignored the requirement to go back to the UN because he knew he'd lose; Blix wasn't finding WMDs and the world was beginning to catch on. I remember Drum, Marshall and Yglasias all thinking the war was okay back then, so it's kinda funny they're now for Obama. I even remember Bill Mahr saying he was glad we went into Iraq, because "it had to be done." I guess it's okay for them to change their minds, but not anyone else.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 4, 2008 08:08 AMI will take the President at his word...
That's what we need in a real leader. Somehow the others, with their experience, smelled a rat. Somehow, Clinton, with her experience, marched blithely to the tune of Bush.
First, if we set aside the self-defense clause for a second,...
Yep. The devil is in the details, and all you need do is get rid of the details to justify any vote. Let's set aside the AUMF for a moment! How tidy! Now there is no problem at all.
...if there had not been a credible threat of force against Iraq at the time.
The "threat" part is no problem. Sabre-rattling diplomacy is no problem. 3,945 dead troops -3,806 of those since "mission accomplished", at least 1,100,000 dead Iraqi civilians, 4 million refugees, and $1.3 trillion spent on the exercise are the problems.
Sen. Clinton has been criticized by many progressives for claiming that she voted for the October 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force against Iraq with a view of strengthening the inspections regime against Iraq and not with the idea of authorizing an unjustifiable and unilateral invasion of Iraq...
Damn, she is the only person who didn't know. From the much venerated Russ Feingold, it seems to have a been big issue:
Both in terms of the justifications for an invasion and in terms of the mission and the plan for the invasion, Mr. President, the Administration's arguments just don't add up. Russ Feingold, Oct. 9th, 2002.
Your memory here is too short. Or worse, you only tell the partial truth and the partial story that supports your end. You see, Hillary is telling a lie when she claims Bush bamboozled her. It is political calculus. Why? Wouldn't have a clue.
Hillary's vote shows poverty of judgment or uniquely poor political calculus which casts great suspicion on her competence to lead this nation. Any thinking democrat or Independent should be very suspicious of her.
Posted by phidipides at February 4, 2008 08:10 AMCG;
I will post my earlier comments:
We are both Dems but we are diametrically opposed. I have a hellofva problem with her vote! I am sure you are like most Americans who don’t give two craps about the men and women who died in IRAQ. Over 3600 plus dead and 50,000 maimed and wounded. At least Edwards had the guts to admit it was a big mistake. One thing is for sure Thirty-six hundred plus Americans sure as hell won’t be voting in this election.
I think of poor Cindy Sheehan’s pain and how she was vilified by that bastard Bill O’Reilly and PISSED ON BY THE DEM CONGRESS. Yes I have BIG _UCKNG problem with her _ucking VOTE! NOW YOU KNOW WHY I AM ANGRY!
Folks these are someones kids, father, husband and wives. Hows about we send Chelsea to IRAQ since the whole thing was such a _ucking good idea!
Eriposte, thank you for this extensive review of the history of that fractious period in the autumn 2002 through the spring 2003. As you can see, the Obama-borg doesn't want to hear that valid reasons existed for voting for the AUMF in the autumn 2002. Anyone can say now what they might have done, but it means nothing. At that time, policy makers were forced to confont options how to winkle out the information necessary about the state of the Iraqi WMD programs. The Bush administration's backtracking on getting the second UN resolution should have warned everyone definitively about the nature of Bush and his posse. That was the Rubicon crossing announcing the outlaw enterprise we all confronted.
Posted by PrahaPartizan at February 4, 2008 08:22 AMGreat post eriposte.
Posted by snark at February 4, 2008 08:38 AMI am sure you are like most Americans who don’t give two craps about the men and women who died in IRAQ.
Yeah, you're right angryman. I don't give a shit about soldiers dying. Yeah, that's it. Sheesh.
Do you care about the soldiers who died in Afghanistan, or only the ones in Iraq? See, I care about both groups even though I support one war and don't support the other. War sucks. People die. It sucks more when they die for no good reason but they're all dead nonetheless. I really don't see how understanding Hillary's vote on the AUMF translates to not caring about soldiers dying.
Posted by CG at February 4, 2008 08:45 AMPrahaPartizan:
You guys can take your self congratulatory praise for each other and put it where the sun doesnt shine! How did you feel the moment that you realized IRAQ didnt have any W _ucking MDs? Did you say to your self like many of us, what the hell? We have been LIED TO by the people who run our country. What hurt me the most was Colin Powell. I figure if anybody would tell the truth, HE WOULD! After he spoke at the UN I wanted to Drag out my old uniform and sign back up and head to IRAQ.
That whole thing was like someone just gave me a good GUT SHOT. Words can not express the horror and anguish I and many of my friends felt. You can pat yourself on the back for this bullshit; but none of the kids that died will live out their lives. How about this: Why dont you two assholes go to IRAQ and get blown the fuck up so we dont have to read your self congratulatory busshit!
angryman,
I'll speak in a language you'll likely understand;
Go fuck yourself.
Posted by snark at February 4, 2008 08:52 AMeRiposte
You must be having an impact..because more Obama supporters or their shills are littering your comments...either a concerted propaganda effort to blunt your intellectually persuasive arguments or happenstance. But it is not happenstance. You stand out as one of the few if not only person making coherent fact based analyses. You make the rest of the blogs look like the hacks that they are. Thank you again.
Posted by lily15 at February 4, 2008 08:57 AMWhy dont you two assholes go to IRAQ and get blown the fuck up so we dont have to read your self congratulatory busshit!
Uh...if you don't want to read stuff that doesn't conform to your mindset, you could go to dKos and join the groupthink over there.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 4, 2008 09:05 AMOh...I finally got your attention huh? Screw Clinton and Obama. You are not going to get away with trying to REVISE HISTORY. This is about what is right! You can analyze Hillary’s vote till big fat pigs fly! It still does not make it right! It was mistake and many of us would at least give her the benefit of a doubt if she admitted it.
In the meantime take your analysis of her vote and Hillary’s explanation of why Hussein being a megalomaniac and SHOVE IT!
Group think? Why is it so hard for you to understand everyone here dont feel the same way I do? We simply have different points of view and nothing more. You assholes are wrong and I am right! Debate is healthy.
Posted by angryman at February 4, 2008 09:16 AMWhat hurt me the most was Colin Powell.
Ah, now I understand. Don't worry, dear, I'm sure he didn't mean it. He was probably just acting out, trying to get your attention. He'll come back to you, and things will be all right again, you'll see.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 4, 2008 09:17 AMSuppose Hillary was right in giving the authority to Bush which she claims he misused. Then why did she again voted YES for Iran resoluting giving the same type of authority to Bush which he may misuse? Let us face it. She and other Democrats were wrong about Iraq and they did it because of politics and not looking like weak democrtas against the republican spin machine.
Posted by suresh at February 4, 2008 09:31 AMOne thing you might want to add to your post is the short memo that Bush sent to Congress when the invasion/occupation began.
By the terms of the resolution Bush had to notify Congress before taking military action. He did so. If the rule of law ever returns to America, that note will be cited as part of Bush's war crimes trial. It is very clear from that short memo that a) the terms of the Congressional resolution were not met before the invasion began, and b) the Bush administration didn't really care that (a) was true, because they knew Congress would/could do nothing to stop them from doing what they wanted.
Posted by Free Will at February 4, 2008 09:33 AMYo..Scout. Too much fiber in your diet dude. Take a crap before making your point! Don't let your brain get fatigued.
Posted by Predator at February 4, 2008 09:37 AMListen to suresh:
Those comment were spot on without vulgarity and made the point perfectly.
Posted by angryman at February 4, 2008 09:37 AMThe AUMF vote in itself, is not a problem for me. I agree that Saddam would not have allowed inspectors in without a credible use of force backing the process.
I have heard that Saddam actually tried to negotiate with the Bush administration for him to leave the country before the invasion. If he had been allowed to leave and war could have been avoided, then Clinton would have been praised for using diplomacy.
Angryman, you clearly don't know anything about my feelings on the war in Iraq. I knew in December 2002 that Iraq had no WMD, based on the documents which Saddam Hussein turned over to the UN. Only one reason existed for his surrendering exactly the same documents which had been provided at the end of Gulf War I and its resolution: Iraq had no WMD. Had his documents included anything else, it would have shown he was hiding something. Saddam Hussein was bluffing, as the inspectors subsequently demonstrated.
None of this could have been revealed without Saddam Hussein's allowing the inspectors back in and not harassing their functioning inside Iraq. Only a demonstrated resolve to potentially use force could pry open that lock into Hussein's regime. The threat did not mean war was mandatory, right up to the time when the first troops crossed the wire. I agree that Bush is totally whacked and has been since his first inauguration, but I can understand why someone might not want to believe that the person sitting in the Oval Office is a berserker, without proof. That proof didn't exist in the autumn 2002, as we forget at our peril. Your hindsight is a good 20/20, but that couldn't help five years ago.
Posted by PrahaPartizan at February 4, 2008 09:42 AMSuresh: First, it was not the same resolution as the AUMF. Second, guess what...Obama did not even show up to vote. HE MISSED THE VOTE. I don't think he gets to criticize Hillary then.
Posted by BA at February 4, 2008 09:42 AMPredator, sadly, scout is a long time troll who's mentally ill. He'll always be deleted, so it's best to ignore 'til he's gone.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 4, 2008 09:43 AMThen why did she again voted YES for Iran resoluting giving the same type of authority to Bush which he may misuse?
Not the same resolution at all, as much as you try to characterize it as such. And guess what? The IAEA is in Iran now, with full cooperation. Obama couldn't be bothered to vote, anyhow, so it must not have been all that important to him, eh?
Posted by iamcoyote at February 4, 2008 09:48 AMKnow what? the less said about it, the better. The more she tries to explain her vote, the less good it does her.
Why not just say, "My constituents were devastated by 9/11. They wanted me to be safer than sorry. There would have been no reason to go to war if the inspectors were allowed to finish. I was wrong to ever trust President Bush and I regret it." and leave it at that.
The people who credit Obama with being anti-war aren't considering that he never had to vote on the IWR and they're not going to cut Clinton a break.
And if they're the so-called elite college educated "creative" class, we're done as a nation.
BTW, I thought her vote on the IWR was an incredibly stupid move, cursed her the day she cast it and then got over it. What's done is done. She's still the best candidate to get us out.
stop the war
Posted by carina at February 4, 2008 09:54 AMPrahaPartizan:
I take your comments to heart; seriously. The problem that I have with Hillary is that not only did she have classified documents that we are not privy to, she also had BILL. So before she voted for a bill that was titled "Authorization for the Use of Military Force against Iraq” she would understand that there was the possibility that we would be using force against Iraq. I think that it was a calculated move on her part as stated by Suresh above.
Yes hindsight is 20/20. So, it should be really simple like most of us who have made mistakes in the past; to simply say "looking back that was a mistake." Hillary has been given thousands of chances to do that; but she doesn’t.
Again, your point is will taken; but I expect she would say like many others who voted for that bill "it was a mistake." To me no matter how much analysis or explaining takes place the results are still the same. Deaths and BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of US dollars in Iraq.
Posted by angryman at February 4, 2008 10:11 AMShe doth protest too much.
This is a good post and not an unreasonable analysis, but ANYONE who took Bush at his word must pay for that colossal error in judgment. The vote was wrong, the war IS wrong and the consequences have been catastrophic for many, many people - and this result IS NOT A SURPRISE.
We're going to face McCain in the general election. We need to chain him to the war and Bush. Hillary is as tough as they come and Soto's original endorsement about this has a lot of truth in it. But she has no room on this key point and despite the "sweep it under the rug" approach by the media (the entire goal of the surge) - it is still a central point for this election.
She needs a far better response to this and to lack one this far into the game is not a good sign. The Kerry fiasco shows that. So let's not think that a reasoned and realistic analysis will sell. She needs to repudiate Bush and the war with all her heart.
That said, I'd like to see a lot more leadership from Obama on this topic today instead of relating to his initial opposition. And as fantastic as elements of the Obarama show are - they need to batten down the hatches and prepare to fight as tough a campaign as can be imagined. Put the pony away - it's time to win and then purge this country from the blatant power grab by thugs and criminals.
Other than that, how about those Giants?
Posted by wilson at February 4, 2008 10:27 AMIt was clear to half the Dem senators that the Bushco invasion "to look for WMD" (as though that was the reason we invaded) had no basis at the time of the AUMF, and it was clear to even a Repub that there was no basis for the invasion by Dec 02.
Yet Hillary always voted for no post-UN sec council restrictions on the AUMF and now claims she gave Bush his "authorization" because she wanted the inspectors to get in. Yet when Bush summarily ordered the inspectors out, "outraged" Hillary raised not a peep---until now. Why is that, do you suppose?
eriposte's analysis also presumes that Saddam's WMD was the actual basis for the invasion---which was laughable then and is ludicrous now. Iraq was invaded for its oil, and if Hillary didn't know this in late 02, that's just even more poor judgment---or agreement with this invasion as energy policy, take your pick.
Posted by euzoius at February 4, 2008 10:28 AMeuzoius:
You and PrahaPartizan statements go way beyond an individual just making a mistake. It suggests that she (Hillary) knew that there were no WMDs and agreed with the invasion anyway. Meanwhile, The public is being told about Mushroom clouds, WMDs and secret meetings btwn Iraq and AL-Quada.
Maybe I am the nieve one. I was just looking for an apology for bad judgement. You guys are suggesting things that are far more disturbing than I imagined.
You guys are suggesting things that are far more disturbing than I imagined.
And it's giving you a woodie, innit? Funny how "suggestions" that match your own belief system seem so compelling, huh? We get it, Mulder, you want to believe.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 4, 2008 10:55 AMCoyote:
Now you will sit and pick through my words. Either take me on HEAD ON OR SHUT THE _UCK UP! To you this is all funny. To me this is serious.
Posted by angryman at February 4, 2008 11:01 AMSo repeal the freaking stupid law already. Like Prohibition.
Meantime, there's a FISA Remuddling Act under debate and imminent vote in the Senate. The US Senate. In Washington. DC.
Posted by Pvt. Keepout at February 4, 2008 11:06 AMCoyote:
You will be glad to hear that "Hillary is crying again." She will probably win all of the states now. HE HE.
Sorry Ladies.
That last comment may have been a bit insensative.
The point that I so insensatively made was that Hillary can't cry her way into the Whitehouse.
Sorry
Posted by angryman at February 4, 2008 11:14 AMangryguy, you've been given all the information, but all you do is whine, whine, whine. You don't want to hear an opposing view, you want people to do what you say, and when they don't, you throw a tantrum. I find it hilarious. And I was wondering when you'd start trumpeting the tears, it's been out there for a few hours now. Curious how suddenly you find it all hilarious now that you've found a shiny new toy, isn't it?
By the way, you should have your computer looked at, you seem to be missing the F key.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 4, 2008 11:15 AMI 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. - Sen. Clinton
Is there no greater self-condemnation than this one line by Senator Clinton? First, it shows very bad judgment - it was readily apparent that Bush would go to war with Iraq because he wanted to. It was part of the dominant doctrine of his administration. If hacks like us knew it, surely a Senator should. Secondly, it flies in the face of why the framers set up checks and balances in the constitution. Being intimately familiar with human nature, the framers made it so that you should never have to trust someone with more powers than they are due. The Senate, Senator Clinton included, punted on this responsibility.
A long and thoughtful defense of Senator Clinton's vote can never make it right.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at February 4, 2008 11:32 AMCoyote:
Thank you for you concern over my "F" key, but it works just fine.
I have heard your point of view and I completely respect your opinion; and I will defend your right to have your opinion. The problem is that you are WRONG! And even though you are WRONG I will defend your right to be WRONG.
Just don’t expect me to "roger up" and jump on the “F”ucking bandwagon. Whine: I never whine. I just state my opinion and you can agree or disagree. At this point it is not about Clinton or Obama. It is about an individual making a mistake and expecting me to just “look over it.” It is you my friend; who is whining; because I am not in lock step with you. Nor will I condone the self congratulatory tone as individuals pat themselves on the back as they revise and misstate the facts. Hillary fucked up and want admit it.
See he "F" key works just fine.
Posted by angryman at February 4, 2008 11:48 AMCoyote:
Thank you for you concern over my "F" key, but it works just fine.
I have heard your point of view and I completely respect your opinion; and I will defend your right to have your opinion. The problem is that you are WRONG! And even though you are WRONG I will defend your right to be WRONG.
Just don’t expect me to "roger up" and jump on the “F”ucking bandwagon. Whine: I never whine. I just state my opinion and you can agree or disagree. At this point it is not about Clinton or Obama. It is about an individual making a mistake and expecting me to just “look over it.” It is you my friend; who is whining; because I am not in lock step with you. Nor will I condone the self congratulatory tone as individuals pat themselves on the back as they revise and misstate the facts. Hillary fucked up and want admit it.
See the "F" key works just fine.
Posted by angryman at February 4, 2008 11:48 AMCA Pol Junkie,
Clinton's sentiment was the same sentiment expressed by people like Ted Kennedy defending John Kerry as I mentioned later in the post. You are free to vote against Hillary now and ever, but I'm not going to sit down and watch one version of history being applied to Clinton and another version to the rest of the Senators and their supporters.
If Hans Blix had gone to President Obama who wanted to get robust inspections going in Iraq and asked Obama to help create a resolution with a credible threat of force to make the inspections work, I am willing to bet Obama would have signed on to a resolution that had a credible threat of force. Like Hillary, he would have never invaded Iraq without letting the inspections go through their course, but he would have done the exact same thing. Anyone who pretends otherwise, including Obama himself (which is why he caveated himself for the GE by saying he wasn't sure how he would have voted if he had been in the Senate) is not credible.
Posted by eriposte at February 4, 2008 11:52 AMAh, madboy, the "I know you are, but what am I?" defense. Twice, even. I've never told anyone what to believe, and I've never told anyone who to vote for. I'm just to the point where all I can do is laugh at the silly double standard you Obamabots have applied to Clinton, and the total unawareness you seem to have that you're doing it. It's particularly comical to have a zealot who has no problem with the zombie-like following for Obama accuse me of wanting you to march in lockstep. Priceless!
Posted by iamcoyote at February 4, 2008 12:12 PMeriposte:
Here is a point of clarification. CA Pol Junkie was discussing Hillary and her vote. You ended your arguement discussing what Obama would have done. This is a deversionary tactic. You should defend Hillary which has nothing to do with Obama.
Maybe if Obama had never been born; Hillary would have never voted the way she did; is that what you are saying? So, lets just pretend that Obama had never been born, how would Hillary have voted?
My guess is like she did. If so, why? Any explaination defies logic other than the ones stated above. HINT: If we as democrats see though this farce. The Repubs have this point ON CUE.
someone wrote: This is a good post and not an unreasonable analysis, but ANYONE who took Bush at his word must pay for that colossal error in judgment.
I disagree. Regardless of whether he got there because of a ruling by the SCOTUS or not, the fact is, that the POTUS must be given the authority and support of the American people and their representatives to carry out his duties until such a time as he demonstrates a breach of that trust. At which time, he should removed from office by election or impeachment. We live in the real world, with real consequences to not allowing our President to do his job.
Despite what I would characterize as a clear breach of trust, the American People elected him to a second term. Sure there were probably shenanigans, but shenanigans were possible because the Democrats have a habit of choosing to run people who are incapible of winning elections.
In this cycle, we have the opportunity to select a candidate who can thrive despite the onslaught of negative press, and the "intellectuals" on our side are instead choosing to back yet another loser.
Seriously, people, do you really believe that there was a pool of $100 million available to a Democratic candidate that Bill Clinton would not have sniffed out? He is a man of many faults and weaknesses, but none appear to hamper his ability to fundraise. He, and Hillary in her own right, remain HUGELY popular among Democrats, if that money was available to Democrats it would be in their coffers. That leaves but one source for the bulk of the $100 million that was raised by BHO, and it ain't coming from selling T-shirts and nickle and dime donations, the bulk is coming from the Republicans who have sought to separate the Clintons from their AA base.
Here's a clue for the liberal "elite," Karl Rove is not dead or silent, he knows you and he's playing you like a fiddle.
Thanks for your insight eriposte, on the eve of Sooper "Duper" Tuesday, one can only hope that progessives decide to open their eyes and wake up.
Posted by Whatever at February 4, 2008 12:29 PMCowote;
Speaking of comedy; you are too funny! I about busted a gut when I read your response. You put out crap and expect not to be challenged on it? Again, I could careless how anyone on the blog votes or voted. I am saying Right is right and Wrong is wrong.
I am just saying the vote was a mistake and Hillary should admit it. You chose to disagee and defend her vote with flawed logic and flawed information.
Understanding that a "credible threat of force" is a useful diplomatic tool and understanding that Bush and Cheney were not to be trusted in Fall 2002 were not mutually exclusive. I know this because I understood both of those things back then.
If Hans Blix had gone to President Obama who wanted to get robust inspections going in Iraq and asked Obama to help create a resolution with a credible threat of force to make the inspections work, I am willing to bet Obama would have signed on to a resolution that had a credible threat of force.
But he didn't. He approached the Bush-Cheney administration. Which means that Hillary needed to ask herself, "what is the difference between a hypothetical Obama administration and the Bush-Cheney administration?" And she needed to come to the conclusion, "The Bush-Cheney administration is full of shit." She didn't. Obama did. Concede the point already.
Funny thing. I could have sworn that somebody around here did a bang-up job of documenting the administration's deceptions regarding WMD claims. I guess it was too much to ask a Senator and future Presidential candidate to do the same.
Posted by space at February 4, 2008 12:35 PMmadboy, maybe your anger's got your brain all muddled. I said that eriposte's explanation of the vote matched my understanding of what happened, and that I'm not hung up on this one vote like a lot of you are. I never said that others should feel this way. I never said it was the right thing to do. I never said you were wrong to feel the way you do. Since you showed up a couple weeks ago and set up your lemonade stand here, you've done nothing but tell people their opinions are wrong, the facts have a Clinton bias and that Obama walks on water. You seem to have a problem with people not taking your word as gospel. Sorry about that; I suggest counseling.
Meanwhile, if you care so much about our soldiers dying and maimed, howcum you don't seem concerned that Obama keeps voting to fund the war he supposedly would have voted against? He apparently doesn't have the courage of his convictions, because he didn't say a peep until the war started going real bad and he decided he was going to run for President. But that's just okely dokely for you guys, isn't it, because it's not part of the Messiah's Holy Narrative, is it? You're being played by an admittedly damn good hustler, and you don't even realize it. And I find that hilarious!
Posted by iamcoyote at February 4, 2008 12:55 PMYes, "whatever", BHO's candidacy is a nefarious plot hatched by Karl Rove. He deviously plotted to get Obama elected Senator and a prime speaking slot at the 2004 convention. Though it remains unclear whether Rove got Obama into Harvard Law School.
He has brilliantly convinced Republican donors to not fund the candidacies of McCain, Romney, Giuliani, or Huckabee and, instead, fund the Manchurian Candidacy of Barack Obama...all in order to separate the Clintons from their AA base. (He also used a DARPA-developed mind machine to make Bill Clinton stick his foot in his mouth during the South Carolina primary).
Talented guy that Rove.
Posted by space at February 4, 2008 12:56 PMIt all sounds reasonable to me, space. ;)
Posted by snark at February 4, 2008 01:07 PMIn all seriousness, "whatever", Congress has no obligation to give a President whatever authority he desires to fight whatever military venture he decides upon. This is precisely why the power to declare war is vested solely in Congress; so that there is independent deliberation of the wisdom to take action.
But, for the sake of argument, lets say that Hillary believed as you did, that she was obligated to give Bush power until he unquestionably abused it. What then?
My response would be that she could have voted as she did and made a clear statement of her lack of trust: "I am voting to give the President a credible threat of force, but I expect that force will be used solely as a last resort, upon demonstrated proof that Iraq retains a strategically dangerous WMD capacity. If the President ignores the restrictions placed upon this authorization, I will have no choice but to support the strongest possible sanctions against the President."
There you go. President lied. Impeach by Spring of 2004.
Hillary's position is: I was mislead...but no consequences.
Posted by space at February 4, 2008 01:07 PMAnd don't think I didn't notice your little "Cowote" slur, fuckwad. That's the classy responses we can expect from zombies like you.
Talented guy that Rove.
Heh, you'll remember this if Obama gets the nom, and the name Rezko's on the front page of every newspaper in the world. There's no there there, you say? When did that ever matter before?
Posted by iamcoyote at February 4, 2008 01:09 PM"I am voting to give the President a credible threat of force, but I expect that force will be used solely as a last resort, upon demonstrated proof that Iraq retains a strategically dangerous WMD capacity. If the President ignores the restrictions placed upon this authorization, I will have no choice but to support the strongest possible sanctions against the President."
Well I'm glad you weren't writing speeches for Hillary Clinton in 2002! That would have been great for the Iraqis to hear.
Posted by snark at February 4, 2008 01:11 PMcowote;
Hey don't attack me; attack my messge. I sure as hell am attacking your message. "fuckwad" classy. (LOL)
Posted by angryman at February 4, 2008 01:15 PM"That would have been great for the Iraqis to hear."
Only if they, you know, didn't have any WMDs.
Posted by space at February 4, 2008 01:24 PM"Heh, you'll remember this if Obama gets the nom, and the name Rezko's on the front page of every newspaper in the world."
I get it. So, if the GOP candidate uses the most transparently obvious attacks on Obama that is proof that his candidacy was secretly plotted by Karl Rove? Got it.
But does that mean that if Hillary wins the nomination and we hear a bunch of stories about Norman Hsu, Sant Chatwal or Kazakhstan’s Nursultan Nazarbayev that Hillary was a Rove plant?
Posted by space at February 4, 2008 01:34 PMsnark said: There you go. President lied. Impeach by Spring of 2004.
Hillary's position is: I was mislead...but no consequences.
Since we're being serious 'n all...I'll just point out that the {insert your preferred name for the Great Decider} was re-elected! The case wasn't there for the Congress to make, and then when the Congress was FINALLY in a position to possibly do something about it, the idiot leadership took "Impeachment off the table." WTF!
You bet, I think it stinks to high Heaven. FISA stinks to high Heaven. The most compelling argument for Hillary to me, at this point, is that the six corporations who control the American media don't want her as President. They wanted this war and they don't want Hillary; they are pushing Obama...that says something to me. It says don't vote for Obama.
madboy wrote: He (Rove) deviously plotted to get Obama elected Senator and a prime speaking slot at the 2004 convention.
You seriously believe that Obama was able to raise $100 million on the strength of ONE speech? With no network, no "machine," no national infrastructure whatsoever, he was able to outraise the most successful fundraiser in Democratic history for Democratic money? You seriously believe that?
Posted by Whatever at February 4, 2008 01:39 PMsnark said: There you go. President lied. Impeach by Spring of 2004.
Hillary's position is: I was mislead...but no consequences.
No I didn't.
Posted by snark at February 4, 2008 01:42 PMSorry snark...that was space.
Posted by Whatever at February 4, 2008 01:49 PMSo, if the GOP candidate uses the most transparently obvious attacks on Obama that is proof that his candidacy was secretly plotted by Karl Rove?
Wha?? Who said that? I'm saying that Rove will use the same GOP tactics he's always used to get a 'puke elected. The Clintons have had so many lies thrown at them, people no longer really pay attention to them. Obama's been touted as the Messiah - and he's a virtual unknown. It'll take one big scandal to take him down. If it weren't so vital to get a Dem in the white house it might be fun to watch.
cowote
Heh, surprise, surprise. Another angry guy calling a woman a cow. Take that, "ladies." Civility, Obamabot style!
Posted by iamcoyote at February 4, 2008 01:54 PMCowote:
Why Cowote are you playing the GENDER CARD? What in your comments would clue me that you were a female? You have been cussing like a "Drunken Sailor" and not you play the gender card? Come on now. I mean "fuckwad" that is not too lady like, do you think?
Now that I know you are a woman I will behave somewhat and cut back on the language; but you are not getting a free pass!
Speaking of: I don't know if you think Obama is the Messah, but I sure as hell don't! I just think he is a change from the OPEN SEWER that is following another Clinton Administration.
Why ya wanna tell me you are a woman? Damn it! I was getting ready to blast you out of the water. (LOL)
Posted by angryman at February 4, 2008 02:21 PMNice try, honey, but you already knew, otherwise you wouldn't have said it. But that's okay. We all know what you're made of now.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 4, 2008 02:32 PMCoyote:
I am made of blood, piss and guts! And no, I didnt know you were a woman until you played the Gender card.
Look, this is about Clinton's mistake and nothing more. I have listen to the arguement that you argreed with. I DISAGREE WITH IT. I have nothing against you personally, hell I dont know you. I do however have a problem with your logic as you mindlessly defend Hillary.
Posted by angryman at February 4, 2008 02:39 PMGreat post...and I hadn't ever considered it like that, but to be certain I think I've been consistent and do think it is a relative weakness. Plus I definitely don't care for her recent Iran vote which another commenter pointed out....It's a major concern I have,and does make me question her judgement.
Having said that, I saw a similar thing happen on the Healthcare issue. Over at the Daily barac-KOS yesterday one of the Obama cult members had his knickers in a bunch over commentary Hillary made in regard to healthcare and mandates/enforcement (and of course reworded her statements on it into the worst possible frame)...that back in 2003-2004 the darling and hero of the same blog, a one Dr. Howard Dean, also said that as a part of his plan that everyone needed to be enrolled into the system ( mandated to be a part of the system). It's amazing how quickly the OBamabots flooded the thread with rightwing talkingpoints....and it proved to me (again) just how wrapped up in the group think hysteria people are over there...even to the point of posting many clearly antidemocratic party values commentary in order to bash Hillary and to justify their support of their Dear Leader's MR Obama's position on the matter (he doesn't think we need to mandate it...should be voluntary)...it was like reading a threadful of Bushbot's (like peter's and teabaggers) commentary here in support of Bush no matter what.
And despite some minor agreement with me, I was quickly chastised for being condescending in my commentary that attempted to remind people not to be kneejerk in their reactions, to calm down and think through what they are saying, and reminding them about Mr. Dean's statements on the same issue.
Anyway this phenomenom is truly scary to watch especially since I really thought that the progressive blogosphere was much more intelligent and would never something like the that happen. I naively thought that there were too many skeptics, cynics,critical independent thinkers on the left...but apparently not...sorry to say.
Lastly.. you are brave eriposte and clearly a minority voice in the left blogosphere. I am voting tommorrow yeehaw!!! I am leaning one way as of this evening...but I will definitely decide tomorrow in the booth.
Posted by emal at February 4, 2008 02:41 PMI'm not going to sit down and watch one version of history being applied to Clinton and another version to the rest of the Senators and their supporters. - eriposte
Did you see me defending Kerry's vote? Or Edwards' vote? I'm with Lincoln Chaffee - the Democrats' votes for the war were born of cowardice. At least Kerry and Edwards have admitted they were wrong to give Bush the authority to go to war.
There were alternate means to show a credible threat of force without giving Bush the green light to go to war. If a senator didn't actually want to go to war, they shouldn't have voted for it. Especially with this president. History has demonstrated quite clearly that voting for the AUMF was the wrong thing to do since we have paid an enormous price only to leave us worse off than before.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at February 4, 2008 02:43 PMEmal - go for it!
CA Pol Junkie - well said.
Coyote - see there are others whose language is considerably better than mine who agree with me.
All I want is for Hillary to admit that her vote was wrong. Without parsing her words and blaming BUSH!
Posted by angryman at February 4, 2008 02:54 PMSo, my sex is a card, then, eh? Because (cow)ote's such a funny slip of the keyboard. Whatever. I've learned that sexism is so much a part of our culture, it's become unconscious, and I'm not going to see any change in my lifetime. This election has shown we've actually gone backward. Nothing I can do but point it out when it happens, cos it's funny to watch people like you dance around trying to deny it.
And I'm not mindlessly defending Hillary, I'm just not jumping on the Hate Hillary bandwagon because I find this (and her) explanation of her vote enough for me and have moved on. You keep saying you respect other people's opinions, then you turn around and say they're wrong. I find that quite illiberal and say so. Woohoo! Detente!
Posted by iamcoyote at February 4, 2008 02:54 PMCoyote;
Be rational for a minute. My slant of "cow" was in respone to your "mad boy" comment. I was raised by a single parent; guess which one. I am extremely respectful of women and I don't give two craps if you believe me.
Some people here STILL don't get it. iamcoyote goes so far as to label it the "Hate Hillary Bandwagon" (tip to Hillary-philes: It has been obnoxious as all hell for the past 8 years listening to Bush supporters pooh-pooh the criticism of Dear Leader as "Bush Hating." Do yourselves a favor and don't sound like wingnuts.)
So, just to be clear, I'll do a point by point response to the original post.
1. Sen. Clinton's speech in Oct 2002
She makes a couple of statements that demand specific condemnation:
a. "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."
Thank you, Senator, for conceding the "appeal" of Bush's illegal, "cowboy" foreign policy. I understand that you preferred a "different option" but, since you couldn't rule it out, I suppose you and Bush just had an honest disagreement.
b. "...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.
If Hillary did take Bush at his word, she was a rank fool. If she didn't, she should not have said she did.
c. "Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely..."
This is just completely untrue. Both the "success" in the UN and the "bipartisan" AUMF gave Bush a greater degree of perceived legitimacy.
You can argue that a non-bipartisan AUMF would have stripped away part of the "credible use of force", but to say that it would have made war less likely is simply a lie.
2. Chronology and History from Hans Blix: Summer 2002 - November 2002
Hans Blix, like Hillary, was suckered into trusting that Bush and Cheney were good faith actors.
3. Claims by Other Leading Democrats (such as Sen. Kennedy and Sen. Kerry) regarding AUMF
Other Democrats, like Hillary, were either suckered into believing that Bush and Cheney were good faith actors...or they were simply too cowardly to take a stand.
4. What Some Progressive Bloggers Have Said
"Some" bloggers made the correct observation that Kerry wasn't "waffling" when he subsequently criticized Bush. This was true. Kerry's position, like Hillary's, was internally consistent. This didn't make it right. It wasn't.
5. The Levin Amendment
Personally, I don't think the Levin amendment is that relevant, unless you wanted to use it to call Bush's bluff.
The point is that Hillary (apparently) never understood that Bush and Cheney had an agenda and did not give a fuck what she or any other Senator thought.
6. Conclusions
Yes, Hillary's position was "nuanced". It was also wrong. She lacked the ability to correctly identify the true intentions of the other actors involved and she failed to see her desired policy implemented.
Posted by space at February 4, 2008 04:05 PMSpace:
Blow by blow, excellent job!
Posted by angryman at February 4, 2008 04:15 PMThis is so much unproductive bullshit.
Eriposte, thank you, again, for trying to get some perspective into the discussion. I appreciate your efforts, and still have not decided fully.
Angryman, come on now, I can tell you voted for shrub in 2004, admit it, you also made mistakes...
And just like in 2002, it seems some of us should just take a deep breath and wonder why the media, whom we know is corporate power speaking, just wonder why they so badly do not want Hillary???
Posted by kcbill13 at February 4, 2008 05:15 PMkcbill:
It is not about the past, it is about the future. I don't care about newspapers or the media or which corporate powers supposedly controlling them. I don’t care about the vast right wing or left wing conspiracies. Nor do I care what CNN, FOX of MSNBC says. It is about one thing. Hillary made a mistake and refuses to admit it. That’s it.
You should have caught me earlier if you really wanted to debate. Come earlier next time maybe we can exchange a few intellectual barbs. In the meantime, I am a DEM and want a DEM in the Whitehouse even if it is Hillary and Bill.
Methinks someone is on someone's timeclock to promote Obama for some reason unknown to us.
Posted by TIKI AL at February 4, 2008 05:41 PMIt is not about the past, it is about the future.
But you just said:
It is about one thing. Hillary made a mistake and refuses to admit it. That’s it.
Aren't you guilty of dwelling on the past there?
She already said it was a mistake to trust Bush, but that's not good enough. You want her to beg for forgiveness for the explicit purpose of rejecting it. In essence, you're demanding she set herself up for public humiliation which is what these demands for public apology are designed to do, though it's usually a Republican maneuver. Why would she or anyone else oblige?
TIKI, I don't think Axelrod's getting his money's worth. This one contradicts himself in thread after thread.
Space,
My response to your latest comments.
1. Yes, she did trust Bush's word. Guess what, it's easy for people sitting around in their sofas at home to claim that no one should have trusted Bush at the time. Most Democrats, within a year of 9/11, felt that it was not unreasonable to trust the President of the US on a serious national security issue. Ted Kennedy himself said "Let me say it plainly, I not only concede, but I am convinced that President Bush believes genuinely in the course he urges upon us". Now, some people felt he should be trusted and supported through the wrong vote, some like Kennedy trusted him and felt the vote was not deserving.
2. Your comment was:
This is just completely untrue. Both the "success" in the UN and the "bipartisan" AUMF gave Bush a greater degree of perceived legitimacy.I guess we disagree on this. Hans Blix himself makes it clear in his book that a credible and unified threat of force resolution would have been necessary to get inspectors in and that this would significantly increase the likelihood that war could be averted by eliminating any WMD that Saddam might have without triggering an invasion. When Bush ultimately invaded, he had zero legitimacy because he prevented the UN from completing its job. Just because you deem it a lie doesn't make it so.
You can argue that a non-bipartisan AUMF would have stripped away part of the "credible use of force", but to say that it would have made war less likely is simply a lie.
3. You said:
Hans Blix, like Hillary, was suckered into trusting that Bush and Cheney were good faith actors.Actually he wasn't as suckered as you think he was. He was aware right from the beginning that the Bushies likely wanted to go to war. His strategy was to change the circumstances, with the UN and with the inspectors, to make it much more difficult for Bush to invade Iraq. He was successful in delaying the start and making it clear to the world that Bush invaded without giving inspectors enough time.
4. You said:
"Some" bloggers made the correct observation that Kerry wasn't "waffling" when he subsequently criticized Bush. This was true. Kerry's position, like Hillary's, was internally consistent. This didn't make it right. It wasn't.If more progressive blogs made it clear that what Clinton is saying is nothing different from what Kerry said, I'd be happy with that. We can of course agree to disagree on what part was right and what wasn't. The justification of real inspections made a resolution of force a requirement. However, this does not mean that the AUMF had to be approved using the wording it had. I assign partial blame to Clinton, Kerry et al.
5. You said:
Personally, I don't think the Levin amendment is that relevant, unless you wanted to use it to call Bush's bluff.The Levin amendment is in my post only because she was criticized for her vote on it. I could care less about whether you or anyone else think it is relevant.
The point is that Hillary (apparently) never understood that Bush and Cheney had an agenda and did not give a fuck what she or any other Senator thought.
6. You said:
Yes, Hillary's position was "nuanced". It was also wrong. She lacked the ability to correctly identify the true intentions of the other actors involved and she failed to see her desired policy implemented.You are certainly entitled to this view. My view is that none of the Democrats are infallible. I am pretty convinced based on Sen. Obama's voting history and his statements about what he would or would not have done that he would have voted exactly like Clinton if he had been in the Senate in Oct 2002. Posted by eriposte at February 4, 2008 06:05 PM
CA Pol Junkie,
You said:
Did you see me defending Kerry's vote? Or Edwards' vote? I'm with Lincoln Chaffee - the Democrats' votes for the war were born of cowardice. At least Kerry and Edwards have admitted they were wrong to give Bush the authority to go to war.It is easy for us sitting here to wish for the magical Bill that would just be right and have someone vote for it. In reality, there is hardly any Bill that is just the "right" Bill. Sen. Obama had the luxury of voting "present" or skipping votes (like Kyl-Lieberman) and pretend later that he was against a Bill. Someone in Congress doesn't get a menu or choice of provisions to vote for and provisions to not vote for. Secondly, Sen. Clinton has repeatedly stated she regrets trusting Bush and voting for the resolution. Third, Kerry's position when he was running for President was essentially the same as Clinton's. Posted by eriposte at February 4, 2008 06:11 PM
There were alternate means to show a credible threat of force without giving Bush the green light to go to war. If a senator didn't actually want to go to war, they shouldn't have voted for it. Especially with this president. History has demonstrated quite clearly that voting for the AUMF was the wrong thing to do since we have paid an enormous price only to leave us worse off than before.
Space,
You said:
Funny thing. I could have sworn that somebody around here did a bang-up job of documenting the administration's deceptions regarding WMD claims. I guess it was too much to ask a Senator and future Presidential candidate to do the same.
It's not too much to expect but if you don't understand history you shouldn't make conclusions that don't reflect history. At the time of the vote, there was general consensus both within the US IC and outside that Saddam was pursuing a WMD program, that he likely had some CW and BW. What the US IC had strong dissents on internally was on Saddam's nuclear program. If you read the uncensored Key Judgements of the NIE that was made available to Congress in early Oct 2002, it says clearly that:
Confidence Levels for Selected Key Judgments in This EstimateThe issue was whether any of these so-called "high-confidence" findings were enough justification for voting in favor of the AUMF. I did not think so. However, many Democrats did. There was partial justification for it but not full justification as I have said in previous comments.
High Confidence:
• Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.
• We are not detecting portions of these weapons programs.
• Iraq possesses proscribed chemical and biological weapons and missiles.
• Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once if acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material.
Coyote:
Thank you for apologizing for Hillary, because she sure as hell hasn’t. Maybe we should send you to the Whitehouse.
Oh...now that (nanny nanny boo boo) defense. Then the personal insult defense by calling me a Republican (that’ll work). And the all important Obama would have done it defense (that works for the unintelligent). Let’s explain why Hillary didn’t make a mistake because Obama would have made a mistake if he was in that situation defense (That the one). Go with the last one; NOT!
Look guys we have been debating all day and this is the best you can do? Hows about coming with something new next time. You guys make the same argument over and over by switching the words around in the same sentence over and over again. It’s like talking to a voice activated monkey who only repeats certain words and phrases. Give it up and call it a day guy you lost this one.
Hillary fucked up and won’t admit it. In the future when she fucks up, we will hear more of the same shit. Coyote see how that works; I brought the past to the present and future.
That would be somewhat compelling if the head policy wonk at the DLC hadn't signed the PNAC memo in 1998 recommending that President Clinton invade Iraq without provocation.
Actually, even if it wasn't for that, it still wouldn't be compelling. The President of the United States shouldn't have the authority to start open-ended offensive wars of aggression without a formal declaration of war from the Congress. That's an authentic Progressive viewpoint, unlike the fake progressive viewpoint that the Democrats who voted for the Iraq War resolution should be excused....that includes John Edwards, by the way.
Posted by Tampa Student at February 4, 2008 06:49 PMReally, madman, you shouldn't post while drunk. Makes you look even more foolish than you already do.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 4, 2008 07:03 PMeriposte:
I respect your posts a lot, but I'll be honest. I resent someone accusing me of not understanding history when -- to paraphrase paraphrase Judy Miller -- I was proven fucking right. And so was Obama. I agree with a lot of the criticisms of Obama that you have made. But on the Iraq issue...I am sorry, but Obama was not only right, he was right for the right reasons:
"I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
[...]
Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.
He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.
So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings."
That was dead-on accurate. The wrong war at the wrong time.
Posted by space at February 4, 2008 07:23 PMShe voted for the war! She voted for the war!
A one trick phoney.
Posted by TIKI AL at February 4, 2008 07:24 PMCowote;
I don’t want you squalling when I blast you. Foolish is what I call an individual who blindly and mindlessly follow campaign septum in the form talking points without an original idea in their head (like you). You have to be spoon-fed with COWshit that on the face of it doesn’t even make sense to you (hence the name cowote). So go spin you wares someplace where there are more inbred morons will grunt and howl when you toss them biscuits of bullshit. While you and they sit under the mushroomed tent of the Clinton Spin Machine and are fed the daily diet of manure to keep your mind functioning at the level of a retarded two year old.
Drunk is when you stumble into the blog sphere full of the daily swill of Clinton-mania backwash and spew it out for you minions to lap up. Only to be vanquished and called out by yours truly for being the “water caring lackey” that you are. Need I say more?
Cowote call it a day! You are as wrong as “TWO LEFT SHOES”
Heehee. That was "blasting?" *smirk*
Posted by iamcoyote at February 4, 2008 08:00 PMTrying to take it easy since you played the GENDER CARD. If you want I can do the "Drunken Sailor" thing if it makes you feel better.
Posted by angryman at February 4, 2008 08:03 PMConcern trolls.
[shrugs]
Posted by snark at February 4, 2008 08:06 PMHe didn't even rise to the level of amusing, and for that, I'll not forgive him...
Posted by iamcoyote at February 4, 2008 08:12 PMDamn Cow:
You are no fun! THIS IS LIKE BEING IN AN ASS KICKING CONTEST WITH A MAN WITH NO LEGS.
Hillary Clinton's claim that she voted to authorize attacking Iraq in order to get Saddam to allow the inspectors in is pure crap. She seems to think that no one will remember that at the time of the vote Saddam had for weeks been all but begging for inspectors to come into Iraq.
Well, maybe most people have conveniently forgotten, but not all of us have.
Posted by Shirin at February 4, 2008 08:31 PMSpace,
Please accept my apologies if I said it the wrong way. I was merely addressing the issue factually. Anyone who claimed in Oct 2002 that they knew Saddam had no WMDs was either (a) lying or (b) was a lucky guesser. Not even the UN and the IAEA was claiming in Oct 2002 that Saddam had no WMDs. The consensus at the time of the AUMF was that (a) Saddam had some WMDs, (b) Had initiated some banned programs and (c) It was hard to say what else he was doing exactly. This is setting aside any debate on nuclear weapons or Al Qaeda and what not.
Obama had the right judgment and made the right speech and I've always given him credit for it. But he was not in the U.S. Senate at the time and had the comfort, like I did, of being an armchair critic of Congress. I was also against the war and I have researched the fabricated intelligence more than most other bloggers because of how angry I was with what had been done to this country by the Bush administration. But I simply don't agree with your position on Obama v. Clinton because it is easy to give speeches and oppose select provisions in Bills you never have to vote on, as Obama demonstrated time and again, most recently by his cowardly avoidance of voting on the Kyl-Lieberman bill. To me that is in no way reflective of better judgment or leadership than taking a nuanced stand that I disagreed with on the net.
I am confident that if Obama had been in the Senate he would have voted like Sen. Clinton on AUMF. He voted exactly like her on Iraq once he was in the Senate despite the utterly laughable "anti-war" label he has been mythically assigned by his supporters. Other than giving a great speech, he has done nothing whatsoever to convince me he is somehow better than Sen. Clinton when it comes to judgment. If anything, his stumbles in the campaign and his positions on issues like healthcare only make me convinced his judgment is not as good as Sen. Clinton's *on the whole*.
Posted by eriposte at February 4, 2008 08:31 PMIamcoyote,
Let's please stop feeding the troll "angryman".
Posted by eriposte at February 4, 2008 08:33 PMCG wrote:
",i>If I recall correctly (and maybe I don't) it kinda worked. Saddam started cooperating."
You recall completely incorrectly. It was completely unnecessary because, as I said above, for weeks before that vote Saddam had been all but begging for someone - anyone! - to please come to Iraq and look for weapons, and Bush was shouting to the rooftops that Saddam was bluffing (no one seems to wonder why Bush didn't just call his bluff). Do you seriously believe that Hillary was so out of it that she was not aware of this?
Shirin,
It would be beneficial if you actually read my post before continuing to spread fiction. Yes, Iraq had agreed to let inspectors back in by Sep 2002, as I describe in this post - as Hans Blix describes in his book - but he made it clear he did not trust them to keep their word because they had played these kinds of games before. That is the reason he continued to pursue a resolution with a credible threat of force in order to ensure that Iraq would not later play a game and stop co-operating.
Posted by eriposte at February 4, 2008 08:47 PMeriposte:
"I am confident that if Obama had been in the Senate he would have voted like Sen. Clinton on AUMF."
This is the same argument you have been making all day. Why? You say this like it is a magic bullet or pill that makes Hillary's mistake go away. No matter how you spin this argument the end results are the same. You can’t defend Hillary by saying that HYPOTHETICALLY Obama would have done the same. Think for a second! Does that make sense even to you?
And you mother is a troll.
Posted by angryman at February 4, 2008 08:51 PMeriposte:
Anyone who care about this issue will call you on it everytime. You have restated this non-sense over and over many ways. It still doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.
You can’t defend Hillary by saying that HYPOTHETICALLY Obama would have done the same.
He's not. Did you read the post?
The critique of Obama is not a means of defending CLinton. The critique of Obama is that short of giving a speech he hasn't done anything to distinguish his war oppostion from that of Hillary Clinton. Eriposte's post does not use Obama to defend Clinton. Go back and read it again.
Posted by snark at February 4, 2008 08:58 PMIf pigs had wings they would HyPOTHETICALLY fly!
You can not defend Hillary's mistake by substituting Obama and assume that he would have; had he been there; made the same mistake.
Posted by angryman at February 4, 2008 09:02 PMWhy are you repeating yourself?
The post does not use the hypothetical to defend Clinton. One of the arguments made by Obama suppoerters is that Obama was right on the war. Which is true. And that he is more likely to end it once in office. For this there is no evidence. He hasn't done anything differently from Clinton since coming to the Senate to try and stop it.
For a guy who claims to be concerned with the future, not the past, you sure seem to spend a lot of time inspecting your own posterior.
Posted by snark at February 4, 2008 09:10 PMThe original Value Propositions Proposed was that Hillary should be absolved of her vote for going to war.
I read it twice. Maybe you should read it. I understand the praise for Obama for being on the right side of the war and BLA BLA BLA. The point was the Obama's record is the same as Hillary's on the war since he arrived in the Senate. And if he had been there....he would have voted like Hillary.
And that he is wrongly called the anti-war candidate. What have I missed?
Nothing.
Posted by angryman at February 4, 2008 09:13 PMeriposte, as you wish.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 4, 2008 09:17 PMI am sure they don’t call you snark for nothing. Your heads is in your posterior!
Why are you trying to obscure blatantly obvious inferences? Anyone who reads the post understands that it is an effort to diminish Obama’s stature and bring him down to the level of Hillary so you can say “Other than giving a great speech, he has done nothing whatsoever to convince me he is somehow better than Sen. Clinton when it comes to judgment.”
Maybe the brainless minions that parade through here lapping you up misinformation will by your BS but I don’t.
The original Value Propositions Proposed was that Hillary should be absolved of her vote for going to war.
With the case being made having nothing to do with Obama.
I understand the praise for Obama for being on the right side of the war and BLA BLA BLA. The point was the Obama's record is the same as Hillary's on the war since he arrived in the Senate.
Correct.
And if he had been there....he would have voted like Hillary.
He may have. He admitted that he did not know how he would have voted.
And that he is wrongly called the anti-war candidate.
Correct. Because he has done nothing since being a Senator to distinguish himself from Clinton regarding the war.
Anyone who reads the post understands that it is an effort to diminish Obama’s stature and bring him down to the level of Hillary so you can say “Other than giving a great speech, he has done nothing whatsoever to convince me he is somehow better than Sen. Clinton when it comes to judgment.”
It would seem he did have better judgement on Iraq at that point. The only interest I have in this whole issue is what is going to happen when either of them get elected. I'm gonna vote for either one. Many seem to have convinced themselves that Obama is gonna end the war in some faster more satisfactory way than Obama.
For that I see no evidence.
Posted by snark at February 4, 2008 09:35 PM...Obama is gonna end the war in some faster more satisfactory way than Obama.
Make that;
...Obama is gonna end the war in some faster more satisfactory way than Clinton.
Posted by snark at February 4, 2008 09:38 PMSnark:
Here is the point before you are commanded not to feed me (the troll). I don't know who will end the war faster...frankly, I dont care, I just wanted it ended. Here is the point that you seem to be avoiding.
1. Hillary was actually in the Senate
2. Hillary actually voted to send our troops to war
3. She has never said that it was a mistake; which to me goes directly to her credibility and judgment and she is spineless.
4. Obama was against the war in the beginning and granted has voted along the lines of Clinton. To me that shows that he is spineless.
Now on this issue I personally have to give it to Obama because they are both spineless for not standing up to Bush and stopping the war. But I do understand the politics of it and sure as hell don’t like it. This is why I originally supported Edwards.
Given the choice of the remaining two candidates I have to go with Obama. I don't doubt his credibility or judgment because I have not placed him in a Hypothetical situation like eriposte did. Quite frankly, I think that is the wrong approach.
Eriposte, no matter how you try to spin it, there is simply no credibility to Hillary's claim that her vote was about getting inspectors back into Iraq. By the time she made that vote Saddam had been pleading for weeks for someone to come in an inspect. If he was "playing games" all that was required was to call his bluff and send inspectors in. There was no need to authorize Bush to make a military attack.
As for your claim that Saddam was playing games, let's talk about games in regard to the Iraq weapons inspections, and you will find that Saddam was not the greatest game player. As a matter of fact that prize should go to Bill Clinton.
Posted by Shirin at February 5, 2008 12:33 AMJust as the Republican slime machine has tried to shift blame for the 9/11 attacks onto Bill Clinton (even though the attacks occurred eight long, long month into the first Bush administration and followed the obvious neglect by the first Bush administration to take seriously the al Qaeda right-wing terrorist threat), the Republican slime machine is trying to shift blame for the Iraq War onto anyone but Bush.
Bush started his destructive, preemptive war against Iraq in 2003 without official, constitutional congressional authorization or a U.N. mandate. After Bush ordered U.N. WMD inspectors out of Iraq, giving them 48 hours notice to depart, Bush ordered an illegal airstrike meant to kill Saddam Hussein, the soveriegn head of a foreign nation, thus signaling the beginning of the BushII/Cheney/PNAC Iraqi War. (This attack in March 2003 was directly related to Iraqi weather, since the Iraqi winter was ending and the hot, brutal Iraqi summer was about to begin). And then, for months following Bush's criminal, unsanctioned, unprovoked assault on Iraq, Bush kept claiming that he had to attack Iraq because Saddam Hussein wouldn't let the U.N. WMD inspectors back into Iraq. Maybe he even believed this at the time, contrary to all the evidence. More than likely he was just flat-out lying, giving fodder for the culture of corruption right-wing noise machine. (If the U.N. WMD inspectors weren't on the ground in Iraq, then who the hell did Bush order out of Iraq before starting his ill-fated, insane war??? Oh, right, the very U.N. WMD inspectors that Bush claimed Saddam Hussein wouldn't allow into Iraq).
Anyway, I'm not fooled, especially by neo-con, nutty Republicans trying to shift blame for the Iraq War onto the shoulders of Democrats and Independents. I'm not buying it. George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, the PNAC nuts and Republicans in general are the sole owners of this disaster, a disastrous war in Iraq that has diverted our attention away from dealing with the real threat to our nation, al Qaeda and all right-wing religious fundamentalist wackos. In other words, by their insane actions, it is obvious that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney (and all the PNAC wackos) are a clear and present national security threat, too.
Impeach them all before it is too late.
Posted by The Oracle at February 5, 2008 12:44 AMfrankly, I dont care
Which is what you so frevently accused others here of yesterday. Not caring.
Here is the point that you seem to be avoiding.
1. Hillary was actually in the Senate
Not quite sure how I've been avoiding that?
2. Hillary actually voted to send our troops to war
This is false. George Bush ordered out troops to war. Hillary Clinton voted to give him the authority to make that decision. If she had voted for the AUMF and Bush had chosen NOT to invade Iraq would you be arguing that Clinton voted to not send our troops to war? The fact that you insist on contorting what she actually voted to do makes me doubt your intellectual honest.
3. She has never said that it was a mistake;
She has said it was one of the hardest decisions she's ever had to make. She's said she regrets trusting Bush. To me that is sufficient.
which to me goes directly to her credibility and judgment and she is spineless.
To me, the opposite.
This is why I originally supported Edwards.
So you trust his judgement even though he voted the same way as Clinton? Just because he said it was a mistake that absolves (your word) his responsibility?
Given the choice of the remaining two candidates I have to go with Obama. I don't doubt his credibility or judgment because I have not placed him in a Hypothetical situation like eriposte did.
Yet he's done nothing, since actually obtaining a position from which to do so, to attempt to end the war? But he's got credibility?
I'm not going to try and persuade anyone who hates HRC for her Iraq vote that it was right, honorable or the best policy. Everyone has made up their mind on this issue.
What I will say is that I believe the Democrats voted for the resolution with their past in mind. I really believe that the vote was a political decision and while I disagreed with the authorization, I also understand that if the Democrats (all of them who voted yes) had not the Democratic Party would have suffered tremendously. The Democrats would have been sliced and diced in the world of 24/7 media saturation.
Each and every person who voted for that resolution could have been playing the tape in their hearts and minds of every presidential election from 1968 forward. Democrats are weak on national security, Democrats are the party that doesn't support our troops, Democrats allow us to be hit with a terrorist attack and don't fight back.
It could go on and on and would have gone on and on. The vote against the resolution, in my mind, could have had the potential to set the Democratic Party back as much as the signing of the Civil Rights Act by Johnson. Remember that was one Democratic president who did the right thing and the Democrats have paid dearly for it. Anyone who lived through the 1972 campaign and supported George McGovern as I did would realize that the hate mongers today are much more prolific than way back then. Democrats and the party, would have paid dearly.
And Hillary Clinton did not start or support the war on her own. She had lots of help from lots of other Democrats. Yes I admire Feingold and Byrd. Yes their vote was courageous. But I am not going to throw the baby out with dishwater. There are complexities to this issue which I believe eriposte was trying to point out which is lost on most people for a variety of reason. Those reasons are too many to list here but for starters just go to MSNBC, CNN and Fox. No complexities there.
And if the vote against the war is the burning issue for as many people as I see here and other sites, why didn't Kucinich pick up more steam? Why didn't he raise more money? Why didn't he come to my city or state to tell me why I should vote for him?
Amazingly, although I don't support Obama and I believe that his supporters have relied too heavily on his speech against the war, I think he realizes that there are complexities involved. I also think that his speech and his subsequent actions, interviews, and website where that speech was scrubbed, points to the fact that he is alsoa politician with aspirations not any different from anyone else who is running for office. I differ with him on other issues not related to the war.
So while everyone can disagree and we should because it is the sign of a healthy Democracy, let's try to be civil to one another. And if you are a super Tuesday state, go vote. I will cast mine for Hillary Clinton and do it proudly.
Posted by Grandmother at February 5, 2008 06:23 AMHi e:
I do think the 10/02 vote was a horrible vote, but I think you misunderstood what I was saying in the post of mine that you've quoted. In that post, I was criticizing the RNC for making a silly claim about Kerry; I was thereby defending Kerry. Working from their tedious scripts, the RNC had said that Kerry's statements about Bush's misuse of the AUMF had been "nuanced." But what Kerry had said wasn't nuanced at all; he had said 1) that Bush had been given authority to go to war, and 2) that Bush had then misused that authority. I agree with that statement by Kerry (and later, by Clinton); Bush did misuse the authority he was given. But the point I was making was simpler than that: Kerry's statement wasn't the "nuanced" mess being burlesqued by the RNC.
Posted by bob somerby at February 5, 2008 10:34 AMeriposte, thanks for a thorough post. You're correct the Hillary Clinton's vote for the AUMF had more nuance than some of her critics will allow. The same was true of Kerry and others. However, I'd still say her judgment was very poor. How could she not be aware that the Bush administration wanted to go to war, they had offered disingenuous arguments for war, and they couldn't be trusted? Roughly speaking, she was either a dupe or very calculating. That's not to say it's not silly that some former war supporters seem to be criticizing Clinton for having essentially the same position they once held (Richard Cohen doing so is laughable). Her vote on Iran also had nuance, but struck me as similarly naive or calculating. After all, we conduct foreign policy and war with the president we have, not the one we wish to have in the future, as Rummy might say.
PrahaPartizan at February 4, 2008 09:42 AM — we can quibble about "proof," but when the president and his people lie and mispresent matters, especially on something as serious as war, it's a tip not to trust them and dial up the skepticism. (For just one example, Bush claimed Hussein was a threat because he gassed his own people — Bush left out that that was back in the late 80s, during the Iran-Iraq war, back when he was our ally, before the first Gulf War, before his meeting with Rumsfeld. There's also the matter of all those ignored footnotes. I could go on, but there's also the importance of having a general nose for BS.)
riverdaughter at February 4, 2008 09:51 AM — I could probably accept an admission like that. I do think Hillary Clinton's been harped on a bit too much about not "admitting error," since she's sorta said the same thing. My biggest concern is I'm not sure how much she's learned, and she presents being hawkish as being "serious" on national security. I'm still not sure how much of that is sincere and how much is politics. Either way, her stated positions concern me. (And when she's adopted some really atrocious Bush/Giuliani rhetoric about terrorism, I don't think that's an accident.)
Whatever at February 4, 2008 12:29 PM — space at February 4, 2008 01:07 PM covered the main point I'd make.
iamcoyote — Fine, you thought Bush was going to war with or without the AUMF. Wouldn't it have been much harder for him to do it without? Didn't that give him greater cover? Didn't Colin Powell's presentation do the same thing? I take what I think is your larger point, that Clinton's vote ultimately was irrelevant. Certainly her nuance was. But while it's hard to tell for sure, war might have been derailed had a number of players acted differently.
eriposte at February 4, 2008 06:05 PM — a classy response to space's good points, but I disagree on two points. One, you're right about Kerry and Clinton's positions in 2002, but I'd say most of the criticism about Clinton now is how she's been talking about that vote now, which is somewhat different from how Kerry talked about his vote in 2004. I'm not sure it's all that important, though. Two, based on Obama and Clinton's responses to Iran, and their divergent rhetoric on it (I can dig it up tomorrow if you'd like), no, I don't necessarily buy that Obama would have voted the same way as Clinton in 2002, and anyway, it's irrelevant to my view of her.
eriposte, thanks again for your research. (I am interested if you'd seen any accounts of what Cheney told Blix, since I've heard some tales, but haven't had them confirmed. I'll check out his book, I guess.) This has already been a long comment, but I'll just say once again... Yes, some of the attacks on Hillary Clinton have been unfair. However, I still have grave concerns about several of her positions and her overall judgment.
As a NY'er here's how I saw her vote...Keep in mind she voted against all the amendments limiting Presidential power and discretion in using force, not just Levin. Keep in mind Bob Graham voted against the actual bill- the majority head of the intelligence committee.
She voted for it because she wanted to be President. She remembered how opponents of the first Gulf war were slaughtered in the 92 primaries and she didn't want to suffer the same fate. That's it, plain and simple. Everything else is just talk. There is no nuance in a war resolution, you either for it or against it.
I could go on about how disappointing she was to many of us during that ugly time. How she and her husband could have had influence to try and slow the maddening march to war. She had no local reason to vote for the war, her constituents were against it in 10/02. However, she chose not to help stop the stupidity. From that day forward I swore that she (and Shumer) would never get my vote again. Very hard for a life long D to say but actions have consequences. BTW, I wasn't anti-Hillary when I first voted for her to represent me in the Senate. She has been a phenomenal disappointment. She has managed to play many of us for dupes, throwing out the excuses and nuances and trying to have her cake and eat it to. Enough, and now I'm off to max. out on my OB donation.
"I'm not against all wars, only dumb ones" Barak Obama 10/02/02
Just to amend, I will support the parties nominee even if it is Hillary.
Posted by JM at February 8, 2008 12:24 PM