And so far, they have. No one, not even Bibi, is talking about invading Iran a al Operation Iraqi Freedom.
I think she voted for the war because it was the "politically right thing to do. I have little doubt that many others – John Kerry to name just one – voted that way for the same reasons.
But her attempts to explain the vote have been really, really bad. It would almost have been preferable for admit that she exercised terrible judgment, rather than try to explain that “the problem wasn’t the vote, it was the President,” or whatever.
I agree, and while it certainly knocks her down a notch in my opinion, I still think she’d be a pretty good president, and probably wouldn’t withhold my vote for based solely on the Iraq war mess and her remarks afterwards. Besides, it’s unlikely that her Republican challenger will have handled the situation any better (unless, maybe, it’s Hagel 
)
For that matter they didn’t even bother to secure known conventional weapons sites – many of which were looted and then used against the US forces (IEDs):
GAO Faults U.S. Military Over Munitions in Iraq
The whole ‘adventure’ went FUBAR from the start.
That was news to me. Unless I can find a good procedural reason for her “no” vote, I think you just changed my mind about Hillary.
Read the link I posted in post #78. All that stuff is in there, and more.
One other data point: she voted for a Byrd amendment that would have limited the use of force authorization to one year, so that if we didn’t get into a war, or if a war dragged out for a year, then Congress would have to vote to reauthorize war. That amendment also failed, but go the most votes of any anti-war amendment: 31 in total. Biden also voted for that one.
As the article John Mace linked to pointed out, the Byrd amendment did not require yearly reauthorization. It merely required yearly certifications from Bush that continuing use of military force was necessary. However, it did allow Congress to pass a joint resolution to deny Bush’s request for continuance. I was under the impression that Congress has always had the power to end, or at least defund, a war at any time, but I guess that’s a subject for another thread.
They do, but it would never happen while troops are on the ground getting shot at.
Aack. Late to my own party.
I’ll start with a +1 to Tony Sinclair here
Agreed, in that the tone of the piece was quite restrained, all things considered. I know that I was expecting, going in, either information that had not been widely publicized between the beginning of the war and the present, or, more of a total condemnation of the fraudulent and murderous nature of the war and the regime initiating it. There was a bit too much detachment for my liking.
They did not vote for war. There is much more to the language then “as (Bush) determines to be necessary”. And that is because the JAUF(Oct2002) is the same as any legal contract. The President being the top law officer of the land has certain obligations to act with propriety, honor and integrety to the facts specifically with regard to DECIDING if an offensive war is NECESSARY.
If there is anyone who says that invading Iraq when Bush did, by kicking UN inspectors out after just a few months of doing their work, was NECESSARY, would have to be absolutely insane.
I wrote this yesterday on the topic.
Notfooooldbyw 19 February 2013 07:05 AM {on thread 20130217p0454 on thread MSNBC -A hoax. That’s what it was}
That Bush/Cheney scammed the nation into war is without a doubt the truth. But the more important story behind the US invasion of Iraq started in May of 2003 when SH’s generals did not use chemical or biological weapons to defend against the invading US and UK armies.
The problem is, it just doesn’t matter that Bush scammed the nation into war, because in my opinion the left and its media continue to perpetuate the most prominent myth to come out of Bush’s unnecessary attack and invasion and occupation of Iraq.
The myth, and there are several competing myths on Iraq, is the one that protects Bush and Cheney from receiving the greater contempt from the public than that has been weathered and that they seriously deserve.
The myth is this.
“Bush can never be held ‘fully responsible’ for his decision to invade and attack Iraq because Democrats in Congress gave HIM the Authorization to DO EXACTLY THAT. Bush should not be blamed for starting a misguided war simply because weak-kneed politically chicken Democrats agreed with him and wanted to do it.”
The myth-buster is that the Joint Authorization to use military force was not exactly worded to be a VOTE FOR WAR. It was a vote that may have created conditions that forced Saddam Hussein to LET THE INSPECTORS BACK IN. It certainly forced SH to offer to let the CIA, FBI and US Military come in peacefully to verify he had no WMD.
Prior to this vote, GW BUSH under Cheney’s determined pressure, was headed for war without GIVING INSPECTORS and SADDAM HUSSEIN one “LAST CHANCE”.
Bush is a war criminal not for "scamming the nation into war” and not because some Democrats gave him a vote to make a determination to launch a war. "
Bush is a war criminal. Initially because he lied to Congress that he intended to ‘keep the peace’ by using the “THREAT Of FORCE” to get inspections resumed.
That was Bush’s’ first war criminal act.
Then he rejected the offer to let the CIA go into Iraq first hand.
Then on the night of the announcement of the invasion, telling UN inspectors to get out of his way, Bush told another Big WAR CRIMINAL LIE. He said he ‘had’ intelligence from US and other nations that LEFT NO DOUBT that Iraq, at that moment in time on the verge of making war, was CONCEALING WMD From UN inspectors.
For taxpayers who will spend $3 trillion on the “no doubt intelligence” that was wrong… and the 4486 US dead soldiers and the scores of dead Iraqis and others.
WE DESERVE TO KNOW what that “FINAL DAYS OF DECISION” so-called doubtless intelligence was. We deserve to find out who gave it to Bush or if there really was none.
Don’t we?
Have you read her speech on the floor of the Senate when she ''explained" here vote?
It is easy to dump on HRC and Kerry and a few other Senator’s for their votes in October of 2002, because no one wants to examine those votes in the context of where this nation was at the time about a year after the the attacks on 9/11.
NO I am not saying 9/11 justified the votes the HRC and Kerry made. Kerry made it and Kerry has the best anti-war bonifides of any Serving US Senator ever.
What I am trying to explain is that Bush was heading for an attack for regime change prior to September 2002 on the aurhority of the Afghanistan War on Terror Resolutiion by linking Hussein to the potential of providing WMD to Al Qaeda.
Bush was stopped in his tracks for going to war without the nightmare of getting UN inspectors involved. That was up until September 2003 when Tony Blair made it known that He would not be allowed to make war with Lil Dubby unless he went through the UN First.
In September 2002 we also could see the split between Bush/Powell/Blair and Cheney and the neocon vultures surrounding the White House circling to devour Saddam Hussein’s carcass at the expense of the US Taxpayer and soldier.
Bush Promised HRC that he wanted a stronger Resolution (turned out to be UN Res 1441) that forced SH to do unfettered inspections without any goofing around like occurred up until 1998 and then SH kicked the inspectors out.
HRC has an explanation that has much merit because at that time… a strong vote to allow the President to invade Iraq if he did not let inspectors in, was a way to avoid war and Bush even said that is why he wanted it.
The so-called VOTE FOR WAR actually had the potential to stop Bush from going to war on his previous authorization to invade Afghanistan. The world would never have seen the FACT That Iraq let the UN inspectors back in and cooperate with them like they never did before.
And there you have it.
Allowing the President to make a determination to start a war is not the same as authorizing the President to start a war.
That is because the President has obligations to act with propriety when making that kind of decision. And he did not come close.
Badgering Hillary Clinton for her vote helps the Bush excuse-makers have their way.
It really needs to stop because it really is not true.
In 30 sec soundbite form… HRC voted for War… makes some sense, but there are way to many underlying factors that need to pass through some good minds on this topic and provide a reality check before repeating as the rightwingers do…
BUT DEMS VOTED FOR WAR…
The law invested Bush with the authority to determine necessity. Even if any other reasonable person on earth thought it stupid, the law was clear: Bush was handed a blank check for war, and everyone voting on that authorization should have known it.
Haggling over the phrase “as he determines necessary” in order to come up with a definition that isn’t the plain meaning if those words is as silly as asking what the meaning if “is” is.
This speech makes much more sense in full context.
The context from which she spoke on the floor of the Senate that day was that Bush had begun to show signs of backing off the summer of 2002’a drumbeat that Bush and Cheney could start a war against Iraq any time they wanted to. That is because they already had an authorization to use force agains national leaders who harbor or aid terrorists.
Now Bush was talking seeking a strong UN Resolution to give Iraq a chance to be verified disarmed in a peaceful way without war.
You must remember that Bush was considering all kinds of angles to get Saddam to provoke a war whicch would have given Bush all kinds of cover for an attack.
The switch to an interest in going through the UN made HRC say and vote the way she did.
I think she was correct about the UN not being able to act on its own.
The fear was, that without giving the President the authoriity to use force if peaceful means do not begin in earnest, the UNSC would not have acted and they would not have produced a unanimous vote on Res 1441.
1441 actually makes Bush more of a war criminal than he would be if he succeeded in some covert CIA Bullcrap to entice SH into doing something he would have surely regretted.
Bush kicked UN inspectors out to start a war.
HRC’s vote is likely what put them there in the first place.
Its time to focus on Bush’s March 2003 Decision - not the pack of lies that he spread in October of the previous year.
Jesus Christ, that’s totally ridiculous. Google Wayne Morse and Ernest Gruening.
Plenty of John “I voted for it before I voted against it” Kerry’s contemporaries had the courage to vote no: Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, Carl Levin, Daniel Inouye, Paul Wellstone, to name a few. I have zero doubt that their legacy will be one of sound judgment and wisdom. That can’t be said of anyone so naive that they trusted their vote for war to be the means to avoid war: anybody who honestly propounds such tautologies deserves to have their heads examined.
The myth that Saddam kicked the UN inspectors out of Iraq in December 1998 has been repeated so often by the press that even Bush opponents think it’s true. IIRC, Maddow even repeated it in Monday’s documentary.
Actually, Clinton (through our UN ambassador) told the UN that it had better get the inspectors out of Iraq, because he was about to start bombing, and they did so. However, it’s true that Saddam refused to let them back in after the bombing.
Yes, I read her speech where she wanted to pretend that by voting for war she wasn’t actually voting for war. If she didn’t want to vote for war, then she should have voted 'no". If she didn’t think she was voting for war, then she had no business being a Senator.
The AUMF gave Bush the sole authority for determining whether we went to war or not. If she didn’t want Bush to have that authority, she shouldn’t have voted to give it to him.
Then shouldn’t Bush get the lion’s share of the blame for the war?
I hope you don’t think that’s an unfairly selected quote. I realize it’s more complicated than just that. Of course senator’s should be held accountable for their votes. But it almost seems to be a repeat of the “diminished expectations” game that took place before Bush’s presidential debates. In this case, it’s Hillary Clinton (seasoned, shrewd, should never have trusted Bush with this sort of power, clearly wrong) and George Bush (means well, tries hard, got bad intelligence, listened to the wrong people, other people agreed with him, etc.) I’m not buying it. I don’t know who drafted the AUMF, but if Bush wanted a “buck stops here” moment, he couldn’t have asked for better (whether he did ask for it, or not). Here it is, Mr. President, thousands of lives, trillions of dollars, and your place in the history books, all waiting for your, and only your, word. That’s what you knew you might face when you asked for this job. Make the decision, and own the consequences.
The Democrats are militaristic and generally pro-war. But you can rest easy. Myth or no myth, the chances of a POTUS or his staff facing legal repercussions for war are about zero. Certainly doesn’t matter what plebs like us think.
Fully agreed. If a lowly civilian such as myself knew there never was a legitimate casus belli, I’d expect a US senator/congressman to know better. Pie in the sky was all it ever was – and cheap propaganda, easily debunked. See Mr Svin posts back then.
Not like the facts were further than a Google away…