Hillary's big lie grows (Michael Goodwin, NY Daily News)

[Apollo11]

Michael Goodwin, New York Daily News

Wednesday, January 31st, 2007

Hillary's big lie grows

There she goes again. Hillary Clinton told another whopper. Actually, it's the same whopper she and her husband told before.

In Iowa last weekend, Clinton was asked about her 2002 vote to suppport the Iraq war. It's a tough question for her, given the war's unpopularity among Democrats. Moreover, her two leading opponents for the 2008 presidential nomination have crowd-pleasing positions. Former Sen. John Edwards said his vote for the war was a mistake and he regretted it, and Sen. Barack Obama opposed the war before the invasion.

So Clinton's camp sees her pro-war vote as heavy baggage. She has never denounced it or said it was wrong, but, at times, has done something worse. She has lied about the reasons for it.

Sunday in Davenport, Iowa, was one of those times. Asked about her vote by a man in front of a mostly adoring rally, Clinton trotted out the whopper. She said she was misled by President Bush about the resolution. "He said at the time he was going to the United Nations to put inspectors back into Iraq, to figure out whether they still had any WMD," she said, adding, "He took the authority that others and I gave him and he misused it."

That's very similar to how Bill Clinton defended her last year. In an interview with ABC News, he said Dems who voted for the resolution did so only to force Saddam Hussein to give up, not to use force. "They felt, frankly, let down" about the invasion, Clinton said, painting Dems as dupes of Bush.

It's a clever argument, but it's not true. It's not even within spinning distance of being true.

(edit)

That the war has gone badly is a tragedy and a disaster. It is why Democrats won Congress last year. But anybody who wants to be President and commander in chief cannot play the role of victim when the going gets tough on the campaign trail. Blaming others for your own conduct and fudging history are not the right stuff for the Oval Office. Even, or especially, when your name is Clinton.

Read the full article here:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/493272p-415451c.html

[Captain Hilts]

1. Goodwin's the conservative op-ed writer for the NYDN. nt

[Apollo11]

4. I think he raises some valid questions

For Hillary - the questions about where she stands are just beginning.

She is the one who decided to invite us all for a 12-month "conversation".

If she doesn't like the tough questions, she should withdraw from the race.

[hippiechick]

2. Spot on:

"...anybody who wants to be President and commander in chief cannot play the role of victim when the going gets tough on the campaign trail. Blaming others for your own conduct and fudging history are not the right stuff for the Oval Office..."

That's the type of sociopathic personality that inhabits 1600 at present.
We damn sure don't need anymore like it in the future!

[dsharp88]

3. Hillary and Edwards were BOTH duped by cooked intelligence...

so how is it acceptable by Edwards and not by Hillary?

[Apollo11]

6. Edwards has expressed regret for how he voted

But as far as I know, Hillary has not admitted she was wrong.

The Washington Post - Sunday, November 13, 2005

The Right Way in Iraq

By John Edwards

I was wrong.

Almost three years ago we went into Iraq to remove what we were told -- and what many of us believed and argued -- was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda.

It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake. It has been hard to say these words because those who didn't make a mistake -- the men and women of our armed forces and their families -- have performed heroically and paid a dear price.

The world desperately needs moral leadership from America, and the foundation for moral leadership is telling the truth.

While we can't change the past, we need to accept responsibility, because a key part of restoring America's moral leadership is acknowledging when we've made mistakes or been proven wrong -- and showing that we have the creativity and guts to make it right.

The argument for going to war with Iraq was based on intelligence that we now know was inaccurate. The information the American people were hearing from the president -- and that I was being given by our intelligence community -- wasn't the whole story. Had I known this at the time, I never would have voted for this war.

(article continues)

Read the full article here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101623.html

[pnwmom]

21. What do you want? Should she wear sackcloth and ashes?

She has said she regrets her vote, that she regrets trusting him.

And this whole issue is ridiculous, because even if every single Democrat had voted against the October IWR, Bush would have gotten it passed anyway -- in January, when he had majorities in both houses. He couldn't lose. Either he could agree to a compromise resolution containing some conditions that Democrats like Clinton wanted, or he could wait until January and have the Republican congress give him a completely blank check with a new version of the IWR.

A new version which would have given him the authority to fight his battle anywhere in the Middle East.

Do you think we would have been better off with the Republican backed version of the IWR -- the total blank check -- or the compromise version that some Democrats voted for?

[rodeodance]

26. seems many wanted her to wear the apology branded on her forehead.

I just tire of so so much smacking her on this issue.

[pnwmom]

28. Me, too. I think some people are just using this issue to hit her with.

[tabasco]

29. Yeah, just a minor little issue like a war. No big deal.

Why don't they ask more important questions?

[Captain Hilts]

7. And Kerry. One of the reasons Clinton, Edwards, etc. aren't my choices, but...

this guy's bread and butter is hating Clinton. Either one.

[LibDemAlways]

5. Hillary will continue to catch hell from the right and the

left for her IWR vote. Whether it's deserved from the right is another issue since they were the cheerleaders for shock and awe who had no problem with Senator Clinton's vote at the time. I don't notice any criticism of McCain for his pro war stance here. Such hypocrisy.

[fasttense]

8. Pure Bull

I'm not a fan of Senator Clinton but I am a fan of the truth. Senator Clinton is absolutely correct.

This is from the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq posted on the WH web page http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

"Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;"

That statement has been shown to be a false claim made by bush lovers.

"Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;"

Another false claim made by the WH and the VP.

"Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),"

and

"Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable"

Both those statements made it clear the bushes were going to work with the United Nations. Further reading of that same resolution shows that the word United Nations was mentioned about 21 times in a document that is less than 2,000 words.

Senator Clinton is absolutely correct.

Now who is actually lying here?

[RaleighNCDUer]

16. Thank you. Whenever a dem politico says he was duped by the

administration, it doesn't mean they were necessarily duped by, and believed, the cooked intelligence - they are saying they were misled by how the administration intended to use the authorization in dealing with the UN and Iraq. Even as paranoid as I am, fully believing that * was going to take us into a war, I did not, at the time, see the vote as giving him that authorization - it looked like a political ploy to pressure the UN, to push Saddam to give the inspectors unlimited access (they were, of course, already on the ground) or even to press him to step down, like Idi Amin or Baby Doc, and go into ostentatious exile. That he would just ignore the UN, leap to attack to enforce the UN sanctions over the objections of the UN itself, flabbergasted even me, and I'm not even near the chummy politico crowd who expects (or expected) * to play by the rules.

So when Hillary says this, I have no reason to not believe her, and when this RW flack uses this to call her a liar he's just a skunk showing his tail.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

23. You didn't "see the vote as giving him authorization"?

The vote titled "Joint Resolution to *Authorize* the *Use* of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq"?

[RaleighNCDUer]

24. Get past the title - that's what this whole thing is about.

It was clearly written to be dependent upon cooperation from the UN - there was every expectation that there would be, would have to be, a second vote in the security council before there was any military action. It was saying, we are ready to go to the mattresses if the UN says 'go' - all debate on our side is done, so get with the UN program or else.

I thought it was a bad idea because I didn't trust *. I saw him lying about the results of the inspections that were ongoing, refusing to talk one-on-one with Saddam, insisting on a course of acton that, if complied with, would result in an unsurvivable political humiliation of Saddam, creating a no-way-out scenario for him.

But to those who were unaware of PNAC, this did not look to be a 'last step'. The expectation around the world was that there would be at least one more round in the UN, and * played into that expectation, so many of those who voted for the IWR believed, as they've stated MANY times, that they were setting up pressure for that UN confrontation.

And even with my misgivings, even I did not expect * to flat out ignore the UN, particularly when the UN said that an attack on Iraq would NOT be upholding its rulings against Iraq. I guess I didn't read the PNAC paper closely enough to really grasp that undermining the UN is one of its primary goals.

[tabasco]

31. Super duper.

Now we can start looking for leaders who aren't so easily duped, right?

[pnwmom]

19. Thanks for the factual info.

Too many people are operating under shaky memories, I fear. Or they just weren't paying much attention in October 2002.

[sandnsea]

9. IT IS TRUE

It's what Bush said at the time. What's not true is that this was Hillary's position, she was much more supportive of regime change than some others.

But it IS what Bush said. I don't know why Democrats have let him get away with pretending he was advocating war in October 2002, because he just wasn't. He said he had no plans for war, which was just another one of his lies.



Sept 19, 2002

"I am sending suggested language for a resolution. I want -- I've asked for Congress' support to enable the administration to keep the peace...If you want to keep the peace, you've got to have the authorization to use force. But it's -- this will be -- this is a chance for Congress to indicate support. It's a chance for Congress to say, we support the administration's ability to keep the peace. That's what this is all about."

Video

Sept 23, 2002

"I believe we can achieve peace. Oh, I know the kids hear all the war rhetoric and tough talk, and that's necessary to send a message."

Video

Sept 27, 2002

"I'm willing to give peace a chance to work... People who are willing to work with us to send a clear message to the world, a unified message, a strong resolution which defines our vision for peace... I want you to know that behind the rhetoric of war is a deep desire for peace."


MORE
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/11/21327/054

[pnwmom]

20. Good points, sandnsea.

That's what he was saying.

[asjr]

10. This is stupid! If she

says "I was wrong," would that change any minds? No. Once a Hillary-basher, always a Hillary basher. If she is the nominee I will vote for her. Until Jesus Christ comes back and announces he is running for president I will remain open. I will not sell out my country for three words.

[Demeter]

22. It Would Change MINE!

I would begin to believe that Hillary wasn't just an empty suit with pockets full of AIPAC loot.

I would begin to think she had some of the humilty that a truly Presidential person needs.

[Stuckinthebush]

11. The political reality is that Hillary screwed up

And she knows it.

She was gung ho for the war when the polls showed support for it. It was probably seen as a good political move because she desperately needed to shed the liberal image and be seen as more hawkish. The problem is that it backfired. The "war" is a huge mistake and is denounced by a majority of Americans and the world.

Her problem now is that she can't come out and say, "OK, OK! It was a mistake. I'm sorry." because she has already been such a vocal supporter of the Iraq fiasco. Politically she is in a bind. She has to do something to make it look like she is on the side of the hawks as well as the rest of the nation. That is where the "Damn! I was misled!" line comes from. That's the only place she can go without being pummeled in the press and on the national stage.

Hillary isn't my first, second, or even third choice, but I'm not opposed to her as president. She has a hell of an uphill climb in a race that was supposed to be a cake walk for her. Sure, some polls show her ahead right now, but it is a long time until the primaries and this Iraq thing will get worse and her support will continue to be seen as a major liability.

The bottom line is this: Would a President Clinton support and defend those values that Democrats hold sacred? I think that answer is yes. I'm not going to fight for her in the primaries, but if she wins, then I'll fight like hell to get her in the White House...idiotic Iraq vote aside.

[fasttense]

13. I'm not sure she did screw up.

The resolution was clear. The WH was suppose to work with the United Nations, otherwise the word would not be in the document 21 times.

Even I was for the war back then. I know, I know, I was crazy to believe the lies from Colin Powell (he convinced me and I trusted him). But I have since realized how I was fooled. It only took me a few months after the war began to realize there were no WMD except in Cheney's mind.

That is what bush should be Impeached for. Lying this country and Congress into a fake, useless and dangerous war. If Senator Clinton would support Impeachment of the President because of these lies, I bet we could all get behind her.

Oh by the way, I e-mailed the NY Daily News and pointed out how wrong Goodwin is/was. I can't stand it when right wing bush lovers use lies to support their agenda, reminds me of Powell too much.

[Stuckinthebush]

14. Now that may be a way out for her

Support impeachment of Bush and/or members of his administration. Instead of just sadly saying "I was fooled!", she would back up those statements with actions. "The country was misled and that rises to the level of impeachment." puts the force of action behind words.

[sandnsea]

25. Here's the problem with that

First, I agree with you, although I wasn't for the war because whenever they trotted out their 'intelligence', I'd look it up and see there were questions about it. I was, however, FOR the resolution because I don't think inspecters would have had free access to Iraq without it and the UN resolution. People forget they passed a resolution in fall 2002 as well. This is what Kerry tried to get people to understand in 2004, his floor statement prior to his vote is absolutely crystal clear.

With Hillary, it's completely different. The right kept using Bill's words in 1998, and the regime change resolution passed under his Presidency. Rather than remind people of the 1998 bombing that could have destroyed any WMD, they joined in the anti-Saddam rhetoric very strongly. So did Edwards. Hillary will NEVER ask the questions about Bush lying because her words, and some other Democrats like Biden, Edwards, Lieberman, are quite strong as well. They won't say they were lied to because they truly believe it was just an 'honest mistake' so to speak. Well I'm not exactly sure what Edwards believes, he says he shouldn't have trusted Bush but I'm not sure that goes all the way to the presentation of the intelligence.

Anyway, this has been battled for years now. Not only will the right not budge off their war intelligence position, but neither will the left.

[rodeodance]

27. the way the WH worked with the UN was to send in power-point Powell.

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. well put. nt

[pnwmom]

12. He's a Republican propagandist. Why believe him?

I believe Hillary voted for it for it for the reason she says. It included some language that a number of Democrats thought would put some conditions on Bush. Conditions that he then ignored.

But here's the thing. It was a win-win situation for Bush. When Hillary Clinton and others voted for the IWR in October, it was a compromise resolution. This was the choice that Clinton and other Democrats faced: they could help the Republicans pass the compromise resolution, which contained conditions the Democrats HOPED would rein Bush in OR they could vote en masse to defeat the bill. Then what? Then in January, when Bush had majorities in both the House and Senate, he would get his IWR anyway. An even worse bill, passed without the need for even a single Democratic vote, and without any of the conditions.

And that blank check might have given Bush the power to go anywhere he wanted -- not only to Iraq, but anywhere in the Middle East. Would we have been better off?

[fasttense]

15. Good point pnwmom

At least now there is a written a document that says Congress is allowing the president to use force in an effort to support the United Nations against Iraq because of WMDs and 9/11.

The resolution specifically outlines the bushes authority.

[pnwmom]

18. And Democrats are already pointing to it to back up their assertion

that Bush can't use it to go into Iran or Syria.

Imagine if he had gotten the IWR that he wanted.

[genie_weenie]

30. More important than her IWR vote and her current

statements are what she was saying in 2003, 2004, 2005. Howard Zinn wrote to this in his Magnum Opus, A People's History of the United States. This is in response to the invasion of Panama

"Liberal Democrats (John Kerry and Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, and many others) declared their support of the military action. The Democrats were being true to their historic role as supporters of military intervention, anxious to show that foreign policy was bipartisan. They seemed determined to show they were as tough (or as ruthless) as the Republicans." Zinn, 594.

This is exactly what many Dems did in 2002. It's the same dance macabre. For Hillary there is an added reason. IMO, she has received advice or has come to the conclusion that as the first serious female candidate she needs to show she has the balls to send men to their deaths. She needs to be seen as tough enough to be president.