Dear Senator Clinton: Don't apologize

[question everything]

So now there is a story about how "Americans forgive redemption" or something like that. The infamous video of James Bakker sobbing, and of Newt asking forgiveness. And I just remembered that it was accepted that had Bill Clinton acknowledged his affair and asked for forgivness this would have been the end of that story.

So I admire Hillary Clinton's resolve not to drop down on her knees and ask for forgiveness for her vote on Iraq.

She says that her vote was based on misleading information and this should be it.

She should not "Newt" herself.

(Yes, I know, the topics are different but the method is the same).

[DemKR]

1. Amen!! K&R

[ElizabethDC]

2. I think this is why she hasn't apologized

Some days, I do wish she would apologize, but it would just open a whole new can of worms. She knows what she's doing. She's taken responsiblity for her vote, and now she's looking forward. That's fine with me because, while I wish she hadn't voted for the war, I think what's most important is that we find a way out of this war.

[AZBlue]

40. You're exactly right!

The IWR vote was important - but it's in the past and finding a way out of this mess right now is more important, IMO.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. And To Think That 23 Senators Were Too Damned Dumb

to vote for the IWR.

I'm really glad that Mrs. Clinton made the correct decision. She deserves to be President.

[MethuenProgressive]

4. The IWR wasn't a "yes/no on invading Iraq"

You can look it up.

[FiveGoodMen]

5. In practice, it certainly was.

If someone wires a light switch to a bomb, you don't flip the switch anyway saying, "Well it's not meant to blow anything up..."

[papau]

8. wrong analogy - no "flip" - just allowing the switch to be wired with a password for

the actual flipping required - Bush had to go to UN and get a resolution and had say he was convinced there was no other way.

The error was in trusting Bush.

[FiveGoodMen]

9. Don't want to quibble about analogies

The point was that the outcome was predictable.

[papau]

11. ? Obama just wanted a vote on war -period. Some saw through Bush - but most didn't - we now know it

was predictable - but at the time the no votes were mainly on the basis of "why do we need a vote now" - to which Bush said he needed bargaining power - a line Clinton bought.

And her buying that line is indeed an indication that she feels that the executive needs to be "strong and supported by Congress" in foreign affairs - a view that others like Obama may not share to the degree she believes it.

[FiveGoodMen]

21. At the time, DU was full of people who wanted to see the IWR voted down

I feel quite certain that not a single one of them opposed the idea of our being ready to defend ourselves should the UN (and the evidence) decide that the threat was real. I also doubt very much that any of us would have opposed the idea of a bargaining chip. Instead, we all thought that Bush couldn't be trusted -- that he would simply start a war at the first available opportunity, and he did.

How did so many of us sense which way the wind was blowing while Hillary -- and of course many others -- were fooled?

[papau]

32. I agree as I was one of those not trusting Bush - Hillary was part of the 65% that

around 11/1/2002 on Bush job performance "approved" (wanted the bad guys chased and caught and did not want to "interfere" with the process - but she did demand for her vote a commitment to do the UN, coming back to Congress, etc. saying that the vote was not agreement of any sort for any pre-emptive war - and it was after the IWR vote that we heard from Bush about the "inherent power of the Executive that meant no need to go to Congress on anything relating to Security matters.")

She had a problem with going with the distrust that I and others were going with - and wanted to act as a responsible Senator - I guess.

There's no question that Obama gets a lot of points for trusting his gut - and for being more up tight about process in the TV interview in the weeks just before the vote. I wonder if he had been given a briefing that was all the supposed secret intel - if he would have changed his mind - but we will never know.

As it is, Obama gets a major positive check mark for his comments about the IWR at the time - in my opinion.

[Tom Joad]

14. It seemed damn certain that George W was going to use that way, didn't it.

It just seemed like the politically appropriate thing to do....

She knew what her donors wanted, and she voted accordingly. Not complicated at all.

[MGKrebs]

34. You admit that the outcome was inevitable, and then hold her

accountable for what is therefore a moot vote?

There appear to be very specific words that some want to hear her say. To what end? What would it indicate, what would be different?

[Tom Joad]

35. Personally, i want to hear her say she will never again seek political office

I don't expect her to say that.

I do think it certainly would have been useful if she ahd opposed the war against Iraq, but i didn't expect her to oppose the Bush/Clinton/Bush of agression against the Iraqi people.

[Warren Stupidity]

18. Yeah it was carte blanc nt.

[AtomicKitten]

6. I think "apologizing" for the IWR is bullshit.

It's lame and disingenuous, and those that are doing it are merely barking seals performing for the progressive community who seem to think it makes a damn bit of difference.

It was not a yes/no proposition; worse, it gave a Junior a blank check. And we all know how he cashed it. But it's done, we are already in Iraq. Elvis has left the building.

Now we need to turn our eyes to getting the hell out of Iraq and set aside this nonsense about rating the apologies/excuses/rationale for voting 'yes' on the IWR as if it were an Olympic event.

[mtnsnake]

10. & apologizing for the IWR only after it's politically safe to do so is BS w/pigshit topping. nt

[Cameron27]

36. Yep, an "I was wrong about my yes vote on IWR, I apologize"

should not be followed by, and now "I'm running for President." It lacks sincerity.

[mtnsnake]

37. For anyone who can foresee anything, the Republicans will have a field day

if Edwards gets the nod. The hypocritical politically-timed apology will come back to haunt him. The right wing will be hammering away endlessly about it how Edwards did one thing and then changed tune once it was politically okay to do so.

"Not only did I vote for the war, but I co-sponsored the IWR itself. However, it was all just an honest mistake, folks. War is bad. I didn't know what I was doing back then." (snicker)

Deja Vu. It'll be flip-flop time all over again.

[question everything]

38. Thank you. Plus, it is a distraction from what is ahead

In 1996 Clinton beat Dole based on, among other things, looking forward instead of backward. I think that this was one mistake by Kerry, emphasizing too much Vietnam - which was in the past - and not making the appropriate transition to the future.

As we can see in the Poverty forum

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=230

there are so many issues facing us, the voters, even without the war in Iraq. Homeless, health care, education, jobs retirement and plain poverty :scared:

Yes funding Iraq takes money from other programs, however I think that if we did not have the war the funds would be used to reduce the deficit.

[oasis]

7. "...bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations

more likely, and therefore, war less likely"--HRC.

[MethuenProgressive]

12. shhh Oasis!

don't wanna scare some people with facts...

[Warren Stupidity]

20. Oh so she is simply an idiot?

OK. Then for sure: not qualified to be the Democratic Party candidate. We do not nominate idiots for president, the Republican Party does that.

[oasis]

43. I'll leave the judging of "idiots" to their own.(eom)

[MGKrebs]

81. What exactly was it that you knew so clearly

that HC and 76 other Senators didn't?

[Tom Joad]

13. "Misled" ? Why didn't she know what most of us already knew?

But i don't expect her to apologize.
For this war support or the next. Hillary, is, after all, Hillary.

[dflprincess]

16. I don't expect her to apologize, just admit that she was wrong

and cut the crap about being misled. We've had 6 years of a president that won't admit mistakes or take responsibility, we don't need another one with that mindset.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

25. Misled by George W. Bush of all people

A United States senator--particularly one with great experience--being misled by a man hardly known for his persuasive skills and rhetorical wizardry is hard to fathom. Perhaps some were persuaded by polls that said 70% of the public backed the war at the time... With respect to the latter, is it a mere coincidence that all the current presidential candidates who were in the Senate at the time voted for the war? The other Democratic senators were split approximately evenly...

[Tellurian]

57. So, when your sitting in a movie theater and someone yells: "FIRE"

are you going to poll the audience to see if it's for real, especially if you smell smoke?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

79. No

I was being critical of those who seem to have put their political interests ahead of the nation's interest when they voted for the war. I can't say all of them did this. Some of them may have bought the Bush story but I suspect that most of them did not and decided to do what was politically safe.

[job777]

46. Agree

"
She says that her vote was based on misleading information and this should be it."

When she voted for it she said she had all of the information necessary to make a sound decision and that was to vote for it. She sure was easily duped if that wasn't the case.

[MGKrebs]

83. What is it exactly that you knew?

[Bonobo]

15. Equating those false apologies with this is ridiculous.

She failed to use her vote in the senate to (even attempt) to protect us from the slow-motion (Yes, it was slow motion!) train wreck that was coming our way.

She showed poor judgment, she showed a desire for either political gain or vengeance against a country that had nothing to do with 9-11 and she SHOULD apologize.

She fucked up and now she wants to be trusted with the button without even admitting it was a fuck up? I think not.

[w4rma]

17. If it were the Republicans asking her to apologize she would be apologizing.

She's not apologizing because she'd be apologizing to the Democratic base, not the Republican base.

Don't mistake what she's doing for resolve.

[Warren Stupidity]

19. Exactly. nt.

[AJH032]

26. Can you prove that?

Perhaps, but showing us a time that the Republicans asked her to do something, and she did it?

[w4rma]

27. No. I cannot "prove" that. I can only show a long term pattern making similar choices. (nt)

[mtnsnake]

42. Then back it up. Show us.

Let's see this long term pattern you speak of with actual examples.

[Tellurian]

56. WOW! a mighty statement... turns out to lightweight..

no surprise there!

[mtnsnake]

58. Don't ya just love the Hillary hit and runners

"She did this and has a pattern of that, but wait a minute...I have to take off for the rest of the day so you'll have to take my word for it."

lmao

[Tellurian]

60. The parroting is so last year.. but We'll settle for the TRUTH..

[Tellurian]

61. So, we should take what you're saying as anything BUT the Truth..eh?

[Clarkie1]

22. Nonsense. Why were Byrd, Feingold, Kennedy, and so many others not "misled?"

I'm not calling her to apologize, but she is responsible for her actions.

What she did was wrong.

[oasis]

47. "so many others" you say? Talk about "misleading".

:eyes:

[Clarkie1]

75. Yes, MANY others. SO MANY others!

23 or 24, to be exact. The rest just sucked up to the lies for to save thier own political asses.

[OneBlueSky]

23. Hillary Clinton is a human windsock . . .

if and when she perceives a political advantage in apologizing, that's what she'll do . . .

[SaveElmer]

31. An Orwellian statement...

Hillary has been lambasted by "progressives" for not apologizing...despite the clear popular mandate for her to do so (according to these "progressives")...and yet she does not....


The "Great and Mighty Kos" nearly blew a gasket a couple weeks ago because she again refused and in fact said that for those that believe the IWR vote was the most important issue, there were other candidates to vote for...

SO for months she refuses to knuckle under, bow down and genuflect in front of the "progressive" Apology now crowd...

But she is a windsock...

You people cannot even get your criticisms straight!!!

btw: If you want a STUNNING example of windsockery...take a look at Dennis Kucinich's position on abortion, stem cell research, and flag desecration amendments prior to his first run for President!!!

[Tellurian]

51. Agreed- what I've found is the Progressives/Liberals/Left Wingers

are too lazy to do their homework. The designated 'head honcho' does the reading coming up with a storyline, then delegates a script telling the 'members' what to think and what to say..

aggravating, when they tell you Bush is 'trying to act like' a 'Unitary Executive'. Ask them, what does that means to them and they change the subject, because they don't know what it means. I'm not saying they're all like that. The majority here are content to do a Linda Friedman, talk amongst themselves.."coffee tawk"..type analogys.

I don't have a problem with Hillary apologizing for her Vote. Because I know she is correct.
Actually, I would be gravely disappointed if she did otherwise. I have confidence she will stand her ground and be proven right in the long haul.. I can wait with confidence.

[Milo_Bloom]

24. She should apologize for not voting for the Levin Amendment.

Actually, it is far too late. She already lost my vote, any apology at this point would just be more political garbage from her.

[Boo Boo]

28. Yes, please don't apologize... just go away. /nt

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MGKrebs]

86. Just to be clear here- You consider 77 US Senators murderers?

I'm not sure how else to interpret "blood on her hands".

[JNelson6563]

30. There is no need

when you are positively certain you can flip off your base and still count on their vote in the GE.

It's a fine line between confidence and arrogance....

Julie

[Tellurian]

52. Yes, it's all confidence..

I've read her floor statement have you?
Everyone's anger should be aimed at Bush not Hillary.

[JNelson6563]

68. Which floor statement?

I've watched her make many of them.

As to who should be angry at who......Bush couldn't have acted alone. He was enabled. By many who should've known much better.

Julie

[MGKrebs]

80. You want to name names?

Are you saying HC casting a different vote on IWR would have resulted in a different outcome?

Would your opinion be that if all Dems had voted against IWR there would have been a different outcome?

[JNelson6563]

84. If you've got the time, go ahead

I'm well aware of who voted what back then. My post that you reply to was more taking issue with someone telling me who I should and shouldn't be angry with. I will not have my feelings dictated to me, thank you.

Julie

[MGKrebs]

85. Who was he enabled by? That is what I am asking.

Are you saying that Bush would not have done what he did with a different IWR vote in the Senate? I would just like to be clear about this.

[JNelson6563]

89. without the support of Congress

things would not have progressed as they did. I believe even had Levin's amendment been successful the outcome would've been at least somewhat different.

Julie

[MGKrebs]

90. That would have been nice, but it would have had to be

some other universe. The outcome of the resolution was never in doubt, it passed by overwhelming margins in both chambers, and George Bush most likely would have done what he did whether there was a resolution or not or whether this passed or not.

To deflect blame from George Bush for this war and lay it at the feet of Democrats is... I'm not sure what the point would be.

[karynnj]

33. What she does need to do is to articulate

under what circumstances she will (or won't) take the country to war. I have never been mistaken for a Hillary supporter, but I do think that you can take her comment that there would not even have been a vote if we knew there were no WMD to imply that she would NOT have manipulated intelligence to take the country to war based on that lie.

What we need from all the candidates, Democratic and Republican, are clear statements of their view of Bush's pre-emptive war doctrine and their own view of what circumstances must be met before they would take the country to war. This is more pertinent than which of the very constrained choices were taken in 2002. In 2004, Senator Kerry was asked this question and his answer was essentially based on what constitutes a "just" war from Christian theology, though he generalized it as a "global test". Although the Republicans tried to make an issue of the word "global" ignoring that it meant universal, it was as good an answer as could be given quickly. The liklihood is that this fundamental question will be asked in 2008. I hope the Democratic candidate will say that the Bush doctrine is unethical and against international law and will articulate his/her philosophy.

[zulchzulu]

39. So she shouldn't "Hillary" herself?

By Senator Clinton not apologizing for the vote on the IWR (as nearly all the decent Democrats have), she puts herself in the category where one doesn't apologize for what indeed is a mistake. Apologizing for a mistake is not a bad thing to do...and there is an occupant in the White House that doesn't have the courage to do such a thing.

She doesn't have to do it like Baker, Swaggert, her husband or even Newt. She could just say something about how she is sorry that so many innocent people have died due to her actually voting for the IWR and being more of a hawk than most candidates. It's in her speeches, it's in her press releases, it's in published interviews.

It would be courageous to offer an apology...not something that would seen as a weakness. More people might appreciate her more as a candidate and the ruse that the Republicans would use her apology politically is silly. They already have plenty of stuff that they are going to lob at her...

[Tellurian]

53. Poppycock, then she's be a Kerry Flipflopper! nm

[AtomicKitten]

62. I don't think people understand the primary vs general election.

Some on the left are expecting the candidates to dance to their tune when it is precisely that that will provide fodder for the GOP wingnuts in the general election. It's like they are unwittingly (or is it purposeful ?) hamstringing our own candidates by forcing them to declare untenable positions that will damage them in the general. Politics and specifically elections are a dance and it would behoove people to be forward-thinking strategically.

[Tellurian]

64. No..thats not it at all..

They have this crazy notion, they need to pummel the front runner to force her Left of center, all the way to Kucinichville.
What they don't realize is Hillary stands head and shoulders over ALL the candidates. She has a plan for America and won't be bullied by anyone to deter her from her mission. Hats off to her for standing tall!

The long and the short of it is...Hillary will not pander to the Left!
And, their idol, their representative, Kucinich, well you see where he is in the standings..a distant...?

[AtomicKitten]

65. that's what I said

The traditional left in the primary - center in the general has been disrupted by the allegation of flip-flopping which is why it is critical to not force the candidates to take untenable positions in the primary that they will be hard-pressed to deal with in the general.

And that goes for all the candidates.

It just seems so ignorant/oblivious/arrogant to try to hamstring the candidates in the primary with full knowledge - or not as the case may be - that the candidate will pay for it in the general.

[Tellurian]

66. Nope..what will happen is..

This.. In the primary, pummeling Hillary will force the Left to vote for whoever is in second, third, position.
Hillary will maintain her lead throughout. The Left, because Hillary won't pander to them, out of spite, will split their vote and attempt to screw up the outcome.

The most important race IS the Primary!

[AtomicKitten]

67. Sorry, but I don't agree.

I don't get emotionally involved in politics and although definitely have clear preferences, I will vote for whomever gets the nod.

In my mind, it is the general election that is infinitely more important. The GOP must be slapped down. The Supreme Court hangs in the balance; Justice Stevens is 86 years old.

I believe it it critical to strategize running the ENTIRE race and not just the primary. Often candidates end up shucking and jiving in the general over their primary battle stances, and I wish more people understood the bigger picture.

[Tellurian]

69. Thats OK..

I get emotionally involved when I know our planet and our survival is at stake depending on who will occupy the White House on the next election cycle, thats all..heh..It's all strategy at this point in time. The Battle Royal IS the Primary. The General is a cake walk for the Democrats because the GOP doesn't have a candidate that will pass muster through their rank and file..

If you're rooting for Obama, thats fine with me. I'll just run faster and try harder for Hillary, thats ALL!

Through it all, I hope we remain friends, though.. :hi:

[AtomicKitten]

70. no worries

Actually I'm rooting for Al Gore. If he doesn't run, I'm taking a serious look at Obama. I have that "thing" about not rewarding those in the primary that voted 'yes' on the IWR that precludes my vote from going to HRC or Edwards. But that's me and I've vowed to cease proselytizing on that subject.

I would never consider the general a cake walk, not after 2000 and 2004, not with the issue of EVM and rampant election fraud still not addressed much less solved. And the MSM has demonstrated quite clearly they are more than willing to run interference for the GOP.

Of course we will remain friends; I have never been one to choose my friends based on politics.

[Tellurian]

71. I'll hold you to that then..;)

Ah...I see.. I'm not worried about the General because I support the Team that will be in FULL ANTI-EVM FRAUD MODE! What are YOU thinking? Do you think I would support someone that was ill prepared to deal with cheap Republican tricks, just to be disappointed again on election night? AGAIN? :)

I will say this though, here and now, you are cordially invited to our election night Victory Party, even if it must be online.. :hi:

:toast:

[AtomicKitten]

72. The general election begins the moment our candidate is chosen.

And I will definitely be there celebrating whoever wins. I've always felt uncomfortable with people getting ugly during primary season; perhaps my delicate sensibilities in that regard will be poorly served here. I LOVE the hard work of elections.

In my mind, may the best man or woman win, and then it's go time.

I have a righteous hangover penciled in for the day following the Victory Party.

[Tellurian]

73. Yep, meee too!

[zulchzulu]

77. On this we certainly can all agree

November 5, 2008 will certainly be a victorious hangover day for the Democrats. Whoever gets the Democratic candidacy after the primaries gets my full and undivided support.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tellurian]

41. No need to apologize..

Hillary has explained at length and in depth her vote and why she cast it as she did..
None of the candidates needed to apologize for their vote. Bush misled everyone and thats it.

[stonebone]

44. K&R

[SOS]

45. She can't

It's too late. At this point she would just invite flip-flop attacks.
She's backing her vote for the long haul.
How that works out with Democratic primary voters will be seen next Spring.

[w4rma]

48. If she won't flip or flop on this issue why should she get the support of anyone who is working to

end this failure in Iraq?

[Tellurian]

50. Theres no benefit to a flipflop

She would be dubbed a Kerryflipflopper..

Actually, she is diabolically correct. As much as most critics cringe when they hear it.. With the information she was provided with at the time, she made a prudent decision fraught with numerous caveats and covered all her bases. She prepared for the WORST and the WORST happened. According to her floor statement, she does not fall into the category of those, who out of public sentiment and undue pressure have apologized. She really is not under any obligation to appease those too lazy to read her statement and assimilate the substance of it's contents.

[Hippo_Tron]

49. I just hope she has a better time explaining it than Kerry

Personally if I had voted for the IWR, I would apologize on the grounds that I should have known not to trust the Bush administration. But that's just me.

Hillary can not apologize but the fact is that most people don't differentiate between an apology for voting for the IWR, and knowing what you know now would you have voted for the IWR. Since she has a different answer to both questions, she will be labeled as not having a clear position.

[Tellurian]

54. She's done all that and more..

except for using the 'one' word that will earn her a death knell.

'Apologize'...not gonna hear it! And I would do the same thing!

[w4rma]

55. Edwards apologized and he's gone up in the polls. I reject your flawed logic. (nt)

[Tellurian]

63. And Edwards is your guideline for logic in Third place?

Uh-huh.Yep, leave your number here and I'll have my people call your people to set you up as my consultant when I decide to campaign.

[w4rma]

74. Momentum is the only thing that matters in the polls, at this point. (nt)

[politicasista]

59. It won't matter, the media will still spin it n/t

[Skittles]

78. the fact that she was so easily "MISLED"

makes her incapable of being president in my book

[enough already]

82. She could apologize until the cows come home

It won't change her vote or my opinion of her judgment.

[rodeodance]

88. I agree, she showed poor judgement in believing Bush---The fact that

she was the Senator from NY with the WTT did enter in on her vote considerably.

[rodeodance]

87. a few years back saying she was wrong would have been better, now I

agree with the OP.

the RW--and others would be all over her-----weak on terror mantra.