If I vote for Hillary will I be endorsing Bush's Iraq War?

[Zueda]

Why can't she, like Edwards, just please say that her vote was a mistake. I do not want to be a disenfranchised voter.

[oasis]

1. If you can't handle Hill's vote, then there are others to choose from.

She said that months ago, adding "it's time to move on". So move on already.

[Zueda]

3. But if she wins the nomination who do i vote for?

I do not want to endorse Bush's Iraq war.

[oasis]

7. Hill vowed to end the war when she's president. The GOP candidates still support the war.

Need I say more?

[Carrieyazel]

29. Her vows don't mean a whole lot to many Democrats. She once vowed to overhaul health care.

Her track record isn't a good one. She's vowed to do this and that and hasn't kept all her promises.

[oasis]

35. Then vote republican next November and see how that works out for you. (eom)

[bpeale]

43. yeah, BY 2013! we can't wait that long! this country is in pain!

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. with me, its a matter of trust

If she voted for the Iraq War again and again, can she be trusted to really want to get us out of that quagmire in a timely fashion? This is why I hope that other primary candidates that support peace plans make a large showing, starting with the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary.

[oasis]

13. "voted for the Iraq war again and again"???

She voted for a resolution that would strengthen America's position when presenting a case against Saddam before the UN. Bush sidestepped diplomacy, told the weapons inspectors to leave, and acted preemptively.

That's not voting for war again and again.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

34. Kyl-Lieberman

was just recently.

[oasis]

36. How is Kyl/Lieberman a vote for the Iraq war?

[mike_c]

2. yes-- Kucinich is the only dem candidate who isn't complicit in war crimes....

All of the front running dems-- including Obama-- have worked to enable the war against Iraq, most of them from its inception in the IWR.

[mtnsnake]

4. because she, like the rest, are responsible for the original sin of voting for it

Apologizing for your vote just because it's politically safe to do so now will never make the war go away, nor will it make you any less responsible for any casualties incurred after your apology.

[Zueda]

8. So I guess Cheney might be right when he said...

history will say Bush was right to go into Iraq. I mean after all he won re-election followed by another president who helped pave the way without remorse.

[CoffeeCat]

15. Apologizing for that vote...

...sends a message to the neocons: No more of this destructive warmongering
that is obliterating our country. I am done supporting the neocon agenda! You
PNACers are SO OVER!

Apologizing for that vote also sends a message to America: I made a mistake before, but
I will not make that same mistake again. I'm sorry. My judgment was poor before, but
I will never kow tow to the neocons again in any votes. I recognize my error and I want
to make it right.

An apology---by any politician--with respect to the Iraq war---would mean that those
politicians publicly acknowledge that they refuse to play along with the neocons.

Obviously, there are politicians who have the integrity to stand up to the neocons
and the courage to travel a different path.

Obviously, Hillary Clinton isn't one of those politicians.

[CoffeeCat]

6. Please look at her record...

She's voting with the neocons and her votes parallel Joe Lieberman.

Would you vote for Joe Lieberman?

She voted for Kyl/Lieberman, which defined an arm of the Iranian government as a
terrorist organization. Bush needed that vote to perpetuate his propaganda against
Iran. Kyl/Lieberman--as Tim Russert said--is a predicate to war. It's a much-needed
marketing plank.

Why on Earth would any Senator vote on anything that would help Bush widen his war?
I'm not saying the Iranian government is pristine. Many governments are not. The
fact is--Bush has Iran in the cross hairs. Kyl/Lieberman gives Bush more fuel for
his war-marketing machine.

Would you have voted for Kyl/Lieberman and greased the neocon war machine for Bush?

Please look at her war-related votes.

[Zueda]

11. If she switched to the republic party and changed nothing else...

she would be labled a neocon.

[cali]

18. what nonsense.

Yeah, her votes on the IWR and K/L suck, but Edwards, Biden and Dodd also voted for the former. As for the latter such people as Dick Durbin who voted against the IWR, voted for K/L. K/L is a sense of the senate resolution that specifically states that nothing in it is to taken as support for an attack on Iran. Both Edwards and Obama voiced support for designating the IRG as a terrorist organization, and Edwards, before he scrubbed it from his site, stated that he hoped the Congress designating the IRG as terrorists wouldn't just be hollow words.

She not a neocon. She's pledged to end the Iraq war and espouses direct negotiation with Iran.

The lies that pile up here are always interesting.

[durrrty libby]

9. Ask your mommy because you may be too immature to make a decision

on your own

[babylonsister]

17. And your mommy should wash your mouth

out with soap for being so nasty. We're all entitled to ask questions; who made you the arbiter of what's acceptable?

[Enrique]

20. the OP is nastier

and it's not correct for you to call it a "question."

[durrrty libby]

24. Back attcha babe

[suston96]

10. Vote was not a mistake

The NIE report and the President and his lackies who lied about WMD led to that vote.

That was a vote to NOT go to war until all inspections had been carried out looking for WMD. They were not carried out.

Maybe recalling these facts about what really happened in 2002 may help you make an inspired decision regarding your "indorsing" whatever.

[Zueda]

12. Why didn't she refuse to vote for it until after the inspections?

[karynnj]

25. Because the vote was when it was called

In retrospect, giving Bush any latitude was wrong. The problem was that it was written in a way that most Democratic Senators had a "No, but" or "yes, but" speech. What is striking is that they all took pains to explain that Saddam was a tyrant and capable of bad things. Most then said that there was NOT cause at that point in time to attack - no imminent danger. All made the point that the situation could not be ignored.

Then, there was the critical difference - 23 said that given that there was no imminent threat, they could not give there vote - they were right. Others spoke of reluctantly accepting the Powell arguments that the vote gave the President the ability to say the country was behind him and that as Bush said it was not a vote for war. The problem was that, when Bush misused it their names were forever on record as voting yes - even if they restated Bush's promises. The fact is that Bush was going to war anyway - the democrats' votes did not make it more likely - he had enough with just the Democratic co-sponsors. What it did was gave Bush and his syncophants in the media the ability to say the Democrats were responsible too.

But, they know the truth. What was the reaction to Rove's attempt to say the Democrats pushed Bush to war? A story that Clinton's Iraq comments took out of the news. The fact is the decision made in March 2003 was what took the country to war. It was not the vote. In fact, invading than was done more in spite of the promises made to get votes than because the resolution exists. The reaction to Rove proves that people REALLY know that.

[cali]

19. baloney. As Pat Leahy warned his colleagues repeatedly

the IWR was a blank check for war.

[Enrique]

23. Bush had to keep making his case for war after the IWR vote

very important events occurred after that vote which were necessary for the war to happen. Bush had to lie in his State of the Union, for example, an impeachable offense. Powell had to give his career-ending presentation before the UN.

I think the IWR vote was more about how the politics would look after the war rather than about whether the war would happen. If the IWR had not passed, I think we probably still would have had the war, but the politics of course would be very different.

[suston96]

27. One thing worse than ignoring history...

...and that is morphing it and molding it with inaccuracies and lies to fit our politics.

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat its mistakes. Those who manipulate and lie to themselves and others about what actually happened at any given time, are doomed to eventual self- destruction.

[Enrique]

14. is this a rhetorical question?

:eyes:

[LeftCoast]

16. Ah...another statement in the form of a question from the anti-Hillary set.

:hi:

[ronnykmarshall]

21. We haven't had a "justify your support" of Hillary thread in weeks!

Someone's asleep at the switch!

[LeftCoast]

26. Ya know...you're right!

Hard to miss in the avalanche of negativity on the two GD's this AM.

LOL

[Renew Deal]

22. Did you vote for John Kerry?

:think:

[Carrieyazel]

28. Yes. She not only endorsed this war from the beginning,

she wanted to go in swiftly with no UN restriction, supported the war for years, funded it for years and didn't turn against it until the winds changed. And I can't see her stopping it.

[suston96]

30. You must have some links.....

"....she wanted to go in swiftly with no UN restriction..." Really? A link?

[suston96]

33. Matter of fact.....

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

Here is what she said about her vote:

October 10, 2002
Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

******

Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

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.

**********

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

********

So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.

Thank you, Mr. President.

[Whisp]

38. Senator Clinton.... what about East Timor?

"""However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak."""

what about East Timor?
while you were 'humanitarianizing' Kosovo, the Timorese were being slaughtered with your consent. (I don't mean to say her specifically, but as she uses the 'we and our NATO allies' in this excerpt....

[Whisp]

40. Why Americans Should Care about East Timor

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19990826.htm

Why Americans Should Care about East Timor
Noam Chomsky
Mother Jones, August 26, 1999


There are three good reasons why Americans should care about East Timor. First, since the Indonesian invasion of December 1975, East Timor has been the site of some of the worst atrocities of the modern era -- atrocities which are mounting again right now. Second, the US government has played a decisive role in escalating these atrocities and can easily act to mitigate or terminate them. It is not necessary to bomb Jakarta or impose economic sanctions. Throughout, it would have sufficed for Washington to withdraw support and to inform its Indonesian client that the game was over. That remains true as the situation reaches a crucial turning point -- the third reason.

President Clinton needs no instructions on how to proceed. In May 1998, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright called upon Indonesian President Suharto to resign and provide for "a democratic transition." A few hours later, Suharto transferred authority to his handpicked vice president. Though not simple cause and effect, the events illustrate the relations that prevail. Ending the torture in East Timor would have been no more difficult than dismissing Indonesia's dictator in May 1998.

Not long before, the Clinton administration welcomed Suharto as "our kind of guy," following the precedent established in 1965 when the general took power, presiding over army-led massacres that wiped out the country's only mass-based political party (the PKI, a popularly supported communist party) and devastated its popular base in "one of the worst mass murders of the 20th century." According to a CIA report, these massacres were comparable to those of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao; hundreds of thousands were killed, most of them landless peasants. The achievement was greeted with unrestrained euphoria in the West. The "staggering mass slaughter" was "a gleam of light in Asia," according to two commentaries in The New York Times, both typical of the general western media reaction. Corporations flocked to what many called Suharto's "paradise for investors," impeded only by the rapacity of the ruling family. For more than 20 years, Suharto was hailed in the media as a "moderate" who is "at heart benign," even as he compiled a record of murder, terror, and corruption that has few counterparts in postwar history.

Suharto remained a darling of the West until he committed his first errors: losing control and hesitating to implement harsh International Monetary Fund (IMF) prescriptions. Then came the call from Washington for "a democratic transition" -- but not for allowing the people of East Timor to enjoy the right of self-determination that has been validated by the UN Security Council and the World Court.


==
now for those who think that Hillary's First Lady years give her White House 'experience', what do you say about East Timor? Or did she conveniently not know anything about this particular travesty? Iwish someone would ask her about East Timor.

[suston96]

41. Why are you changing the subject?

[Whisp]

42. I am on subject, what is it that makes you uncomfortable? nt

[Carrieyazel]

47. That was a TERRIBLE speech that she gave, and will be used against her to show flopping

She voted against the Levin amendment, which would have brought in the UN as a last resort.

[Bitwit1234]

31. I guess she will never be able to explain the lie bush told them

because the Hillary bashers don't want to listen. And has anybody asked Obama WHY HE WANTS TO BOMB IRAN. Since there is no nuclear threat now why..But of course the circumstances could be twisted. Bush told congress Iran had nuclear weapons...they believed him, til the NIE report came out, but Obama had said, before the report came out, he would bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran. His American Idol groupies think that's OK>>>>>

Now during the run up to the Iraq war bush told congress Saddam had WMD and gave them forged proof. They voted for him to find them, not start a war. But since 96 senators voted for the resolution, guess what they only one being flayed with that fact is Hillary Clinton. S.O.B. if she had voted no would that have kept bush from his war....the Obama American Idol groupies are still holding her and her only responsible. But not Obama, who listened to false information and wanted to bomb bomb bomb Iran, he's not even questioned about it.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

32. vote for someone else during the primary if you feel disenfranchised

[NewHampster]

37. Because she is smart enough to not give them a sound bite

n/t

[Zueda]

46. Nah... the "Far Right Conspiracy" wouldn't know a sound bite...

if it smacked 'em in the face.

[crawfish]

39. Yes - Hillary is a neocon in Democrat clothing.

...nothing in her voting record says otherwise.

[GreenArrow]

44. she's said she "regretted" the vote

which at the end of the day means about as much in practical terms as Edwards saying he was "wrong".

[Tejanocrat]

45. I worry more that a vote for Hillary is endorsing Bush's coming IRAN war!

[Sancho]

48. I may be wrong, but if all heads of state were women...

there would be less wars. Hillary is NOT Bush, no matter how a single vote seems important right now. None of the Democratic candidates would continue an unnecessary war.