Sorry Hillary, but that decision to invade Iraq looks even stupider now

[TeamJordan23]

The United States should have kept its eyes on the ball, and stayed focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan because that is where the real problems were. Terrorist threats largely arise out of these two countries and we have ignored that during the Iraq War.

[journalist3072]

1. You mind having that conversation with John Edwards as well?

[Smarmie Doofus]

7. Edwards has already recognized it as a mistake.

Clinton is impenetrable in her thick-headed obstinance.

[cali]

19. In no way does that wash the blood off his hands.

He was by far the most gung ho about that fucking war. He co-sponsored the IWR, and he stuck by the war and his vote for three years. He doesn't get a pass because he said "oops, sorry. my bad".

[annie1]

37. it doesn't change anything about where we are now.

[iamjoy]

2. Bob Graham Called It

At the time of the IWR, Bob Graham a Democratic Senator from Florida - I believe he was the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee. He was no dove, having helped write the PATRIOT Act. (I like to tell myself he wrote the few "good" parts.) He voted against the war with Iraq saying it would distract from the war on terror.

[killbotfactory]

3. It was an illegal war, and a gigantic distraction from actual existing threats

Half a trillion spent, and nearly a million dead, and it's done nothing but make the world more hostile to the US.

[MGKrebs]

4. Hillary didn't invade Iraq.

The IWR was a diplomatic effort (granted, crafted by republicans so it was flawed), but it did succeed in causing Saddam to offer to step down on the eve of the attack. Bush turned him down. The legislative branch did it's part. It's the executive that is responsible for the disaster.

[killbotfactory]

5. And she, and all the others, were gung-ho for going in when it came down to it

But let's just ignore that.

[Cameron27]

6. No she wasn't.

Edwards was gung ho, Clinton actually cautioned against invasion.

[killbotfactory]

17. Look up her statements days before the invasion.

March 17, 2003

Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on the President's Remarks to the Nation

When the President of the United States addresses the nation about possible military action, it is a solemn occasion for every American. Tonight, the President gave Saddam Hussein one last chance to avoid war, and the world hopes that Saddam Hussein will finally hear this ultimatum, understand the severity of those words, and act accordingly. While we wish there were more international support for the effort to disarm Saddam Hussein, at this critical juncture it is important for all of us to come together in support of our troops and pray that, if war does occur, this mission is accomplished swiftly and decisively with minimum loss of life and civilian casualties. I have had the honor of meeting and speaking with many of our brave men and women in uniform. They are the best trained, equipped, and motivated military in the entire world, we support them fully and we are grateful for their courageous service in these difficult times.

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=235695&&

In March 2003, well after UN weapons inspectors had been allowed to return and engage in unfettered inspections and were not finding any WMDs, Senator Clinton made clear that the United States should invade that Iraq anyway. Indeed, she asserted that the only way to avoid war would be for Saddam Hussein to abide by President Bush’s ultimatum to resign as president and leave the country, in the apparent belief that the United States had the right to unilaterally make such demands of foreign leaders and to invade and occupy their countries if they refused. Said Senator Clinton, “The president gave Saddam Hussein one last chance to avoid war and the world hopes that Saddam Hussein will finally hear this ultimatum, understand the severity of those words, and act accordingly.”

When President Bush launched the invasion soon thereafter and spontaneous protests broke out across the country, Senator Clinton voted in favor of a Republican-sponsored resolution that “commends and supports the efforts and leadership of the President . . . in the conflict against Iraq.”

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4802

Do what we say or we'll invade you isn't a message of peace.

[Cameron27]

27. I say read the links from the fpif article:

snip: "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.

snip: While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.

snip: 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.

[killbotfactory]

28. So she votes for a resolution which lets Bush decide when to invade?

Bush, who made no bones about his desire for regime change.

Come on.

She wasn't against the invasion, she was against the way Bush went in.

[Cameron27]

29. She thought he had a brain

that was her mistake. She didn't vote for invasion, but she should be held responsible for giving a moron the benefit of the doubt.

[killbotfactory]

30. Yeah, I'm sure she did.

She's not that smart. :eyes:

[Cameron27]

32. You can assume anything you want,

but nothing in her floor speech is even close to being gung-ho invasion.

[MGKrebs]

34. We're the ones who elected him president, not her.

HRC and the others made it very clear that they were authorizing the office of the president. It would be a very strange government indeed that assumes depravity in elected (allegedly) leaders before it occurs.

It was Bush's responsibility, his decision, his authority. Congress had their debate, they made their arguments, and they did their job. Bush ignored the restrictions in the resolution anyway, so some think NO resolution would have been even better?

[FiveGoodMen]

38. Twice

[MGKrebs]

8. You're moving the goalpost.

Her "decision to invade" is a bogus statement. But you're not really interested in a discussion are you. Actually, neither am I.

[killbotfactory]

20. I didn't say "her decision to invade"

That was Bush's decision, she just supported it.

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=235695&&

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4802

[killbotfactory]

24. Here she is in December 2003, back when the war was going "well"

And we were flushing saddam out of his spidey hole.

Turning to Iraq, yesterday was a good day. I was thrilled that Saddam Hussein had finally been captured. Like many of you, I was glued to the television and the radio as I went about my daily business. We owe a great debt of gratitude to our troops, to the president, to our intelligence services, to all who had a hand in apprehending Saddam. Now he will be brought to justice, and we hope that the prospects for peace and stability in Iraq will improve.

I was especially pleased that the capture was led by the 4th Infantry Division, whom I visited in Kirkuk and had a a briefing from the commander, General Odierno, and during that briefing was given some insights into the efforts to apprehend Saddam. And it's very good news indeed that they have come to fruition.

This moment, however, cannot be just about congratulating ourselves and the Iraqi people for this capture. It should be a moment where we step back and consider how now to go forward. What is it we can do today, based on the circumstances of yesterday, that will strengthen our hand and move the Iraqis closer to a time when they can have self-government and create a stable, free, democratic Iraq?

I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote. I have had many disputes and disagreements with the administration over how that authority has been used, but I stand by the vote to provide the authority because I think it was a necessary step in order to maximize the outcome that did occur in the Security Council with the unanimous vote to send in inspectors. And I also knew that our military forces would be successful. But what we did not appreciate fully and what the administration was unprepared for was what would happen the day after.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/6600/remarks_by_senator_hillary_rodham_clinton_transcript.html

[flvegan]

14. Jog my memory, would ya? When was Kucinich "gung ho" for going in?

You DID say "all the others".

[killbotfactory]

18. I was talking about the ones who supported the IWR

[BenDavid]

9. You are so right. Obama and edwards supporters believe HRC

over-ruled the joint chiefs and the decision to invade was all her responsibility. So edwards gets all tearful and tells everyone oh how sorry I am that I voted that way. Oh please forgive me, and excuse me while I get off my knees from kissing so much ass....and obama has returned, time and time again, to his 2002 speech against the war in Iraq. It is Barry's security blanket. What has Obama done since then? Precious little. He never really moved beyond 2002. He thought being right on the war in 2002 is his ticket to the White House. What conceit.

Then the obama and edwards people are pissed at HRC because she will not grovel for them and then say that she was sorry for her vote.

[KennedyGuy]

10. Well thought and a good response BenDavid..

Not that it will sway the simple-minded among us..
There is that HOPE thing, after all..

[no name no slogan]

11. No, but she signed the check for the bullets

as did everybody else who didn't vote against the IWR.

Some have admitted their past mistakes, and apologized. But not all.

[MGKrebs]

13. What exactly were they apologizing for?

In my view, HRC's vote was based on her principle that strong diplomacy was the way to go, and I think she was proven correct. There is really nothing for her to apologize for. On the other hand, I can't quite figure out what Edward's is apologizing for; believing what George Bush told him?

[no name no slogan]

26. The IWR was not about "diplomacy"

it was about the illegal invasion of Iraq. Anybody who believes it was about "diplomacy" is either 1) lying through their teeth, or 2) not mentally capable of making such a decision in the first place.

Either way, it is NOT somebody who should be running the country.

If you were truly opposed to the war, then you shouldn't have voted for the IWR. It's a matter of principle. If you voted for the war in order to save your political ass, then you do NOT deserve to be the leader of the free world.

[Cha]

23. hillary has done nothing but

feed the War Machine since 2002 and enabled bushit policy.

hillary is a cog.

[Evergreen Emerald]

12. This is a bizarre post.

Most of the democrats in Congress voted for the resolution, because they trusted Bush who promised them (my guess is behind closed doors), to use it as a last resort--they are bluffing Saddam.

All have indicated that, had they known then what they know now, they would not have voted differently.

Obama: admitted that he did not know how he would have voted, and indeed voted for funding time and again.

And you continute to blame Clinton while giving the others a free pass.

I don't get your unreasonable hatred of anything Clinton. You are wrong.

[Beacool]

15. Last time I checked, Bush was still president.

It was HIS decision to go to war. Stop placing blame on the Democrats and put it where it belongs: with the Republican administration.

Geez, so many in this board seem to be more anti-Democrats than the Repugs!!

[suston96]

16. Sorry, but Hillary did not decide to invade Iraq, Bush did......

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/14184

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.

You are confused as to who is your real enemy.

[KennedyGuy]

21. How...How.. DARE you throw facts at Obamabots

How dare you victimize that messianic man

[Cha]

25. hillary is a cog in the War Machine.

And has enabled bushit since October 2002. They only helped strengthen al qaida with their bombing of innocents.

[MNDemNY]

31. And BHO NEVER voted to fund it , did he?

oops I guess he did. VOTE KUCINICH.

[Cha]

22. We said it would open a

Big Ol' Can Of Middle East Whupa$$ and I guess that's what they wanted..Feed that War Machine..Kill those people with Bombs..who the fuck are they to us? Bushites are fucking A$$$holes.

[WillTheGoober]

33. Yep ...

Hillary took us to war. It's her fault all right.
And you talk about taking your eye off the ball.

Since when do we act like this as Democrats?

Talk up your candidate -- and stop hating on mine.

W.

[2rth2pwr]

35. Oh Great. Another call for military intervention in Pakistan.

What the hell are you thinking? You want to mess with a nuclear power?

[Perry Logan]

36. Using a tragedy to bash Hillary. You could have at least waited a decent interval.