That famous 2002 antiwar speech.

We've all heard quite a bit about a famous 2002 antiwar speech delivered by a certain Democratic candidate for president. It is often referred to as a key example of judgment and wisdom, and indeed the events of that day have reverberated since. But the interesting thing is, I find that this speech has rarely been seen or read by the supporters of this candidate, so I thought it was worth taking a look at.

We remember those awful days. It was time when many Americans were being told that they should "shut up" and support the president in the run-up to the war. This brave orator disagreed and said so near the beginning of the speech:

...on no account should dissent be discouraged or disparaged. It is central to our freedom and to our progress, for on more than one occasion, history has proven our great dissenters to be right.

The speech also did not shy away from the role that the U.S. played in supporting that terrible dictator, Saddam Hussein, when it suited our interests:

Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.

And also made clear that despite the disinformation campaign pushed by the administration:

...there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It should be pointed out, however, that the senator did not believe that Iraq was something we shouldn't worry about:

The question is how do we do our best to both defuse the real threat that Saddam Hussein poses to his people, to the region, including Israel, to the United States, to the world, and at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations?

But when it came to the idea of a unilateral attack on Iraq:

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us.

...this course is fraught with danger.

...a unilateral attack...on the present facts is not a good option.

The senator also added:

I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial.

Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation.

Near the conclusion of the speech, Senator Hillary Clinton spoke of the awesome responsibility of being in such a position:

This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.

...

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.

There are dovish parts...and there are hawkish parts...and both underscore what a difficult position Senator Clinton was in. She had seen the devastation and death that a terrorist attack could bring, and wanted to do everything in her power protect her constituents and the United States. This was her responsibility. And yet, she also knew that diplomacy was paramount and war should only be an absolute last resort. That much is explicit in the speech and cannot be denied. That she voted the way she did, only to be lied to by President Bush, who had no intention of letting the inspectors do their job and planned to invade no matter what...was an acknowledged mistake. But the blame for this tragedy lays at the feet of the worst president in American history, not the Senator who spoke out so eloquently that war should always be a last resort.

To read the rest of Senator Hillary Clinton's October 2002 floor speech regarding the resolution to authorize force in Iraq, click here.



Display:


The more you know... (2.00 / 12)


by Scan on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:52:23 PM EST

Thank you for posting! (2.00 / 7)

A very good speech that underlines the dilemmas of the day and the dilemmas that faced every single US Senator.


by linc on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:08:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It shows how complex the job of President is.. (2.00 / 6)

We really need someone who can handle it. There are forces that would send us into wars simply because they make huge amounts of money on them.

Barack Obama has stated he wants to raise the military budget, while also trying to portray himself as the antiwar candidate.

I think Hillary Clinton has shown that her priorities better reflect my own.

Obama may, for example, be trying to save so much money on healthcare by shifting those costs to consumers.. - so - he can use that money to pad the military budget.. even as he tries to manipulate public opinion to get himself elected on the Iraq issue.

Its complicated, and Hillary is the only candidate that gives us enough information so that we know what her intentions are.


Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Without a REAL committment to it, we WON'T win in November.
by architek on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:17:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It shows how complex the job of President is.. (1.42 / 7)

Yes we know her intentions when she voted for war was to show her supporter and agreement with the worst pres. ever.


by lion king on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:23:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It shows how complex the job of President is.. (2.00 / 4)

I feel the same way about HRC over Iraq (and Bill by the way) as I do about Tony Blair. I didn't believe there was a case for war, but I trusted him - and his close relationship with the Clintons. I felt that they must have known something I didn't to take this drastic and catastrophic step. But they didn't. Whether they were lied to or misled themselves, it really doesn't matter: both errors are worthy of political punishment. I stopped supporting Tony Blair after the huge blunder of the invasion. And all my belief in the Clintons evaporated.

Sometimes there are decisions like this (see Chamberlain in the 1930s, Eden in the 50s, Johnson in the 60s) which are so catastrophic for international relations and the lives of millions of people, that politicians deserve to get punished for taking the wrong side.

The Iraq war vote, and UK acquiescence in invasion, has been the biggest foreign policy blunder since Suez on our part, and Vietnam on yours.

I don't doubt Hillary's good faith, by the way, or Blair's, or the difficult circumstances they were under. But we elect politicians to make tough decisions. And we rightly fail to elect them when they are wrong.


by brit on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 07:25:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It was just a speech that we all could have given (1.55 / 9)

But, what did State Senator Obama who was running against Alan Keyes do after that speech?  Did he continue to make speeches against the war?  Did he organize protests?  Did he vote like he was against the war once he got to the US Senate?  Did he say, his views were the same as president Bush's views after we captured Baghdad?  Did he continue to vote to fund the war?  And.......did he vote to confirm the voice of the war, Mondo Condo as the Secretary of State?

Before the vote, was he briefed on any intelligence?  Did he have any close friends or advisers who were privy to the Iraq situation, their arms, their activities, not counting  Jeremiah Wright, who is for anything Muslim, tell him that we needed to go to war because of classified information?  Did he have even an ounce of responsibility for the words in that speech?  Obviously not because the two-faced liar voted with every Senator on who authorized the war, on Iraq issues?  

None of us would have voted for the war but what if our best friends, George Tenet and Colin Powell were telling us we really had to go in because there is real evidence of an arms build up and the taking of Baghdad would be easy.  Nobody said we had to get rid of the Army or stay there any longer than we stay for Desert Storm. I am sure that chickenshit Obama would have voted with John Kerry, Tom Daschle, Jay Rockefeller and all the other Senators who voted to authorize the ability to threaten Saddam with War.  He made his speech in a vacuum where he wouldn't be touched, something that he is very good at.  But those kinds of skills, sneaky and conniving and lying, doesn't make a good world leader.  

I did notice that in his speech he talked about the bad policies we had in the 80s.  Gee whiz, why didn't he mention that when he spoke about Reagan and the great idea giving Republicans.

All it was, was a speech and when liars make speeches you have to look at what else they do and he did nothing until he decided to run for President.  How pathetic is your case for Mr. Inexperience to lean everything on a speech that didn't mean a thing?  


by cpa1a on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:58:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It was just a speech that we all could have gi (2.00 / 3)

okay, I am going to troll-rate you for two reasons...  would that I had two troll-rates..

First of all...  the phrase Jeremiah Wright who is for anything Muslim... what a stupid blanket statement that is.  Not that most blanket statements are accurate or anything.

And secondly, because you referred to a sitting United States Senator as a "chickenshit"

I thought about gigging you for liar, but that has become common practice on this board now, so I'll have to learn to deal.


Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...
by JenKinFLA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:34:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It was just a speech that we all could have gi (none / 0)

Feel free to troll rate me, if this somehow warrants...

But is this a website for tattling 8 year olds? Oh dear, a cuss word about a sitting US Senator! Oh my, a clearly sarcastic comment about the way Wright is used.

I mean, barring racism or something that truly takes away the ability for posters to discuss the topic intelligently -- what's the point?

It's become a game of gotcha that is some how smaller and pettier than the game of gotcha between the campaigns. This Trollrating thing is turning (turned) this site into "MyDirectSLAPPsuit." Is this Dodgeball? Does your candidate have a better chance for those Superdelegates if you cleanse MyDD of inoffensive if obnoxious dissent?

I at first thought the rating thing was some kind of fun, good natured way to give "mojo" or "trolls" to your friends. Nothing serious, just a way to see that people were reading your words, agreement or disagreement be damned.

But this is borderlining those Pizza Hut managers who quickly call the towing service the second they see a car parked in their lot without purchase. Yeah, I guess it's the rules of the lot, but is this really the kind of person you want to be in life? Really?


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 05:45:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It was just a speech that we all could have gi (2.00 / 1)

Well, a lot of the time, people troll rate and move on...  I don't tend to troll rate, but when I do I try to provide justification.

I really don't see how calling anyone a "chickenshit" or anything of the sort does anything to enable any of us to discuss the topic intelligently though.

I don't think I asked for anyone's modem to be towed , although pizza does sound pretty good right now.


Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...
by JenKinFLA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 07:08:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It was just a speech that we all could have gi (2.00 / 2)

But, what did State Senator Obama who was running against Alan Keyes do after that speech?

I knew this was going to be a straight up smear job when you didn't have anything right in the very first sentence of the reply.  After you go on a tirade in which simply putting a "s" in front of every "he" would have sufficed on the other side you give this doozy...

Before the vote, was he briefed on any intelligence?  Did he have any close friends or advisers who were privy to the Iraq situation, their arms, their activities, not counting  Jeremiah Wright, who is for anything Muslim, tell him that we needed to go to war because of classified information?

Well most of us that could read and make decisions for ourselves knew something was rotten in Denmark before March of 2003 but I like how you go ahead and throw back in the old "he might be Muslim" meme, that is the kind of class I expect from what I can only guess is a Mark Penn and Karl Rove sycophant.

I am sure that chickenshit Obama would have voted with John Kerry, Tom Daschle, Jay Rockefeller and all the other Senators who voted to authorize the ability to threaten Saddam with War.

Or maybe he would have voted with that "chickenshit" Paul Wellstone who in retrospect was the only one to have it right.  You seem to be forgetting it was YOUR candidate that capitulated for calculated political reasons.

I did notice that in his speech he talked about the bad policies we had in the 80s.  Gee whiz, why didn't he mention that when he spoke about Reagan and the great idea giving Republicans.

I notice you have your facts wrong again and are misquoting Sen Obama.

All it was, was a speech and when liars make speeches you have to look at what else they do and he did nothing until he decided to run for President.  How pathetic is your case for Mr. Inexperience to lean everything on a speech that didn't mean a thing?  

You are a very angry person and I believe it is clouding your reason.  Considering how many things you got wrong here I would highly suggest you take a step back and calm down about how much you hate Sen. Obama.  It is not his fault your candidate ran a horrible campaign for a contest she should have won months ago.


Tony Romo for Secretary of Awesome
by kasjogren on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:36:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

judgment (2.00 / 3)

Obama has said that he thought there were WMD. Hillary wasn't so sure, she wanted to find out. If that vote had not been taken Bush was threatening to attack anyway, and he had troops in place before the vote. Condi had said he'd made up his mind, and now the Brits tell us they knew the same, all before that vote. Condi said he didn't need more authorization and indeed, when the UN denied it he bombed anyway. In an earlier version that bill said he could bomb anywhere he thought was a threat, and Hillary was one of those who negotiated that out, and negotiated in a path Saddam could take to avoid being bombed. He did both, he let the inspectors go wherever they liked, he released all his documentation showing what had already been destroyed, and he offered to go into exile. Had Bush followed the authorization he could not have bombed.  The rationale for impeachment is that he bombed anyway, lied to congress that he would not bomb unless Saddam refused to cooperate. This remains a big deal only because Obama wasn't in congress and he bases all his judgment claims on that one speech that is not recorded, so we don't know for sure what he said, he's reenacted it but there is no hard record of what he said at the time. It's how to spin a thin resume into something that appears thicker, and has nothing to do with leadership qualifications as no one followed him, and nothing to do with what they now plan to do. She has the only plan to get all American interests out of Iraq, he's seemingly planning to keep private armies guarding American business interests. This is the real story, but the only thing he says is he made a speech and that qualifies his judgment.  It's strange that he can think it's so easy to be president, and that he won't need foreign policy help on his ticket.  Way strange.  


by anna shane on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 05:12:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: judgment (2.00 / 0)

While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein's biological and chemical weapons.

That's from her 2002 speech.  So to say that only Obama thought Iraq had WMDs and Hillary wasn't so sure is not accurate.

Also, just because Bush is a madman and might have attacked Iraq anyway does not excuse her vote.


Check out McCain.
by you like it on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:42:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wonderful (2.00 / 1)

Though cpa1a's post deserves to be troll rated for verbal abuse.

But it also deserves to be mojo'd as a warning to others. Don't launch into an attack on what you think  is another candidate's speech, when it's actually your own.

I sometimes wonder (I'm perhaps guilty of this myself) whether people bother reading the diary, but just read the headline, and then evacuate whatever bile might be on their minds. Not talking 'bout anyone in particular here of course.

Keep smiling. This post by cpa1a certainly made me laugh


by brit on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 07:49:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Had Hillary given a REAL Anti War Speech in 2002 (none / 0)

she would be the Nominee right now, with my enthusiastic support.

Hillary was rightly regarded as a Hawk in 2002, and Hilary was still rightly regarded as a Hawk in 2005 when she with John McCain acted sa tag team cheerleaders for the War in Iraq on Meet the Press

My diary has more: The Pro War Hillary of 2005


It's time to restore balance and fairness to our economy,... It's time to stop giving tax cuts to corporations that ship jobs overseas... - Barack Obama
by Lefty Coaster on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 08:23:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you for posting! (none / 0)

Senators who were strong enough to overcome their "difficult position":

# 1 (42%) of 50 Democratic Senators voted against the resolution: Sens. Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), Wyden (D-OR).

-Wikipedia


by mikeinsf on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 08:38:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you for posting! (2.00 / 2)

Of the Democratic Senators who voted for the war, the majority of them were up for reelection that year - that was the whole purpose of scheduling the vote in October.

Hillary Clinton's vote really stands out, because she was a Democrat who wasn't going to have to run for reelection for another four years.  I think there were only like 6 other Democrats in her position to vote "Aye".


by Mostly on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 03:25:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you for posting! (none / 0)

good point


by mikeinsf on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:15:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Brilliant diary! (2.00 / 3)

Very funny diary, yet very serious and to the point. Our next President sure is one smart, thoughtful woman.

Rec'd.


Grumpy, reluctant, sore-losing, unhappy, irritable Hillary supporter for Barack Obama 2008
by DemAC on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:13:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The more you know... (2.00 / 4)

While her position is nuanced as you say, a no vote by her (and John Edwards and John Kerry) might have made a difference.  Kerry and Edwards have long considered that vote a big mistake.  

The Democrats could have prevented the Iraq debacle.  To many did not.

Obama was right in 2002.  Since then, however, his position has been similar to Senator Clinton's on how to get out.  (Bill Clinton correctly noted that).

Both Obama and Clinton have faled to lead on this issue.

They both should have voted for Kerry-Feingold in 2006, but both voted no.


by TomP on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:23:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The more you know... (2.00 / 2)

So, even though she said during a debate that if she knew then what she knew now, she wouldn't have voted that way, Obama supporters will still insist she's like GWB until she says the magic words "I'm sorry." If she says that, are Obama supporters going to come flocking to her candidacy?  Or is that just the excuse they are giving?


by cmugirl90 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:54:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The more you know... (2.00 / 1)

I think her lack of an apology was a big concern early on - especially when compared to Edwards' apology. Now it would be too little, too late - and too obviously a pander.

My big issue is this - considering that she knew THEN what she knew THEN, why did she think it was wise to authorize the president to use military force? Yeah, of course everyone opposes the war NOW... but it was a brave and smart minority in the Senate that had the clarity to oppose the war when it actually mattered. How can you be so surprised that many of us are disappointed that she was not part of that minority?


www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:24:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The war lasted from March 20 to April 9, 2003 (1.00 / 7)

So, from 20 days, which was voted for in the authorization, to 5 more years was the real crime and nobody stopped Bush; not Kerry, not Dodd, not Daschle, not McCaskell, not Pelosi, not Harry Reid, not Hillary and no Barack Obama.  Each and every one of them are guilty of not ending the war.

Where oh where was Barack Obama?  He could speak against the 20 days when he was a state senator but when he became a US Senator, the 5 years was OK with him.

Hillary signed up for the 20 days to Baghdad, as did alsmost all the Obama supporters.  Tell me one time this Barack Obama showed an ounce of political courage in anything he's done before this campaign.  Look how this sneaky bastard is able to disenfranchise millions of people but he would not join the filibuster of Alito.  Hmm a little triangulating for the liar of Rev Wright's church??


by cpa1a on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:27:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The war lasted from March 20 to April 9, 2003 (2.00 / 1)

troll-rated for calling Obama a sneaky bastard...

Really, can you make a point nicely?  I mean, I am getting desensitized to supporters on either side referring to two Democratic Senators as liars (which scares me), but the name-calling exhibited twice by you crosses the line...


Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...
by JenKinFLA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:38:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The war lasted from March 20 to April 9, 2003 (2.00 / 1)

Troll rated for being a troll...


by zadura on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:40:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I am not an Obama supporter. (2.00 / 1)

Try again.

Compare her convoluted statment to John Edwards:

The Right Way in Iraq

By John Edwards

Sunday, November 13, 2005; Page B07

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.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101623. html

John Kerry:

John Kerry| BIO | I'M A FAN OF THIS BLOGGER
Mistakes and Responsibility
Posted October 11, 2006 | 02:18 PM (EST)

Four years ago today, the United States Senate voted to give President Bush the authority to use force in Iraq.

There's nothing - nothing - in my life in public service I regret more, nothing even close. We should all be willing to say: I was wrong, I should not have voted for the Iraq War Resolution. It's not enough to talk about the incompetence and immorality of this Administration in the conduct of this war. It is not enough to point out that we were grossly misled.


by TomP on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 05:15:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Link for John Kerry. (none / 0)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-kerry /mistakes-and-responsibili_b_31482.html


by TomP on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 05:16:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Let Me Tell You Something (none / 0)

I support Hillary Clinton because her qualifications for the office of President are, to me, clearly superior to those of Barack Obama.

It took a long time for me to arrive at this position.  For a long time I believed Barack Obama could be what our party needed.  Two things changed my mind...the Obama campaign's lack of substance and treatment of Hillary was the first.  Hillary's statement in that debate that she would not vote again for AUMF was the second.

Now, that having been said I am still not satisfied with her statements on the war and I will not be until she states flat-out that it was a mistake and she is sorry.  She's still trying to have it both ways...still believing Penn was right.  He wasn't and if she'd start listening to the people of the United States she'd know that.


by creeper1014 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:33:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The more you know... (none / 0)

Well done, scan.


by durendal on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:14:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That famous 2002 antiwar speech. (2.00 / 12)

I don't understand how millions of anti-war protesters, myself included, were able to see that Bush's one and only goal was war in Iraq, yet somehow Hillary Clinton was unable to see this.

It was clear as day to all observers that diplomacy was only being used as a distraction in the lead up to war. I am certain this was also clear to someone as knowledgeable as Hillary Clinton.

That is all I had to say. Now you can flame me.


www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:58:21 PM EST

no it was not clear (2.00 / 3)

it was a suspicion if the 10 percent of us who never trusted a word the man said.  It was clear to the blog screamers.  It was not clear to the rest of the world and it really was not even clear to us.  We were just willing to take a risk other's were not and Clinton did not have that luxury.  She needed to do something to try and promote diplomacy knowing that it would be better to go to war with a coalition is we were going to go there.

She had a hell of a lot more responsibility than you, I or Obama had.  That fact he has admitted to at least during one of the two major flip flops he has done on his support for bush and the war.


DON'T COUNT THE VOTES, DON'T COUNT THE VOTES.... Obama and the Obamaettes... spring 2008
by TeresaINPennsylvania on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:13:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no it was not clear (2.00 / 4)

It was also fairly clear to people who study history, know anything about the Middle East in general, or Iraq specifically.

I was against it for many reasons not the least of which was because taking over a country is far different than kicking one country out of another... and people kept trumpeting that it would be just like the first Gulf War...  which also explains so any people being for it.


Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...
by JenKinFLA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:31:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no it was not clear (2.00 / 3)

Even the conservative historians and political scientists at my university thought it made no sense and that Bush et al clearly knew nothing about the region, its culture and history.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:33:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no it was not clear (none / 0)

And just what were these flip-flops?


Proudly joining the legions of people and states that don't matter on May 20th.
by Obama Independent on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:35:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Flip flops (2.00 / 1)

is a term that Republicans use to smear Democrats.


Let the children lose it Let the children use it Let all the children boogie
by toyomama on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:07:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

you have read them a million times (1.20 / 5)

you don't care because your ethics are situational as is your war opposition.


DON'T COUNT THE VOTES, DON'T COUNT THE VOTES.... Obama and the Obamaettes... spring 2008
by TeresaINPennsylvania on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:09:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you have read them a million times (2.00 / 1)

Ah yes, a personal attack instead of an actual answer. Not willing to defend your claims?


Proudly joining the legions of people and states that don't matter on May 20th.
by Obama Independent on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:13:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no it was not clear (2.00 / 8)

Bullshit. I was an undergraduate who recognized that there was no evidence that Saddam, EVEN IF he possessed WMD, had a delivery system. The only delivery system the administration ever argued he had was to employ al Qaeda, and unlike John McCain I knew that a secular tyrant like Saddam and a Wahabist fundamentalist like Bin Laden wouldn't trust each other enough to handle an operation like a handoff of WMD. So no, I did actually have a pretty good idea that we were being fed a load of crap. I didn't oppose the Iraq War because of some innate distrust of Bush, but because the rationale being offered didn't make a goddamn bit of sense. And it would be a monumental load of naivete to think that the vote to authorize an invasion was a vote for diplomacy. There was already an aggressive and effective diplomatic push underway. Iraq agreed to inspections in September, and hammered out an arrangement with Hans Blix on October 1st, ten days before Clinton voted to authorize an invasion. I won't stand for Mukasey lying about the history of 9/11 for political purposes, and I won't stand for you or other Clinton supporters trying to rewrite history to save her the embarrassment of admitting the single biggest mistake of her political career. That's flat-out, unequivocal bullshit. And what's worse, you're seeking to portray those of us who rationally and logically recognized the error as it was happening as somehow irresponsible. Shame on you.
by Jay R on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:28:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no it was not clear (2.00 / 1)

You're funny.


by interestedbystander on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:43:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no it was not clear (2.00 / 4)

Maybe if she'd taken the time to read the NIE she would have had the information she needed to vote against.  Seems lazy to me.


by interestedbystander on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:47:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no it was not clear (2.00 / 1)

I wasn't blogging, or that well informed.

It couldn't have been clearer that we were going to war and that vote enabled it.  Couldn't have been clearer.


by nwgates on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:01:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That famous 2002 antiwar speech. (2.00 / 1)

Because we weren't the junior Senator from the state of New York, we weren't responsible for making this decision and answering to our constituents, we don't have to run for re-election, and as private citizens no one would care if we call the President of the U.S. and  Colin Powell liars.

I knew the decision was wrong then too, but I really can't blame any Senators for this decision. Senators don't have the luxury of playing armchair pundit like we do. We never have to answer to anyone for our views about foreign policy, which gives us a much different perspective.


by LakersFan on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:55:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That famous 2002 antiwar speech. (2.00 / 4)

I'm sorry, but there have rarely been any foreign policy decisions that were this wrong for this many reasons. It wasn't some nuanced argument for going to war. It was a war of choice based on exaggerations, lies, and misdirected patriotism.


www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:13:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That famous 2002 antiwar speech. (none / 0)

I just don't think elected officials are in a position to call the President a liar. It doesn't take any courage for us as private citizens to say things like that, but it's pretty much impossible for Senators to say that. On issues like this, I actually hold Senators to a lower standard than the average person because I don't think they're necessarily in a position to exercise their free will. Prominent people lost their jobs and reputations for being vocal critics of Bush and the war. Sure I wish more people would stand up for what's right, but I'm trying to be realistic about the predominent sentiment at the time.

And I think my two Democratic Senators are idiots for voting the same and I told them at the time. But I understood their decision and didn't really expect them to vote any other way.


by LakersFan on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:55:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That famous 2002 antiwar speech. (none / 0)

I just don't think elected officials are in a position to call the President a liar. It doesn't take any courage for us as private citizens to say things like that, but it's pretty much impossible for Senators to say that.

Well, Dick Cheney famously told a Senator to "go fuck himself", so I don't think that institution is a cordial as you make it out to be. I do get your point - but I also get that plenty of Senators happily voted No.


www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 05:33:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That famous 2002 antiwar speech. (none / 0)

I don't think the insitution is all that cordial, I just think the Bush/Cheney war machine was out to ruin people's lives and careers if they defied them. And on review of the votes I see that one of my Senators (Boxer) did vote no, so I do get your point too.


by LakersFan on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:17:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That famous 2002 antiwar speech. (none / 0)

We have the same Senators :)


www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:35:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That famous 2002 antiwar speech. (2.00 / 1)

We must live in the same state! Has DiFi become one huge embarrassment, or what?


by LakersFan on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:03:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That famous 2002 antiwar speech. (none / 0)

I know you were talking to that other person, but I whole-heartedly agreee with you.  I was even asking for her to be VP four years ago, but now I hope she retires soon.  Her FISA position along with other things has really upset me.  

BTW, are you watching the Laker game? Losing 26-19.  They come back though.  I don't know how they deny Kobe the MVP.  


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:33:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That famous 2002 antiwar speech. (2.00 / 1)

I cannot stand DiFi's position on FISA, or her approval of every awful judicial and justice department nominee put before her. I can't tell you how many times I've written to her to tell her to stop allowing the Bush administration to trample on the Constitution, to do the oversight job she was elected for, and that her consituents want her to stand up to the administration. But it's apparent she doesn't care. Now all I can do is wait for her to retire.

That Lakers loss was painful. Kobe had better be MVP already, he really deserves it.


by LakersFan on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 03:42:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That famous 2002 antiwar speech. (none / 0)

Come on.
She is a senator form New York. That's secure Democrat and especially there she could have made the case for keeping the eye on the ball (Al Qayda in Afghanistan).
She knew she was voting tough and that is why she did it. She gambled on it being a short and popular war, she voted for it to build up her tough CiC credentials. She, 4000 American soldiers and millions of Iraqi's lost on that gamble. The only ones winning on her gamble are big arms and big oil.
by hebi on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 05:52:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That famous 2002 antiwar speech. (none / 0)

She voted the same way as 76 of her colleagues. Did all of them vote this way for the nefarious reasons you ascribe to Senator Clinton? Or are you just singling her out because you dislike her?


by LakersFan on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 03:16:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That famous 2002 antiwar speech. (none / 0)

I think you are right.  That is why we have to examine their judgment.


by jakedecker on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:44:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That famous 2002 antiwar speech. (none / 0)

Well it's good to know the math:

One Senatorial seat > 4000+ soldiers, countless Iraqi civilians, billions dollars, US reputation.

Thank God Hillary was able to make this bold stand.  A true leader.


by mikeinsf on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 08:59:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That famous 2002 antiwar speech. (none / 0)

Junior Senator Corzine in NJ voted against it knowing it would be used against him in future elections. Senators have 100 times more responsibility to stand up then the average citizen without a soap box or a direct say.

She voted against the Levin amendment and insisted on leaving it up to Bush completely. Then she did it again with Iran even after she had the experience of Bush's misuse of that power in Iraq. She only found her courage to oppose the war when the war became unpopular and support for the war was no longer politically expedient.  


by hankg on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:59:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That famous 2002 antiwar speech. (none / 0)

As far as I understand, John Corzine didn't run for reelection to the Senate after that vote, so his situation is different.

But I disagree that Senators have more of a responsibility to speak out than the average citizen. We have far more freedom of speech as individuals than elected officials do.


by LakersFan on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 03:46:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That famous 2002 antiwar speech. (none / 0)

Jon Corzine would have run again for Senator if McGreevey had not resigned as Governor. I'm sure his consultants where telling him his vote was political suicide. That the Republicans would hammer him as weak on terror. It's not like he won his last election by a huge margin. But I guess some politicians are capable of taking a principled stand even at the risk of their own political ambitions.


by hankg on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 04:54:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That famous 2002 antiwar speech. (none / 0)

I didn't know that's why Corzine didn't run again. I just assumed he had planned it that way. Good for him! I just don't have your same high expectations of elected officials -- they are politicians after all. Call me jaded.


by LakersFan on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 02:32:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That famous 2002 antiwar speech. (none / 0)

Agreed. She should have known that all Bush wanted was to invade Iraq. Poor judgment on her part if she didn't think Bush was going to act.

I froze my ass off all winter long during those anti-war protests in Chicago. I felt betrayed by every senator that voted for the Bu$hCo War.

by power of truth on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 06:31:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That famous 2002 antiwar speech. (2.00 / 5)

"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"

The joke was on her, it seems.


by the mollusk on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:58:36 PM EST

Re: That famous 2002 antiwar speech. (2.00 / 2)

I worked in a bar around this time and saw near fistfights break out between opponents and proponents.  

I have less of a problem voting for it back then as opposed to standing by it now.  I was against it from the get-go personally, not Afghanistan, but Iraq.  I realize for politically expedient purposes, she cannot disavow the vote, but to cap it off with Kyl-Lieberman, and the standing "o" on the President's "The surge is working" line at the SOTU speech...?

I just fear that she is far more hawkish than she is coming across as in the primary.


Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...
by JenKinFLA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:01:26 PM EST

Re: That famous 2002 antiwar speech. (none / 0)

Are you sure she still stands by it???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdWh8qOUA zk


by Dave B on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:23:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That famous 2002 antiwar speech. (2.00 / 3)

I agree. If she believes that she did not vote for war but for diplomacy, if she believes she was misled by the administration, since she has seen what the administration did with her vote for diplomacy why vote for Kyl-Lieberman? It just doesn't make sense.


Proudly joining the legions of people and states that don't matter on May 20th.
by Obama Independent on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:34:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That famous 2002 antiwar speech. (none / 0)

She is far more hawkish. Anyone saying otherwise has stars in their eyes.


by mikeinsf on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 05:24:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I was angry at the time (2.00 / 5)

that she voted for the resolution.  But I have never doubted her sincerity.  Her big mistake was believing there was any honesty in bush.
But Obama has flip flopped  several times in his position and to me that makes him much less trustworthy.

If you want an example of a democrat who sounds like a war hawk when they explained their vote you only have to look at Edward's speech.  Ironic isn't it?
Edwards and Obama have both said what helped them at the time and Clinton has been consistent.  I may not like all her choices but I trust her to do what she believes is right.


DON'T COUNT THE VOTES, DON'T COUNT THE VOTES.... Obama and the Obamaettes... spring 2008
by TeresaINPennsylvania on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:04:51 PM EST

'Flip flopped' (none / 0)

There's that term again.


Let the children lose it Let the children use it Let all the children boogie
by toyomama on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:09:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I was angry at the time (2.00 / 1)

Ok, let's put aside Obama's "flip flopping" because that is certainly debatable.

What is not debatable is that Hillary Clinton voted for a bill that gave explicit authority to President Bush to launch a military invasion of a Iraq. Now, there are probably many reasons why she thought that was the right thing to do at the time. And she was in the majority of the Senate when she voted the way she did.

BUT, what about those Senators that voted against the AUMF? I, personally, have great admiration for all of those elected officials who had the clarity and foresight to vote against giving Bush blanket authority to wage a war. Clinton could have been a part of that minority, but she chose not to be.

So I ask you - what did those other Senators see that Clinton did not? Why was she not swayed by their arguments? She thought she was making the right decision, one would assume, and now it turns out she made the wrong decision. So, what separated her from those who voted against? What enabled them to make the right decision? Whatever it is, I wish Hillary Clinton had it.


www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:30:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I was angry at the time (none / 0)

I love how y'all try to turn this one on Obama.  Stick to Rezko, Wright, and Obama's kindergarten papers.  There's really no leg to stand on here.


by mikeinsf on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:02:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That famous 2002 antiwar speech. (2.00 / 5)

It's easy to judge when you don't have to make the decision.  Excellent diary.


by JustJennifer on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:06:06 PM EST

Re: That famous 2002 antiwar speech. (none / 0)

Obama has throughly agreed with you, especially in his clear statement in The New Yorker in 2006.

http://andrys1.blogspot.com/2008/03/that -iraq-war-vote-and-judgment-factor.html


by Andrys on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:03:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That famous 2002 antiwar speech. (2.00 / 0)

Plenty of Senators made the right decision. Clinton did not. It is not as if the decision to vote NO was unheard of. It wasn't some strange and foreign concept. Lots of Senators voted NO and Clinton voted YES. She could have voted NO, and she didn't. That was the wrong decision and she should be held accountable for making a bad decision, especially on something that was literally a matter of life and death for tens of thousands of people.


www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:33:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That famous 2002 antiwar speech. (2.00 / 1)

She didn't read the NIE - most that voted against did.


by interestedbystander on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:50:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That famous 2002 antiwar speech. (2.00 / 0)

Yeah. Good thing presidents don't have to make decisions.


by Democratic Unity on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 05:14:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That famous 2002 antiwar speech. (none / 0)

Give me one example of a President who has never made a bad decision.  Just one.  Hell give me one example of any human being who hasn't made a bad decision.  Her mistake was giving George Bush too much credit for being a decent human being... something millions of others have done by voting for him not once BUT TWICE!  


by JustJennifer on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 05:27:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That famous 2002 antiwar speech. (2.00 / 1)

Again. A lot of congressional Democrats were faced with the same decision and rightly decided that Bush was lying and the lives of American soldiers were worth taking a stand for regardless of political consequences.  Hillary was in the minority within her own party in siding with Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. Sad, really.


by mikeinsf on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:05:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That famous 2002 antiwar speech. (none / 0)

In the Dem minority?  No -- more Dems voted for the Resolution than against it.

 Among the Dem leaders voting FOR the resolution were: Kerry, Edwards, Biden (normally a tough one), Daschle, Dodd, Schumer, Feinstein, Reid, Harkin, Rockefeller, Bayh, Cleland, and others.  

 The Dem vote was something like 29 Yea, 22 Nay


by Andrys on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:33:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That famous 2002 antiwar speech. (none / 0)

Congressional Dems.  I'm including the House.  Of the Senate it was 21 Dems (42%).


by mikeinsf on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 05:22:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That famous 2002 antiwar speech. (2.00 / 4)

Is it not funny that Hillary Rodham Clinton who is supposed to be dead and not have any chance of winning is still driving the news day in and day out like she is the frontrunner.

Doesn't anyone find the weird ?

Just thought I should put that out there.

I don't fault her for her vote , infact I think she took the right vote.


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:08:02 PM EST

Re: That famous 2002 antiwar speech. (2.00 / 1)

You think her Iraq vote in 2002 was correct?  Really?  Did you support the war in 2002?


by NewOaklandDem on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:13:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That famous 2002 antiwar speech. (2.00 / 2)

No , but as a public official I would probably have made the same call she did.

I can sit on the sidelines as a non public official like Obama did and make a speech but if you are in the senate where you have to make a decision with the information you have then you have to vote according to your conscience.

She did that and I respect her for that.


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:18:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That famous 2002 antiwar speech. (2.00 / 2)

Well, I think that she was very, very wrong.  I could see the build-up to war in early 2002, and I knew where it was heading.  I also think that she voted the way she did out of fear of Republicans, or of some political retribution, not her conscience.

I don't know if Obama would have voted against the resolution, but I know that she did.  I also know that Obama made his view on the rush to war pretty clear in the above speech.

So we disagree.


by NewOaklandDem on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:23:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That famous 2002 antiwar speech. (2.00 / 1)

I also think that she voted the way she did out of fear of Republicans, or of some political retribution, not her conscience.

- Could be , you don't know that.

I'll rather give her the benefit of the doubt than question her motives in that way.


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:29:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That famous 2002 antiwar speech. (2.00 / 1)

I guess that's where we differ - you give her the benefit of the doubt, and I don't.


by NewOaklandDem on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:33:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That famous 2002 antiwar speech. (2.00 / 1)

I'll happily give her the benefit of the doubt. But just because she had good reasons doesn't make that vote any less wrong. If she had apologized for it that would be fine. But she insists on walking this ridiculously thin line between standing by her vote and opposing the war. If she REALLY, TRULY opposed the war she could have joined the many other senators that voted against authorization.


www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:19:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That famous 2002 antiwar speech. (none / 0)

Oh that's a real recommendation: "fear of Republicans"?  This from the self-described "fighter"?  This from our "vetted" Hillary? Wow. She really would take it to McCain in November, eh?


by mikeinsf on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:07:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That famous 2002 antiwar speech. (none / 0)

Finally someone took the bait.  The "above speech" that you attribute to Obama was the speech that Hillary gave in October 2002 prior to the vote ~ the speech was her explanation of how she came to the difficult decision to vote for the resolution.  So I guess you would have to say that even then, Obama's position was no different than Hillary's

"I also know that Obama made his view on the rush to war pretty clear in the above speech."


by Mags on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 05:16:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That famous 2002 antiwar speech. (none / 0)

Huh.  I've been effectively fooled.


by NewOaklandDem on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 05:55:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That famous 2002 antiwar speech. (none / 0)

Huh.  Good on you for making me look foolish!  I can admit when I've been taken.  No sarcasm intended.


by NewOaklandDem on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 05:57:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That famous 2002 antiwar speech. (none / 0)

Okay, so now that I feel somewhat less foolish (but not much), please alow me respond: if she made the statements in the above speech, and still decided to give Bush war powers, then she was even more foolish than I was for believing this was Obama's speech.


by NewOaklandDem on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:13:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That famous 2002 antiwar speech. (none / 0)

Why is she foolish?  She gives a very thoughtful  and well reasoned speech and explains why she is voting for the resolution.  And the resolution worked, we got the UN inspectors back into Iraq ~ and then Bush didn't like what they were finding ~ which was nothing, and so our long national nightmare began.


by Mags on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:42:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That famous 2002 antiwar speech. (none / 0)

Finally someone took the bait.  The "above speech" that you attribute to Obama was the speech that Hillary gave in October 2002 prior to the vote ~ the speech was her explanation of how she came to the difficult decision to vote for the resolution.  So I guess you would have to say that even then, Obama's position was no different than Hillary's

"I also know that Obama made his view on the rush to war pretty clear in the above speech."


by Mags on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 05:22:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

uh, which above speech was that? (none / 0)

I believe you're referring to a speech given by Clinton.


No way. No how. No McCain. . . . . . If you can ship a job to Bangalore India, you can ship a job to Flint Michigan.
by NJ Liberal on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:36:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That famous 2002 antiwar speech. (2.00 / 0)

So what do you think of  the 23 Democratic Senators who opposed the vote?  


by zadura on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:23:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That famous 2002 antiwar speech. (none / 0)

They voted against the war .

I don't have an opinion one way or the other.


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:27:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That famous 2002 antiwar speech. (2.00 / 1)

So here's the rub.  You don't give Obama or any of the Senators credit for their good judgment but you give Clinton the benefit of the doubt for her bad judgment.  Do you also give her the benefit of the doubt for Kyl/Lieberman?  

My point is that she is probably not the war dove that she's painting herself out to be.  She may in fact be ok with some of this and her vote might actually be a record of those opinions.

Just a thought.


by zadura on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:35:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That famous 2002 antiwar speech. (2.00 / 1)

Do you also give her the benefit of the doubt for Kyl/Lieberman?

- i supported her on that vote , those who have been here earlier can attest to that.

My point is that she is probably not the war dove that she's painting herself out to be.  

- I don't know what you mean , but if you mean strong on military matters , defence and national security , and tough on foreign dictators , well thats exactly why I am supporting her and not supporting Obama.

"So here's the rub.  You don't give Obama or any of the Senators credit for their good judgment but you give Clinton the benefit of the doubt for her bad judgment."

- For her to have made a bad judgement , that means I would have to think she made the wrong call.

Check what I wrote in my first comment.


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:43:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That famous 2002 antiwar speech. (2.00 / 1)

And I will follow it back with asking if you thought that the Senators that voted against the AMUF were wrong for their vote? It's simple... if you think believe she made the correct choice, then logically you believe they made the wrong choice.


by zep93 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:00:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That famous 2002 antiwar speech. (none / 0)

Brilliant.

You've completely confounded that argument Zep93.

How can you support HRC's speech and vote for AUMF without saying it was right?

And if you think the war and the vote was wrong (even  if only in retrospect) how can the speech itself be any good?

We all understand the pressures, 911 etc that elected representatives were under - but this is EXACTLY when you want them to show their mettle. Look at Churchill versus Chamberlain.

And the fact Obama was not in the senate at the time (only running for election) does not invalidate his judgement or prescience about Iraq.

Hillary's speech should be posted side by side with Obama's speech to make a true comparison. Whatever you think about either candidates stances on other issues, on this, the biggest foreign policy the US (and UK) has made in a generation, it's clear who got it right.


by brit on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 07:43:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama's judgment? (2.00 / 2)

his judgment was that he was running for state senate from a very liberal AA district.  His judgment was that being anti-war was a good thing then.  When it was not such a good thing for his senate race, he changed.  Now he is back to being the anti-war candidate.  What kind of judgment is that?


DON'T COUNT THE VOTES, DON'T COUNT THE VOTES.... Obama and the Obamaettes... spring 2008
by TeresaINPennsylvania on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:14:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Huh? (none / 0)

He's always been against this war.  He hasn't been for withdrawing precipitously in such a manner that it could cause danger to our troops and plunge the country into further chaos.

You'll find his votes reflect this.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:12:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He was running for the Senate... (none / 0)

by October 2002.  He made his announcement in August of