I can't believe I am going to criticize Bill Clinton

I love Bill Clinton and I can't believe that I am about to write a diary criticizing him but I am.

Bill Clinton is re-writing history.  

"It's just not fair to say that people who voted for the resolution wanted war," Clinton said.

The ex-president is dead wrong.  This was the one vote, the most important vote, and the only opportunity to prevent what has become a disaster in Iraq.  We looked to the democrats in the Senate to stand up against war and the Senate failed us.  Bill's wife failed us.

He said he had re-read the Iraq resolution last week, and that his wife had voted only for "coercive inspections."

Bill Clinton is re-writing history.  

This is bullshit.

I was there.  I remember.  I remember begging my Senators to vote no.  I remember knowing full well that a yes vote meant that Bush would eventually go to war.  It wasn't about semantics.It wasn't an issue of what the resolution said.  Today Bill Clinton re-writes history to suggest that the resolution didn't mean war it just meant....fade to bullshit.

Former President Bill Clinton yesterday complained that "it's just not fair"

And then there is this:

"This dichotomy that's been set up to allow him (obama)to become the raging hero of the anti-war crowd on the Internet is just factually inaccurate."

Paleeze.  

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/clin ton-its-just-not-fair-2007-03-22.html

Tags: 2008, clinton, Iraq (all tags)

Comments

100 Comments

Re: I can't believe I am going to criticize Bill

I agree with Bill.

by Marylander 2007-03-22 08:27PM | 0 recs
Re: I can't believe I am going to criticize Bill

They have boxed themselves into a corner.  By refusing to admit that she might have been WRONG she is now stuck with defending her decision. And in any good debate, when you are losing, just lie.  It is common in politics to recreate past events to better fit the current version of reality.  

The problem is that vote represented the collapse of the democratic party's ability and willingness to stand up the Bush administration.  Their cowardice didn't last forever but it was a critical moment in our party's history.  This country needed the democratic party to take the ultimate political risk and vote no on that resolution.  Some did. HRC didn't.

And now she won't say sorry I was wrong.  Instead she sends Bill out there to make shit up and whine.  Frankly, it is unbecoming.

by aiko 2007-03-23 04:47AM | 0 recs
Bill's full of shit

But then he always has been.

It's suprising to me that they think they it's smart to go after Obama on the war, but hey, if there's one thing the Clintons know, it's politics.

As an Edwards supporter, I'm just gonna sit back and watch.

by david mizner 2007-03-23 05:38AM | 0 recs
President Clinton

President Clinton is absolutely right. Obama made one anti-war speech and since then he has been on the same page as Hillary, all the way through.

When you run your campaign and pat yourself on the back over not voting for the war, when you "couldn't" vote in the first place, because you weren't even a Senator yet, that is bad enough, but when you take a stab at those who did cast a vote, to make yourself look better, then you will get called on it.  Obama is projecting a false image of himself to make up for his lack of experience.  

And now, if you visit his site, you can see him desperately spinning.  Maybe if Obama had, even once, acted like a gentleman when it comes to Hillary, on two separate occasions he wouldn't be on President Clinton's shit list right now.

Hillary always speaks about Obama in the most positive way.  That may soon change.  And Obama may soon find out that you don't ever make it to President Clinton's shit list if you haven't offended him deeply.

Welcome to the world of campaigning Obama.  Try attacking Bush instead of Hillary.  Because if Hillary starts attacking you, you're toast, but she never ever strikes first.

by marasaud 2007-03-22 08:32PM | 0 recs
Re: President Clinton

You know what... Fuck that...

I'm sick of the Clintons acting the martyr.  I love Bill, but his whining and complaining on HRC's behalf is just getting ridiculous.  He acts like a whiny little 3 year old... It's not fair... BOO FUCKING HOO... HEY BILL, LIFE UNFORTUNATELY IS NOT FAIR... IT'S NOT FAIR ELIZABETH EDWARDS CANCER CAME BACK... IT'S NOT FAIR THAT 3200 PLUS AMERICANS AND TENS OF THOUSANDS OF IRAQIS HAVE DIED DURING THE WAR YOUR WIFE AUTHORIZED...

I'm sick of hearing how everyone is STILL out to get them after all these years... What's next?  Edwards or Obama are agents for the VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY?  Has there ever been a couple with a bigger persecution complex than the Clintons?  Yes, Bills impeachment was bullshit.  Yes, there were some questionable issues with Starr's investigation... but every criticism of Hillary or Bill are not some vast conspiracy against them and don't merit the level of whining coming from the campaign.  

I can't imagine the hit pieces that will happen to Edwards if he maintains his Iowa lead, or the pieces on Obama once he overtakes her.  This is why I support Obama and to a lesser extent Edwards... HRC represents business as usual... the same old bullshit we have seen for the last 13 years and many of us are sick of... Some has been much worse than others (the Bush years of course and the 2000 Election) and there have been some strong points as well (the late 90's economy) but overall, the politics have ripped the country apart.  

Yes, Obama's plans and calls for compromise with out compromising our values may never materialize; they may even be bullshit... but I would rather take the chance on someone like him or John Edwards than put up with 4 more years of the same bitter bullshit that results in little to nothing getting done.  Edwards will at least try to accomplish his ideals in the old system, Obama will try to change the system so that the ideals can be past... either way is preferable to 4 more years of Republican or DLC "leadership".

Flame if you want to, I really don't care.  I'm sick of Hillary's self righteousness and I'm sick of Bill's whining.  

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-22 09:20PM | 0 recs
Re: President Clinton

I actually think she wouldn't be that bad as president.  I supported her values once--I am not sure who she is anymore.

But a big problem with a clinton victory is as you say, dynasties, and this prediliction of the country to support mega-political machines.  More money, more ads, more press, more influence, the more you can manipulate and make up stuff (lie), the more that sound bites become vision and leadership, and more dumb down everyone becomes.

Bush did it and now HRC is trying to do it.  it is past time for more integrity and honesty in politics.  i am not stupid enough to think we will get that overnight but another clinton presidency puts it on the back burner. people powered politics won't occur under hrc.

by aiko 2007-03-23 08:09AM | 0 recs
Re: President Clinton

Senator Obama was against this war from day one.  Senator Clinton helped enable President Bush to fight this war.  Those are the facts.  What is so false or confusing about that?  President Clinton is a skilled politician, but no amount of spinning can possibly change the fact that his wife made a serious error of judgment in 2002 while Senator Obama was demonstrating the sort of foresight and common sense we could seriously use in the White House.

by LPMandrake 2007-03-22 11:07PM | 0 recs
Re: President Clinton

I'll even be nice to the Obama-bashers and leave his foresight out of this--

--you're still absolutely right that the real issue is Hillary's (and, indeed, a hell of a lot of Democratic Senators', including John Edwards) profound failure of judgment in 2002.  This was without a doubt the single most important judgment call she's had to make in elected office, and she absolutely blew it.  John Edwards has the sense to recognize he muffed his vote, and to his credit is vocally apologetic about that fact.  Hillary botched her vote, too, but in a Bushesque way she refuses to acknowledge that she had a lapse in judgment.  And the point of President Clinton's statement is undeniably to try and create some false equivalency between the resolution-backing Senator Clinton and the vocally antiwar then-State Senator Obama.

by Jay R 2007-03-23 12:39AM | 0 recs
i remember when howard dean said

there's more similiarites between hillary and feingold on the war than there are differences.

bill's right.  you neglected to point out hagel used the same explanation.  the point being, and i'll make a stronger point than bill makes, did people who voted against the resolution, were THEY VOTING AGAINST COERCIVE INSPECTIONS????!!!!

lets let the question settle for a second.  ok.  don't.

but i'll answer it, anyway.  NO!!  Hell no.  They deemed that resolutions were every bit as important but that the resolution gave too much of a blank check to the president.  they believed, as did everyone, that saddam was a threat, but the threat was not imminent.  they also said they distrusted the president.  ALL valid concerns.  this is what Bill means when he says he doesn't have a problem with anything barack says on the issue.  those were valid concerns.

So a vote "No" was not a vote AGAINST INSPECTIONS.

So.  Was a vote "yes" a vote for WAR?  lets go one better.  was it a vote for THIS WAR??

Although this is the frame that has so permeated the debate, so much so i question if bill actually believes he can overturn that frame (although if anyone can, it'd be him), and this frame is, of course, the one thing anti-war folks and people like hannity and rush agree on.  as well as the MSM.  every where you go.  a vote "yes" on the resolution was a vote for war.

Go to a protest rally:  a vote on the resolution was a vote for war.

Turn on o'reilly factor:  a vote on the resolution was a vote for war.

it must be true right, especially if the right wing and left wing agree??

maybe so.  maybe so.

So. "Everyone knows" it was a vote for war.  They were there, and they knew exactly what it meant.

Well.  everyone knows roberts if pro-life, if the court led by roberts ends up cutting into the rights of women any more substantially than it already has, then didn't russ feingold vote for doing that, when he voted to confirm roberts.  

well.  everyone knows what rice's policies are overseas.  did obama endorse those policies when he voted to confirm her?

again.  No. and No.

now.  who else voted "yes" on the war resolution.

did harry reid vote for this war?

did max cleland vote for this war?

lastly, while i have a great amount of respect for the forethoughtfulness of the speech he made in 2002, i need to know more from obama about what the kinds of authority he would ask for and assume as president.

can he state for the record that he'll wait for congress to declare war, as the constitution dictates, before he ever takes any action as commander in chief?  if so.  i would very much like to hear him say it.  i think he'd gain a hell of a lot of support from a lot of people if he did.

but he might lose some from others.  

anyway.  bill's right.  the fact that code pink folks and sean hannity agree on something should be the first clue.  

by Stewieeeee 2007-03-22 08:38PM | 0 recs
Re: i remember when howard dean said

Cleland was running for reelection a month after the vote, in the first election after 9/11, in Georgia.  Clinton wasn't.

She cast the vote, she owned the vote, she refuses to apologize for the vote, she and Bill don't get to complain when someone who didn't back the war points out that she signed her name on the paper that let it happen.  When you load a gun and hand it to a toddler, it doesn't matter if you or the kid is the one that pulls the trigger--the ones that should have known better are always at least in part responsible.  I don't care what the motivation was (coercive inspections?  Couldn't get those with anything other than a blanket authorization to invade and occupy, eh?), they created a dangerous situation and should be held accountable for their error.

And yes, by the way--those who supported the confirmation of Roberts and Alito should absolutely be reminded of that every time SCOTUS takes a bite out of our liberties.  I think that should carry more weight than the Rice confirmation as those are lifetime appointments and hers expires, but those who voted to confirm her should still be called out on that every time she fails to adequately promote our national interests abroad.

by Jay R 2007-03-22 10:10PM | 0 recs
Re: i remember when howard dean said

The more I watch her, the more I really dislike her.  THe GTA thing still pisses me off to this day... its as bad as the PMRC and equally blatant violation of the first amendment...

HEY MAYBE IF PARENTS DIDN'T LET KIDS PLAY GRAND THEFT AUTO AND GIVE THEM COMPLETELY UNFETTERED INTERNET ACCESS THEN THEY WOULDN'T HAVE SEE HOT COFFEE.  Maybe if they involved themselves more in their kids lives they wouldn't have to worry about... and MAYBE just MAYBE if instead of using the excuse that they don't understand technology, they took the time to learn, then they wouldn't have to worry.  

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-22 10:25PM | 0 recs
the GTA thing was great

consumers like to know what they're buying.

we're so far past the 80s zappa vs. gore crap it's funny.

by Stewieeeee 2007-03-22 10:54PM | 0 recs
Re: the GTA thing was great

It was a game called "Grand Theft Auto" that was rated M for Mature and was advertised showing scenes of graphic violence.  I mean, anyone who didn't know what they were buying when they threw down $50 for that game...well, maybe next time they'll do a little due diligence and see if "Grand Theft Auto" might not be the most wholesome series for their kids to play.

This is like being upset that Mortal Kombat had a code to make it bloodier.  I mean, the nerve of that game company, including blood in a game about a supernatural deathmatch among murderous freaks!  What were they thinking?!!

by Jay R 2007-03-22 11:42PM | 0 recs
There was something hidden

in the game.

Consumers have a right to know what they're buying.

by Stewieeeee 2007-03-22 11:47PM | 0 recs
Re: There was something hidden

Only if the hidden attribute negates the value of the game.

Should anyone who bought Windows 95 get a refund because some coders having a good time programmed "the hall of tortured souls"?

Did the aforementioned Mortal Kombat blood code negate any purchases of the game?

Did the secret section the PC version of GTA:SA, in any way, subtract from the regular gameplay?  could not a consumer who purchased the game enjoy every other aspect of gameplay without entering the code to trigger the easter eggs?  In order to avoid seeing the taboo parts, all a player need do is play the game and NOT enter a completely optional command that most players would have never known about.  No hair off their asses so far as I can tell.

by Jay R 2007-03-22 11:57PM | 0 recs
Re: There was something hidden

there was clearly content in the game that consumers weren't supposed to know about.  and if they knew, less people would have bought it.

and no.  that content didn't prohibit from playing the rest of the game.

by Stewieeeee 2007-03-23 12:05AM | 0 recs
Re: There was something hidden

Then what's the beef?  

First, I think you underestimate the American libido if you think fewer people would have bought the game had they known about it.  Second, this certainly didn't rise to the level of requiring Congressional action.  Third, we both acknowledge that the consumers of GTA:SA still had full enjoyment of their purchase, so they were still getting everything they had paid for and expected to receive.  Fourth, the software wasn't malignant or malicious, and neither embedded itself into the user's computer nor transmitted any information about the consumer to a third party, so no inherent privacy issues are raised by the undeclared content.  So what exactly was the big deal?

Hillary was grandstanding.  I don't fault her for it, but I'm certainly not going to pretend this was some attempt at performing a great public service on her part.

by Jay R 2007-03-23 12:14AM | 0 recs
What's the beef?

They put out a product that had a back door into a feature of the product that would change people's attitudes toward that product if they knew about it when they bought it.

How many do you think they sell if it's the "Misogyny" game of the year.

All the violence is par for the course for the MA rating.  Bunch of thugs blowing each other up with guns and shit.  awesome fun.  very violent.

but i still might buy that for my kid.  cause, you're right, it's up to me to teach my kid the difference between fantasy and reality.

it's the added element of objectifying women in a way that i think crosses a line.  turns them into animals.  if i knew about that before i bought the product, i would not buy the product for my kids.

i think it substantially alters the nature of the product.  and if you don't believe me, ask yourself this:  why the back door?  why not just put that up front in the game itself if honestly believe there's no difference between brutal sex with a woman and a bunch of thugs blowing each other up?

that's the question, why the back door if there's no offense???????!!!!!!!!!!!

by Stewieeeee 2007-03-23 12:40AM | 0 recs
Re: What's the beef?

Wait.  What objectifying of women are we talking about?  Are talking about the Hot Coffee hidden easter egg which depicts sex between people engaged in a relationship in the game with this objectifying cover, or are we talking about the thing where you can get up to 125% of your maximum HP by soliciting prostitutes (in that game, the game which has this cover and the original GTA III)?  Or are we just talking about the games in general, which tend to have storylines and missions which include prostitution, racism and all sorts of things associated with, you know, gangsters (such as the main characters)?

by notapipe 2007-03-23 01:04AM | 0 recs
Re: What's the beef?

i'm talking about the sex scenes that were depicted once you activated the back door.

by Stewieeeee 2007-03-23 01:14AM | 0 recs
Re: What's the beef?

The problem with that reasoning is that "Easter Eggs" which have content which is consistent with the overall tenor of the program but different from what is straightforwardly available are part of a long tradition in games.

Even LotR can give you access to Gollum's profanity-laden MTV acceptance speech, if you go looking for it, and why not?  It's part of their work.

by Kimmitt 2007-03-23 01:19AM | 0 recs
Re: What's the beef?

I don't think the content is consistent.

That's the issue.

I'll say that anyone who thinks the "Easter Egged" content is consistent with the rest of the program doesn't understand sexual politics.

Lastly, my question is not being answered.  

IF THERE'S NO FUCKING INCONSISTENCY!!!!

IF THERE'S NO OFFENSE THAT HASN'T ALREADY BEEN COMMITTED BY THE REST OF THE GAME!!!!

________
why hide it?

three words:  why hide it???

by Stewieeeee 2007-03-23 01:24AM | 0 recs
Re: What's the beef?

Um, bang-up job they did of hiding it, wasn't it?

by Jay R 2007-03-23 01:27AM | 0 recs
Re: What's the beef?

just enough to get a lot of people to buy it not knowing it was there!!!!!!!!!!!

damn.  they're so proud of that scene, they should have just advertised it on "PBS Sprout."

here's my question.  should people who buy a game have a right know the contents of that game?

by Stewieeeee 2007-03-23 01:30AM | 0 recs
Re: What's the beef?

This is, verbatim, what is written on the ESRB rating on the original M Rated version GTA:SA.

Blood and Gore,
 Intense Violence,
 Strong Language,
 Strong Sexual Content,
 Use of Drugs

I'm sorry that "Strong Sexual Content" wasn't descriptive enough for you.

by Jay R 2007-03-23 01:51AM | 0 recs
Re: What's the beef?

You are talking about one of the ALL TIME best selling franchise series.  99% of people who play it, even Hot Coffee, understand the fantasy aspect... I love Halo.. that doesn't mean I think I'm a gun toting marine who can kill everyone (or that Aliens from another world exist).  I like GTA, but I know I'm not a gangster, petty thief or drug lord.

And whether the content was hidden maliciously or was included accidently and was debug software as Rockstar and Take Two maintain isn't really relevant... The ESRB is VOLUNTARY... IT isn't GOVERNMENT MANDATED...  Any issues should have ended with the ESRB changing the rating until Take Two edited out the section and the lawsuits of irresponsible of parents who were idiots that let their kids play the game in the first place.  It doesn't need or deserve government intervention, it is once again the government overstepping their bounds and above all it was pure pandering from someone who doesn't play video games and wants to up her "family values" cred for a Presidential run instead of trying to do something to actually make the country better.

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-23 05:23AM | 0 recs
Re: What's the beef?

So explain sexual politics to me a bit.  Why is it worse to show a sex scene between people who are dating than to allow the player to pick up a hooker, drive to a secluded spot, have the car rock while your health goes up and your money goes down, and then have her leave--at which point the player may choose to run her down or hop out the car and beat her in order to retrieve the player's money?

by notapipe 2007-03-27 02:45PM | 0 recs
Re: What's the beef?

You're supposed to pick up prostitutes and have sex with them during the regular version of the game.  There's actually an outfit called the "gimp suit" that you wear at one point--think "Pulp Fiction".  On multiple missions your character serves as a driver for hookers.  At any time players can pick up a hooker and start rocking their stolen ride.  There's a mission involving a rubber dildo.  Your character has three girlfriends, all of whom audibly have rough sex with your character after conducting drive-bys.  Seriously.  This is all included in the game, as sold and advertised.

The distinction between the regular version and the version with the hidden features?  You see an anatomically incorrect (like a Ken Doll, savvy?) sex clip when your character has sex with any of his three girlfriends, instead of just hearing the audio of them having sex.  All the rest stays the same--still the hookers, still the murders...

...so what you're saying, just so I'm clear, is that THAT was the line that was crossed that would keep you from buying this for your kids?

Women are objectified in all the GTA games.  There's explicit violence in all the GTA games.  But a pixelated booby and dry humping is where the line is drawn?

by Jay R 2007-03-23 01:23AM | 0 recs
Re: What's the beef?

Ok.

Why did they hide a part of the game that is, in your opinion, no different than the rest of the game??

by Stewieeeee 2007-03-23 01:25AM | 0 recs
Re: What's the beef?

Because it was so well hidden that you know about it, I know about it, and the United States Senate in open session knew about it.  And we're talking about it now, three years after it came out.  And Rockstar managed to get a good deal of outrage cooked up at another game they had coming out--Bully, I believe.  How'd that one do on initial sales?  And there was also a rerelease of GTA:SA at a lower price, along with the release of the PSP game Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories.

Isn't it amazing that, all this time later, so many people still remember those facts?  Can still name those games?  Remembers the controversy?

Now, isn't it amazing that a game already marked as not intended for immature players, a game that was the flagship for the studio that created it, and a game in a series that is known for gratuitous sex and violence, promotion of drug trafficking and auto theft, a class A felony as its title, and a negative attitude towards authority figures--a game with so much already warning consumers that it's strictly for mature audiences--isn't it amazing that this game managed to create such a public, publicized controversy?

I read a book on publicity stunts once.  The author suggested that, if you really want the TV cameras to show up for your event, you send out notice that you'll set a puppy on fire at the event.  Then, when the event rolls around and the cameras are all there, (and this is very important) walk on stage with a puppy and a stern look, and lecture the assemblage about how they shouldn't be there only for the sensationalism, but for the news value of [insert event or cause here].

The hidden scene was the puppy to be burned, the hook that got people to pay attention and got the US Senate to give Rockstar Games an absolute avalanche of free media.  I think they even tried to keep "Bully" from hitting shelves at one point--it was perfect.

Newspaper ad space and TV commercials are pricey.  Why buy the cow when the MSM will give you the milk for free?

by Jay R 2007-03-23 01:45AM | 0 recs
How many sales

happened before and after people knowing about it?

by Stewieeeee 2007-03-23 01:47AM | 0 recs
Re: How many sales

No idea, and that'd be a ton of research.

But we do have the spinoff sales, and "Bully" sales, all of which occured post-hearings.

Wikipedia says San Andreas sold about 14 million copies total, but there's no way to know when those sales were.  Bully broke a million, Liberty City Stories broke a million and helped drive PSP sales.  Assuming an average price of $30 a pop, that's about $60 million in sales.  Whatever the next GTA game is, it will undoubtedly be a top seller, and the first trailer is being unveiled in six days.  Should hit shelves in October, just in time for Christmas shopping.

by Jay R 2007-03-23 02:07AM | 0 recs
Re: the GTA thing was great

No we aren't and that is the problem... I don't like to see assaults from the right or left wing on free speech.  You don't know what the hell you are talking about with GTA or any of the other bullshit legislation that is pure pandering.

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-23 05:06AM | 0 recs
Re: i remember when howard dean said

A little more objectivity, please.  I don't constantly rant about Obama's "wanting to force religion down my throat" or his recent remarks.  "Cute" in regards to Edwards?  Dancing around many issues (such as "gays in the military") and his supporters Rove-style hit ad on HRC?  His hiring one of the worst political operatives in the country (creator of Bin-Ladin/Dean smear ad) and claiming ignorance when that same person used GOP-style attacks (the double-whammy of already discredited Lincoln bedroom crap and demands for a dicrediting of a racially tinged comment by a SC politician, which had already occured.)  I could state that the more I see of "holy man" Obama, the more I dislike him.  But that is personal stuff that has nothing to do with policies and actually winning an election, so it is typically left out of discourse.  

by georgep 2007-03-23 08:23AM | 0 recs
Re: i remember when howard dean said

Except Obama isn't for forcing religion down people's throats... He is not evangelical... just because one is proud of their religion and spirituality doesn't mean one advocates forcing religion on anyone.

"Think Different" was a Rove style hit piece?  Are you HIGH?  1) Everyone involved says it isn't linked to the campaign... Given the fact that it is good, but not professionally polished lends a lot to that statement 2) Calling that a Rove hit piece diminishes just how bad Rove can be.  If you compare the 1984 ad to swiftboating then you are just plain nuts.

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-23 08:50AM | 0 recs
Re: i remember when howard dean said

he is a little 'nuts'

by aiko 2007-03-23 09:02AM | 0 recs
Re: i remember when howard dean said

Please, the company the guy worked for is linked to Obama.  He had to quit over this.  I guess your irrational hate for Clinton is making you (and also Aiko) move a bit to the non-objective side.  

by georgep 2007-03-23 09:37AM | 0 recs
Re: i remember when howard dean said

The DC Starbucks was "linked" to Katherine Harris, too, so if one of its employees stole from the register would that implicate Harris?

The guy worked for a vendor, not the campaign.  He didn't work on Obama's account, and there's a reason he was let go.  Objectivity includes assessing likelihood, and the likelihood is that the Obama camp neither knew about nor approved what that ad's creator did.

But if you're already looking for a reason to dislike Obama, then I guess this works for you.

by Jay R 2007-03-23 12:58PM | 0 recs
great

cleland put soldiers in harms way just to get re-elected.

sometimes i don't think people on blogs really even think about what they're saying.

by Stewieeeee 2007-03-22 10:52PM | 0 recs
Re: great

Do you really think that wasn't a factor in his vote?  Do you honestly think that the prevailing opinion of his home state's voters didn't in any way influence Cleland?

Well, according to this Salon interview with Cleland, it did: http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/ 2003/11/21/cleland/index.html?pn=3

Do you regret your vote last fall in favor of the resolution authorizing war?

I do. Because I sensed it was a political ploy rather than a ploy to genuinely protect the United States. It was just an attempt to get any resolution passed so the administration could say, just like Lyndon Johnson [with Vietnam], 'We got the approval of Congress.' And then, just like Lyndon Johnson, they went ahead and did whatever they wanted to do; massive buildup, putting the military on thin political ice, getting a bunch of kids killed.

You were up for reelection at the time and you felt a pressure to vote yes?

Yes. They did this purposefully. I will say to you that I did think that it was worth a shot to give the president of the United States the authority to go to the United Nations and try to put together a coalition to try to find out if there were weapons of mass destruction. And if there were weapons of mass destruction, to destroy them.

Of course what I did not know was that the White House had the 1992 Cheney-Wolfowitz war plan on the front burner. I knew they wanted regime change. But I did not know that the Cheney-Wolfowitz war plan was what they were going to do with and that they hadn't figured out a plan B.

Sometimes I don't think people on blogs really even think about what realities they're ignoring.

by Jay R 2007-03-22 11:18PM | 0 recs
Wow!

He really put soldiers in harm's way just to get re-elected.

I stand corrected.

not good, max.  not good.

by Stewieeeee 2007-03-22 11:40PM | 0 recs
Re:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id= 2966537&page=1

At least ABC knows HRC and Bill are full of shit about Obama's record.

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-22 09:30PM | 0 recs
LOL - ABC!!!

they're so credible after path to 9-11.

good for them, at least they got their hooks into one liberal.

by Stewieeeee 2007-03-22 10:56PM | 0 recs
Re: LOL - ABC!!!

ABC News also broke that bullshit story about Rep. Foley crossing a buncha lines with the House pages.  Good thing nobody listened to ABC News after that crap-ass movie was made by ABC Entertainment.

Hey, does this mean that Senator Edwards didn't have a press conference today?  I mean, the first outlet to announce it was happening was...gasp!...ABC News.  Must mean the whole thing was a planted right-wing story.

Yay, let's discount everything ABC News says because ABC Entertainment made a stupid-ass TV movie!  Thanks for pointing out the error of ever, ever trusting ABC's news service.

by Jay R 2007-03-22 11:26PM | 0 recs
Re: LOL - ABC!!!

And Fox News Channel reports some actual news too.

It's obvious ABC hates the Clintons.

by Stewieeeee 2007-03-22 11:39PM | 0 recs
Re: LOL - ABC!!!

It's also obvious that Clinton is running against Obama and so Bill's comments should be contextualized, which is exactly what that Jake Tapper piece did--it reviewed Obama's recorded stance on the war going back to 2002 and found no inconsistencies.  Now, why on earth would ABC News decide to arbitrarily take sides in this race so damn early?  And why would Bill Clinton's take on Obama's stance be more credible, considering the context, than ABC's take?

by Jay R 2007-03-22 11:59PM | 0 recs
Re: LOL - ABC!!!

No inconsistencies between his 2002 speech and his "I don't know" during the convention.

No inconsistencies between his 2002 speech and this..

Where I think we have to be unified is to recognize that we've got an enormous task ahead in actually making Iraq work.

and this...


"...There's not much of a difference between my position and George
Bush's position at this stage." [Chicago Tribune, 7/27/2004]

What Bill is whining about is that we all know what people would have said about hillary if she said anything like that at all. Ohh!!!!! Meeee!!!! The humanity!!!!! That Neo-Con AIPAC dick sucking hillary!!!!!!

Not much of a difference??  WTF, Obama?

In context or not.  Not much of a difference??

So.  Yes.  There are inconsistencies.  

by Stewieeeee 2007-03-23 12:12AM | 0 recs
Re: LOL - ABC!!!

No, there aren't.  And the ironic thing is that your citing of the "I don't know" quote to buttress your preconception is both out of context and ignores that the quote was put IN CONTEXT in the ABC piece.

Edwards was savvy enough to know that we need to hear his regret over that vote.  Hillary refuses to admit her error.  Frankly, failing to admit she was wrong says there's not much of a difference between her position and George Bush's--he can't admit a mistake, either.

by Jay R 2007-03-23 12:19AM | 0 recs
Re: LOL - ABC!!!

I'm not just citing the "I don't know" quote.

I'm citing two others.

Both of which are not consistent with the anti-war platform he's running on today.

by Stewieeeee 2007-03-23 12:30AM | 0 recs
Re: LOL - ABC!!!

Those are both post-invasion quotes, aren't they?

Has anyone here argued that he's EVER supported an immediate withdrawal?  You've read at least a summary of his Iraq War proposals, I trust--he advocates a phased redeployment and plans on keeping troops in Iraq until at least early 2008, IIRC.  That I recall he's never signed on to any bills mandating funds be used only for redeployment and not for reconstruction assistance and training.

The distinction between Obama and Clinton that matters, the one that we're all here pointing out, is that, before we decimated Iraq in the first place, Obama opposed decimating it (was, as they say, against (or anti-) the war). and Hillary authorized decimating it, and has still not even admitted she screwed up.  

So far all she's copped to is that she was misled.  Big deal--we were all misled, but people like Obama and myself weren't fooled.  At best, she got fooled then, and still can't admit it.  At worst, she voted for something she knew was a mistake to further moderate her image with the national electorate.

And say what you want about John Edwards, yesterday only reinforced the fact that the man has political courage. It was the strength drawn from that courage that allowed him to stand openly and admit he was wrong to vote for the war.  And he doesn't mince words:

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

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

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

...The information the American people were hearing from the president -- and that I was being given by our intelligence community -- wasn't the whole story. Had I known this at the time, I never would have voted for this war.

And because of that mea culpa, I can now as a voter trust John Edwards to look out for the mistakes and omissions that fooled him in 2002.  Hillary has yet to accept responsibility for her bad judgment in 2002, so I can't trust her in that regard.  And personally, I find judgment to be pretty important in a President.  Just as importantly, Edwards also admitted what everyone, left right and center, knew then and knows now--that vote was a vote for the war.

by Jay R 2007-03-23 01:02AM | 0 recs
Re: LOL - ABC!!!

Bush isn't even for a phased withdrawal.  So why would he say, in 2004, that his position is similiar to Bush's?

Anti-war rhetoric, post-invasion, has been based on some funfamental Ideas:  that America can NOT win in Iraq.  That it will not end well.  That we may get our troops out in 10 years or 10 days, the amount of bloodshed due to civil war is the same.

Barack Obama deviates (or has deviated) from that perspective.

CONSIDERABLY!!!!!!!!  Either that or he's not consistent.  Once there, there is something to be gained by staying.  That's not the anti-war perspective.  The anti-war perspective has always been "the sooner we leave the better off iraq will be."

Now.  As far as edwards is concerned.  he says "i made a mistake" but that was in 2005 after the american public turned against the war, and when pressed on meet the press a few weeks ago, he still had to justify his vote in some manner.  he did so in ways (lied to about intelligence, and intent of IWR) that only justifies hillary's non-apology.

by Stewieeeee 2007-03-23 01:13AM | 0 recs
Re: LOL - ABC!!!

Again, that's all post-invasion.  You're completely ignoring the distinctions from before the war began, when it could have been stopped.  I assume that means you're conceding the point that, before the war, Obama was against it and Hillary voted for it.

After the invasion, some in the antiwar movement--actually, a lot of them, as I recall--took the position that, as they'd said in the run-up to the war, we'd own Iraq if we broke it.  Remember warning Republicans back in '02 that if we invaded Iraq and feces hit fan blades we'd be screwed? A lot of people who were adamently against invading thought, since we were already in, we should try to make the best of it by trying to stabilize and rebuild Iraq.  It took a long time for even a clear majority of antiwar Dems to come out for withdrawal.

Obama was also comparing his postion to John Kerry's.  Kerry, as you'll recall, wasn't in favor of phased redeployment during the '04 campaign.  This was a misguided attempt to buttress the inevitable arguments about Kerry and national security weakness.  A look at the entire section provides that ever-elusive context:

'On Iraq, on paper, there's not as much difference, I think, between the
Bush administration and a Kerry administration as there would have been a
year ago,' Obama said during a luncheon meeting with editors and reporters
of Tribune newspapers. "There's not that much difference between my position
and George Bush's position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is
who's in a position to execute.'

Stephanie Cutter, communications director for the Kerry campaign, did not
dispute Obama's statement, but said the true comparison rests in the
differences over the past two years. 'If you look on paper, [Bush] has come
our way, but he has come our way at a significant cost in terms of blood and
treasure,' Cutter said Monday. 'Bush finally agreed to go to the
international community, but in voters' minds that doesn't change their
opinion as to why we're at war or how the president mismanaged the war from
day one.'

Obama, a state senator from Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood, opposed the
Iraq invasion before the war. But he now believes U.S. forces must remain to
stabilize the war-ravaged nation--a policy not dissimilar to the current
approach of the Bush administration

And as to Edwards, he clearly stated that HE was WRONG, and in spite of the Administration's spin he accepted responsibility for his mistake.  The fact that Hillary still hasn't found the stones to do the same is a big negative in my book.

by Jay R 2007-03-23 02:30AM | 0 recs
Re: LOL - ABC!!!

"I've always been clear and consistent on the notion that we should not get in there, that once we were in there, then we had to make the best of a bad situation," Obama said.

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-23 05:33AM | 0 recs
Nice cherry picking

Here's the context of Obama's statement.

"Where I think we have to be unified is to recognize that we've got an enormous task ahead in actually making Iraq work. And that is going to take the kind of international cooperation that I think the Bush administration has shown difficulty pulling off, and I think that the Kerry-Edwards campaign is going to be better prepared to do."

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/3/20/1412 9/0524

I don't think it makes Hillary Clinton a bad person to have health care summits with Newt Gingrich and fundraisers thrown by Rupert Murdoch. Those events happen in a context (summits are about dialogue, Murdoch has a huge presence in NY state) that you deny Obama with your cherry picking quotes.

by joejoejoe 2007-03-23 02:26AM | 0 recs
Re: I can't believe I am going to criticize Bill

Is it doubleplus ungood to criticize Bill Clinton?

I'm still waiting for the universal healthcare and access to college he promised in 1992. And defending his bonehead personal scandal (that was only revealed in the midst of a partisan witchhunt over whitewater) spent precious political capital that could have been better used doing something for our country, not pulling our President's ass out of the fire.

I like Bill Clinton, voted for him twice, and think he did a fine job as steward of our economy and foreign policy (except the disaster of Rwanda). But he's not above criticism. And he's wrong about the AUMF/Iraq. Authorizing miltiary force = fighting a war. If you give the keys to a thirteen year old smashed on whiskey you are in fact culpable if that thirteen year old drives into a ditch. Same goes with the AUMF/Iraq vote.

by joejoejoe 2007-03-22 11:53PM | 0 recs
Re: I can't believe I am going to criticize Bill

It's more complicated that that for some of us.

I started paying close attention to politics in 1993 (when I was 10), and I was a big fan of Bill's throughout his two terms.  I liked most of his economic and trade policies (hell, I still defend NAFTA every few months) and his foreign policy was mostly spot-on, especially his attempts at brokering Middle East peace.

I defended Clinton during Monicagate.  I lived my whole life until 2002 in Cobb County, Georgia, home to both Newt Gingrich and Bob Barr (as I type this, I'm wearing a "Buddy Darden for Congress" tee shirt, Buddy being the incumbent Barr unseated in '94, whom I interned for in 2002).  In the heart of Impeachmentville I defended Clinton.  I still have to defend him to my father-in-law, who thinks Newt was a pinko and Clinton was a demon.

This last cycle I worked for a Congressional candidate who received assistance from both Bill and Hillary Clinton, both of whom hosted fundraisers in New York for us and helped us raise hundreds of thousands of dollars.

For the first time in my life I find myself in a major political disagreement with Bill Clinton, a man I've admired and defended for well over a decade.

That's not a particularly easy pill to swallow.

by Jay R 2007-03-23 12:06AM | 0 recs
Re: I can't believe I am going to criticize Bill

I respect your answer.

Still,I think you do your friends more of a favor by pointing out where they are wrong then reflexively standing by them when they are wrong.

My guess is 95% of the internal criticism of Hillary Clinton within the Democratic Party will fade if she wins the nomination. John Kerry wasn't hijacked by rabid Dean supporters in the general election - Kerry got a record number of votes. If anything Kerry would have done far better to heed the rabid netroots advice of smashing the Swift Boat Liars in the mouth. If HRC wins the nomination it's very clear she'll tack to the middle and ignore the grassroots. The grassroots will be expected to carry the water, GOTV, and they will do it - just like they did it for Kerry in 2004. Kerry was also wrong to vote for the AUMF/Iraq, as was Edwards. Edwards admits he was wrong - like about 1/3 of America. You can't learn from a mistake unless you acknowledge you made a mistake. That's why anti-War voters are down on Hillary - not because they want a pound of flesh or to gloat while she apologizes - they want to see she learned from her past.

In short, I was against the war from the beginning and don't need Bill Clinton to tell me why my support of Obama is questionable. Obama made some generous comments about Kerry's judgement that the HRC campaign is trying to twist into a blanket exception for all Senators who voted for the AUMF/Iraq.

It's a dumb war. It was dumb to vote to authorize it. That doesn't come out in the wash no matter how much you spin it.

by joejoejoe 2007-03-23 02:18AM | 0 recs
Re: I can't believe I am going to criticize Bill

I completely agree, but I just think the emotional sensation of having to actively disagree with Bill Clinton, after so many years of deservedly defending him, is a bit tough to deal with.

by Jay R 2007-03-23 02:33AM | 0 recs
Clinton vs Obama

President Clinton has asked for closer scrutiny of Obama's Iraq stance as a great deal is being ignored.  Obama has not been consistent, no matter how his supporters spin this.  He continues to hold himself above Hillary and others who voted "yes" and until he stops doing this, he will have to face having his own words repeated back to him in a debate.  

He knows this too, which is why he is not conveniently ignoring President Clinton's remarks.
I have five links to quotes by Obama where he basically said he didn't know how he would have voted IF he had been a Senator at the time. Let's hear him stand onstage and tell that to a crowd. If he won't, then Hillary will do it for him.

Now Obama is saying the reason he voted for additional funding of the war "that he opposed" was for the troops. That's exactly the stance Hillary has taken. If Obama was so vehemently opposed to the war, he certainly didn't stand by his convictions.  And it's all on the record, no matter what Jake the Yapper Tapper says.  

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/10 /30/061030on_onlineonly04?currentPage=3
November 2006

Obama speaking:
"You know, I think very highly of Hillary. The more I get to know her, the more I admire her. I think she's the most disciplined-one of the most disciplined people-I've ever met. She's one of the toughest. She's got an extraordinary intelligence. And she is, she's somebody who's in this stuff for the right reasons. She's passionate about moving the country forward on issues like health care and children. So it's not clear to me what differences we've had since I've been in the Senate. I think what people might point to is our different assessments of the war in Iraq, although I'M ALWAYS CAREFUL TO SAY THAT I WAS NOT IN THE SENATE, SO THE REASON I THOUGHT IT WAS SUCH A BAD IDEA WAS THAT I DIDN'T HAVE THE BENEFIT OF U.S. INTELLIGENCE. AND, FOR THOSE WHO DID, IT MIGHT HAVE LED TO A DIFFERENT SET OF CHOICES. SO THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT SORT OF IS OBVIOUS.  BUT AGAIN, WE WERE IN DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES AT THE TIME: I WAS RUNNING FOR THE U.S. SENATE; SHE (HILLARY) HAD TO TAKE A VOTE, AND CASTING VOTES IS ALWAYS A DIFFICULT TEST."

by marasaud 2007-03-23 12:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton vs Obama

Do you also have the quotes where he says he probably would have voted along with Dick Durbin?

Do you have the ones where he says that the evidence he had seen left him unconvinced?  Have you seen any quotes from Hillary suggesting that she as a Senator was seeing anything more conclusive than what the public saw?  Has she ever said she saw intelligence more convincing than the BS Powell threw at the UN?

She screwed up her vote, and you and Big Dog are trying to convince people to ignore her glaring, obvious, painful and undeniable fuck-up, and instead try to parse the words of someone who, at the time Hillary was handing Bush a loaded gun, was vocally opposing the idiocy of the war resolution she supported.  It's a good political move, but don't get all high and mighty about it--at the end of the day, this is still simple deflection, a cheap attempt to distract from the fact that Hillary screwed up the biggest judgment call of her Senate career.

by Jay R 2007-03-23 12:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton vs Obama

That sounds like graciousness, rather than an endorsement, if you catch my drift.

by Kimmitt 2007-03-23 01:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton vs Obama

Talk about a bullshit spin.

"I've always been clear and consistent on the notion that we should not get in there, that once we were in there, then we had to make the best of a bad situation," Obama said.

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-23 05:37AM | 0 recs
Bill Clinton

The reason ABC and Fox and Washington Post are taking a position on the side of Obama is because they do not, under any circumstances, want Hillary as the nominee.  Obama, the untested candidate, is what they want, so they can tear him apart.

It is that simple.  They have NO other reason. Unless you actually believe that Fox and Jake Tapper are truth-tellers.  

by marasaud 2007-03-23 12:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Clinton

first, it's cheap and manipulative to simply put Tapper next to the word "Fox."  Even if he were some nefarious right-wing genius, he's still not anywhere close to "88-7" News.

Second, why exactly would these guys gain from having Obama nominated instead of Hillary?  The right wing hates Hillary, has hated her for over fourteen years, and loves attacking her like no other. whoopin' on her is a guaranteed ratings winner for FoxNews, so why would they want an untested target when they know she'd suffice nicely?  Please try to make a case here, because your premise about the right wing's preference seems bass-ackwards.

by Jay R 2007-03-23 12:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Clinton

They have NO other reason. Unless you actually believe that Fox and Jake Tapper are truth-tellers.  

Long time readers of salon will hopefully recognize how utterly silly it is to compare Jack Tapper to Fox!

What is amazing to me is how the Clinton's are backstabbing their biggest defenders to support this silly war, and the neoliberal war hawks, who abandoned them in droves during the Lewinsky mess.

by Dameocrat 2007-03-23 01:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Clinton

Ah yes... THE MARTYRED CLINTONS... First Jesus, then Bill and Hillary...

NOT EVERYONE IS OUT TO GET THE CLINTONS!

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-23 05:39AM | 0 recs
Re: I can't believe I am going to criticize Bill

Mute point. HRC/Bill are history: Obama has already   checked the black Bill; ike-wise John Edwards has checked the progressive Bill and today Mrs. Edwards checked the female Bill...where does this leave HRC...check mate.

by pservelle 2007-03-23 02:31AM | 0 recs
Re: I can't believe I am going to criticize Bill

LMAO.  Sure, neither Obama nor Edwards have led in a single poll, in fact Edwards' poll numbers have been rather dismal, but we get statements like these.   Try to make some sense, people.  Wait until some polls actually show your guy ahead instead of paddling behind before making ridiculous statements like "She is toast," "she may drop out right after Iowa."  

Geez.

by georgep 2007-03-23 08:33AM | 0 recs
Re: I can't believe I am going to criticize Bill

COnsidering she fired the first shots of negative campaigning at Obama, I'd say she's a little freak out her coronation isn't going to happen and she ACTUALLY has to campaign and work for the nomination.

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-23 08:53AM | 0 recs
Re: I can't believe I am going to criticize Bill

Of course she has to work for it.  Nobody said she does not.  The stuff about "coronation" is just more of the hateful rhetoric that does not make much sense other than further the agenda of hate for a candidate.  I might as well state that Obama will have to wait for his "minister of the US ordainment" a little longer.  Similar crap.  

by georgep 2007-03-23 09:35AM | 0 recs
Jay R asked:

"Second, why exactly would these guys gain from having Obama nominated instead of Hillary?"

Where have you been?  There is nothing the rightwing can throw at Hillary that she isn't capable of withstanding.  She's been tested, time and again, and she's still going strong.  Obama has never been subjected to rough waters, not like Hillary has.  They will do their best to demolish him.  Do you actually believe Obama can withstand the swiftboat tactics of Rove/Giuliani?
And if you know Obama can handle it, point me to a few examples to prove your point. He has no idea what he would be in for.  That is why the Repubs and their media tools want Obama.  Outside of a very small percentage of Dems (ie: within the netroots), reality is defined differently.

by marasaud 2007-03-23 02:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Jay R asked:

She wasn't an elected politian during the Lewinsky mess, and when she was elected she won a liberal state.  She isn't as invulnerable as you think.

by Dameocrat 2007-03-23 03:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Jay R asked:

That is the argument that HRC is going to use: I have been tested.

All of 2008, when it becomes head to head, HRC against the GOP the skeletons will come out of the closet.

HRC is at 48% disapprovals across all likely voters.  The GOP will play to that in huge ways.  All they have to do is move 5 percent.  They already have 70-80+ percent of the rethugs hating her. Doesn't sound difficult to me.  

Just like she is not inevitable...she hasn't seen anything yet.  It will be a bloody 2008 and we will live the year revisiting all the scandals of the clinton WH and more that we have never heard of.  

time for a change?

by aiko 2007-03-23 04:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Jay R asked:

Think Different?

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-23 05:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Jay R asked:

so Hillary's been tested time and again by attacks from the right wing noise machine, which has clearly hated her since the beginning, and you think that means the RWNM would prefer attacking OBAMA?  That's pretty interesting.  They've liked attacking her for over a decade, and she's now trying for the first time to win votes outside the Northeast--and you think for some reason the VRWC is worried about the prospect of trashing Hillary, with her high disapproval numbers, in the south and Heartland?  I'd think they'd be salivating for the chance.  She won one semi-difficult election after her opponent was replaced on the ballot, and then was reelected in a walk after her opponent screwed up her announcement speech to the point of absurdity.

In fact, I'd argue Obama's 2004 primary was a hell of a lot tougher than Clinton's '06 primary and reeelection.

by Jay R 2007-03-23 09:39AM | 0 recs
Re: I can't believe I am going

The sentiments expressed here are flawed.  The "one important vote," and "the only opportunity to prevent what has become a disaster in Iraq" comments make it look like the writer of this diary was not "there" at all.  Is he not aware that the GOP was in charge of Congress and the presidency, and they had more than enough votes for the war declaration from their own ranks, did not actually need a singular vote from the Democrats to do as they please? Is he not aware that the authorization, as co-sponsored by Edwards, was a replacement "compromise" for a worse authorization that gave Bush a complete blank check (and they had enough votes to pass that one just from the GOP ranks as well,)pressing concessions out of Bush to let the UN install inspectors back into Iraq, to press a promise out of Bush and Powell that diplomatic means were going to be exhausted first, that war was only to be used as a "last resort."  

This attempt at rewriting history, evidenced by the errant claim that the Democrats had an opportunity to stop the war (they did not, but don't let reality disturb a good rant,) as if the GOP was not in charge of Congress and had more than enough votes all along is the problem here.  

I am not buying this "I love Bill Clinton, can't believe that I am writing this" theme.  

by georgep 2007-03-23 05:50AM | 0 recs
Re: I can't believe I am going

This was political.  The words in the resolution(s) were and are irrelevant.

Bush needed a thumbs up vote from the Senate to pursue military action against Iraq and he got it.  

All thanks to the dems who were too afraid that a no vote would hurt them with the voters.  It was a calculated political decision on behalf of HRC.

It is really really simple.    

by aiko 2007-03-23 06:14AM | 0 recs
Re: I can't believe I am going

Do you understand that the VOTES were there already for Bush, courtesy of the GOP Congresspukes and Senators?  Your assertion is therefore dead wrong that they had an "opportunity" to stop the war.  It is rather disingenious.  

Faced with the fact that Bush already HAD the authorization sewn up, the Dems who went with the alternative war authorization were trying to put SOME stopgap measures into the thing rather than let the other measure pass which was giving Bush a complete free ride.   I am amazed how many here are trying to rewrite history and pretend that these events did not occur.  As if Edwards and Clinton were actual warmongers.  

Let me ask again:  Are you aware that the GOP had a majority in the House and Senate at the time, AND the presidency, and that they already had enough votes secured to pass any war measure they wanted, even if not a single Democrat would have voted for one?   You are asking for symbolism (the Dem votes really did not mean anything other than mere symbolism,) which is fine.  But don't sell it as a "historic opportunity" to "stop this war," as that is nothing but a lie.  The Democrats were trying to force Bush into making concessions with the "compromise" resolution that were meant to actually stop the war (if the UN would have been given the promised authorization, and if Powell would have been true to his words of ratheting up diplomatic efforts.)  

For the record:  Bill Clinton is correct on this one.  It will be good to have him back in the White House again.   :-)

by georgep 2007-03-23 06:45AM | 0 recs
Re: I can't believe I am going

And your version of history goes like this:

If all the democratic senators had voted NO, Bush would have gone to war in Iraq anyway. The vote didn't even matter. I am sure that we will see that version in the history books.  Nothing about spineless dems....

by aiko 2007-03-23 06:52AM | 0 recs
Re: I can't believe I am going

If it is true, it has to be said.  The GOP HAD the votes sewn up to go to war.  It was just a matter of whether the Democrats would be able to include some caveats to make war less likely (like the UN provision and the promise that war was going to be used only as a last resort.)  

Your version of events represents the fallacious argument that Democrats could have prevented the war with their authorization votes, which is not at all correct.  I was "there" and I read every snippet about this at the time, which is why the constant attempts to rewrite history in the hope that many are ignorant to the fact that the Iraq vote was ALREADY sewn up for Bush is so disingenious.  I guess the idea is that aided by the diminishing-memory factor of time, the theme that Democratic votes could have actually prevented this war could stick with some.  

by georgep 2007-03-23 08:05AM | 0 recs
Re: I can't believe I am going

If someone's going to rob a bank anyway, does that excuse you driving the getaway car?  Inevitability does not mandate complicity.  We turned a Republican rush to war into a bipartisan one.  It was a stupid move, and it lent credibility to the administration and its pretenses for invasion.

How do you not understand that?

by Jay R 2007-03-23 09:41AM | 0 recs
Re: I can't believe I am going

If you were there, you remember who the majority party in the Senate was, don't you?

Don't you?

If every Democratic Senator had voted against the bill, it would have been defeated.  If just 40 democratic senators had the stones to oppose it, it would have been filibustered.

They could have stopped it.  They didn't stop it.  They failed the public.

by Jay R 2007-03-23 09:46AM | 0 recs
Re: I can't believe I am going

Besides, are you actually saying that HAD all Democratic Senators voted against the second authorization (remember, it was meant to replace an authorization that was giving Bush a complete free pass and immeidate go-ahead on Iraq,) Bush would have NOT gone to war?   In what alternative universe does that assertion actually make sense?  

The fact remains that your statement that Democrats' votes could have prevented this war is not true at all.  You are looking for a spine in a vote that was merely symbolic, as the authorization was ALREADY sewn up.  Make it your issue and vote accordingly.  But perhaps many realize the truth (despite the constant attempts at getting around it by some here) and put the vote in its proper context and impact.  

by georgep 2007-03-23 08:10AM | 0 recs
Re: I can't believe I am going

Illegally maybe... and he'd be getting impeached right now for violating the War Powers Act.  Ff all the Dems voted no congress wouldn't have authorized the war, since it would have been filibustered with that total.

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-23 08:58AM | 0 recs
Re: I can't believe I am going

It takes 60 votes to do anything in the Senate.

Also, since you have no sense of history, WE CONTROLLED THE SENATE IN 2002!  IT WAS A DEMOCRATIC SENATE MAJORITY THAT VOTED ON THE AUMF!

Jim Jeffords?  ringing any bells?  Majority Leader Daschle?

We were a MAJORITY, bud.  You're ignoring history to try and make your point, and it's very poor form.

by Jay R 2007-03-23 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: I can't believe I am going

Please.  The votes for Bush were already in the bag for the much tougher resolution due to Democrats like Lieberman and Landrieau.  Those who went after the softened language to press concessions out of the administration (like Edwards, Clinton) did so knowing full well that if they did not offer the compromise, the other resolution would pass, giving Bush an instant green light.   Poor form to ignore realities as they existed in the Senate right before that vote.

by georgep 2007-03-23 12:56PM | 0 recs
Re: I can't believe I am going

But that's not what you said now, is it?  You said if all dems had voted against it still would have happened, which is patently false.

You're also still ignoring that, even with both Nelsons, Zell, Lieberman and Landrieu, we still had enough dems to block action on the bill.  All it takes is 40.

We set the legislative agenda in the Senate.  they could have killed the vote in committee, or they could have amended it to require a second resolution for committing ground forces.  They could have, and they didn't.  You are incorrect.

by Jay R 2007-03-23 01:02PM | 0 recs
Re: I can't believe I am going

And what's worse, you seem to be arguing that, since opposing the resolution wasn't a winning issue, she shouldn't have been expected to stand on principle and vote with the right but outmatched side.  That's pathetic--moral leadership is necessary more often than just when it's on the side that's going to win.  I'd argue it's more necessary to show moral leadership on issues where you know you're NOT going to win.  That demonstrates character and resolve, and while Hillary has shown plenty of resolve in refusing to admit her screw-up, she illustrated an abject lack of character in so doing.

by Jay R 2007-03-23 01:05PM | 0 recs
Re: I can't believe I am going

I was responding to the creator of the diary who claims that the war could have been stopped but for this vote.  If you have common sense at all you will realize that that is not the case.  In fact, had the vote been differently do YOU believe that Bush would have acted differently?  If so, mighty naive.

The disconnect here is that you believe that the vote was FOR WAR.  I believe that Edwards, Clinton, et al (perhaps not Lieberman, Nelson, however) went into the vote with the intention to STOP THE WAR from occuring.  Thus the addition of the UN led initiative to get inspectors back into Iraq and the concession forced out of Powell and the Bush administration that they would let diplomatic efforts take place, that war was only to be used as a last resort.   So, one can argue that those who voted against the war did so knowing full well that Bush would not be deterred, regardless, so they would just voice passive protest but had no realistic recourse to actually stop the war, whereas others pro-actively chose to endorse an authorization that included caveats to try to "run out the clock" on actual war, by getting the UN involved, inviting inspectors back into Iraq (who would hopefully, surely, find or not find those WMDs, thereby settling the matter of their existence in the country) and send Powell on diplomacy missions into the region to get a non-military resolution to the issue.  The intention was clearly to STOP the war from occuring, which becomes clear when you listen to or read the speeches made by Edwards and Clinton at the time.   That Bush decided not to listen to the UN inspectors (Blix ring a bell?) and that Powell did not embark on promised diplomatic missions could not have been foreseen.  There was no precedent to go by, Powell was seen as one of the most honest statesmen we have.  

by georgep 2007-03-24 07:56AM | 0 recs
Re: I can't believe I am going

You are wrong.

This sounds like the 'i voted against it before i voted for it' argument.

Didn't work last time and it won't work this time.

by aiko 2007-03-24 09:35AM | 0 recs
Re: I can't believe I am going

Not to mention Edwards specifically stated in his apology that it was a vote for war, and Cleland's interview with Salon (excerpted elsewhere on the thread) made it pretty clear they knew this was a political win for Bush.

by Jay R 2007-03-24 08:06PM | 0 recs
Re: I can't believe I am going

Anyone who believed that voting for the Authorization for the Use of MILITARY FORCE was a vote against war is too stupid to allow them to be in charge of the military.  So either Hillary was too dumb to know she was getting played, or she was too concerned about her newly-moderated image to risk voting against a bad bill in a non-election year.  Neither scenario paints her in a good light.

That was the vote that made this a war legitimate enough to happen.  And you've already lost credibility with your "Republicans controlled both Houses" lunacy upthread.  Perhaps you ought to quit while you're behind.

by Jay R 2007-03-24 08:10PM | 0 recs
Re: I can't believe I am going

Well if Lieberman is so evil why did Billary endorce his reelection despite losing the primary to Lamont?

by Dameocrat 2007-03-23 09:54PM | 0 recs
Re: I can't believe I am going

Then why Vote yes... Regardless if her vote would have made the difference, SHE STILL VOTED FOR AN ACTION THAT HAS LED TO THE DEATH OF 3200 AMERICANS, TENS OF THOUSANDS OF IRAQIS AND TRILLIONS OF DEBT.  Is it all her fault?  No... But she should also acknowledge SHE FUCKED UP... That is a hallmark of a leader... Bush also doesn't like to admit when he fucks up...  She needs to apologize for that mistake...

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-23 08:57AM | 0 recs
Re: I can't believe I am going

At the very least we don't need to listen to Bill whining that 'it is not fair' to hold hrc accountable for her vote.

by aiko 2007-03-23 09:01AM | 0 recs
Re: I can't believe I am going

Again, the lie.  The GOP did not have a Senate majority, and every time you say otherwise you destroy your credibility.

It's an empirical fact: the Democrats controlled the Senate throughout 2002.  Saying it was not so makes you a liar and a non-credible source in this argument.

The sheer number of times you've repeated this lie indicates a complete disregard for the facts on your part.  Your assertion is wrong, and you, like Hillary, should learn to admit your mistakes.

by Jay R 2007-03-23 01:54PM | 0 recs
Re: I can't believe I am going

Whatever, dude.  There were more than enough votes for Bush to get a blank check to do whatever he wanted on Iraq, a coalition of the entire GOP and conservative Democrats.  On this issue they had a clear majority, more than enough.  Edwards and Clinton backed a compromise resolution that would give us a fighting chance to stop the war from occuring rather than allow the former resolution to sail through without any caveats whatsoever.

BTW, who makes YOU the diary decider on who may or may not speak in them?  Did I miss some sort of "leader" role here or is that just arrogance speaking?  

by georgep 2007-03-24 08:08AM | 0 recs
Re: I can't believe I am going

you make an honest mistake, you own up to it when it's pointed out to you.  You lie, you lose the right to be taken seriously in any discussions here.

Your response to being called out on the utterly false statement you made was to make it again.  So maybe I'm arrogant, but you lied in your argument, so you don't get to sit at the grown-ups table.

There were more than enough Senators who should have known better, Clinton and Edwards among them, who could have stopped the AUMF.  The fact that they didn't is a sign of weakness, not a sign that they perceived a different metaphysical realm wherein authorizing someone to invade and occupy another country is the way to promote peaceful coexistance between the two.  I've never seen anyone so transcendental as to seriously visualize authorizing war as a better way to achieve peace than not authorizing war, especially when it's a bigger and stronger country authorizing war against a nonthreatening tinpot jerk with no force projection capabilities.

by Jay R 2007-03-24 08:20PM | 0 recs
Re: I can't believe I am going

THE GOP WASN'T IN CHARGE OF THE SENATE!

Rewrite history to suit your preexisting perspective much?  We were the majority party in the Senate in 2002.

by Jay R 2007-03-23 09:47AM | 0 recs
to criticize Bill Clinton

georgep:

Thank you for the concise explanation.

by marasaud 2007-03-23 08:47AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads