Clinton's Iraq Vote -- Five Years Later

The fifth anniversary of the start of the Iraq war provides an appropriate moment to revisit Hillary Clinton's argument in favor of authorizing Bush's use of force, and to contrast it with the case made at the time by Bush's opponents.

In the last few years, Clinton has defended her vote by arguing that "if I knew then what I know now, I would never have given President Bush the authority" to attack Iraq. But a majority of Democrats in the House knew enough "then" to vote against the resolution - as did 21 out of 50 Democratic senators.

In Clinton's Senate speech, still posted on her senate website, she began by accepting Bush's premise that "if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." The question, she said, was whether war was the appropriate means of stopping those developments.

In supporting Bush, Clinton claimed to be taking a middle path between two extremes - on the one hand, those who believed we should go to war only if the UN Security Council approved it, which she considered absurd, and on the other, those who favored "attacking Saddam Hussein now." But not even Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld favored an immediate attack at the point the Senate debate occurred -- October 2002 - so she was rejecting an argument no one was making.

Probably the biggest concession she made to Bush was accepting his argument that war was a legitimate response to the attacks on 9-11, which had occurred just one year earlier. Although she did not explicitly agree with Bush's statements linking al Qaeda to Iraq, she did say her vote was justified by "last year's terrible attacks," and that "in balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am."

Other Senators rejected precisely those arguments. Russ Feingold voted against the authorization to use force in part because of what he called "the President's singularly unpersuasive attempt . . . to interweave 9-11 and Iraq." He criticized the "shifting justifications for an invasion," noting "the spectacle of the President and senior Administration officials citing a purported connection to al Qaeda one day, weapons of mass destruction the next day, Saddam Hussein's treatment of his own people on another day."

Ted Kennedy raised a key issue Clinton never considered: going to war against Iraq, he said, "will jeopardize the war against terrorism" - against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. "One year into the battle against Al Qaeda, the administration is shifting the focus, the resources and the energy to Iraq. The change in priority is coming before we have eliminated the threat from Al Qaeda."

While Clinton accepted Bush's claims regarding Saddam's possession weapons of mass destruction, others rejected them. Jim Jeffords, Republican of Vermont said, "There is much speculation about his weapons of mass destruction, but no evidence that he has developed nuclear capability and less that he could deliver it."

Robert Byrd opposed the resolution on other grounds, arguing that "The newly bellicose mood that permeates this White House . . . is clearly motivated by campaign politics. Republicans are already running attack ads against Democrats on Iraq." The criticism of Clinton was implicit but obvious.

In the House, Nancy Pelosi proved to be prescient about the course of the war: "There is no political solution on the ground in Iraq," she declared. "So when we go in, the occupation which is now being called liberation could be interminable. And so could the amount of money, unlimited, that it will cost -- 100, 200 billion dollars." (Of course the war is now costing more than ten times that.)

As for the dangers arising from a long occupation, that problem was foreseen by none other than Henry Kissinger. He testified at a Senate committee hearing before the war vote that he was "viscerally opposed to a prolonged occupation of a Muslim country at the heart of the Muslim world by Western nations who proclaim the right to re-educate that country." In Clinton's speech, she never considered that argument.

Comments

[Tankan]

Hillary jumping on the bandwagon, pandering for votes!

Did you notice the get out of prision clause?

[timmcveighjr]

my god, it must be f*cked-up, if even kissinger isn't making any $$ from it.

[ME08]

Hillary did not get us into Iraq. She was not Commander in Chief. Let's put the blame where it belongs...I know, among the right wingers, blaming the Clinton for every misfortune, every problem is de rigeur. Seems Obama sympathizers like this blogger have adopted this deeply flawed logic.

[uscitizen]

And you're proposing the deeply flawed logic of overlooking those who enabled the administration. This isn't an either/or situation. To treat it as such is overly simplistic. Clinton and those who voted with her, for whatever reason(s), provided cover for the president.

I'd have to agree that this vote was the commander-in-chief test. Clinton had the opportunity to avail herself of other opinions and information before making her decision. She made the incorrect choice when it mattered most.

And the way her campaign has been running only provides further evidence of a lack of judgment, including the decision to be divisive through the now infamous kitchen sink strategy.

[StillAmused]

Try READING the Joint Resolution -- ALL OF IT! -- which was NOT a 'vote to go to war' (unless you're the type of dullard who only reads titles) --

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/print/20021002-2.html

... and Clinton's floor speech at the time of the vote --

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=233783&&

Haven't you overlooked the war criminal who LIED to Congress AND the American people AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE (right there on your tee-vee) when he claimed military action would be "a last resort" -- then promptly pulled the inspectors and invaded, actually in VIOLATION of the Joint Resolution?

Nahh. Clinton's responsible for invading Iraq -- and just in time for the primaries. Don't let details distract you... spoils all the "Yes, We Can" fun.

[TishiJo]

The President cannot go to war without authorization from Congress, and Hillary voted to give that authorization. Today Al Queda is stronger than ever before because we put all our forces and money into Iraq and didnt go after Bin Laden in Afghanistan. And Hillary didnt begin speaking against the war, continued to support Bush in the war up to the campaign for President when she began to condemn it.

[Barbarossa03]

Somebody doesn't know how government works - where has the country gone. The President cannot go to war without the authorization of Congress, which Hilary and McCain gave him

[Patrickvashon]

In light of the Reverend Wright's ministerial fanaticism one question must be answered: How could Barack Obama have done anything other than come out against the war? In the environment of that Congregation he would have been immediately ostracized. So he makes his "Bold" speech opposing the War from the safety of that group of America haters. Some honesty, some integrity. He is no different than Hillary, She had to show how tough she was and He had to show how much He opposed his Country's path against a Muslim Country. One final point NO ONE KNEW THERE WERE NO W.M.D.'s in Iraq in Sept. of 2002 but we did know we were going to wage War against a Muslim Country.

[Agave]

And let's consider that opposition. Obama was a a STATE senator, with no responsibility for the vote, wither way. Is it possible he made his decision based on ambition and not on sound judgement? Or is it the same sound judgement that put him in cohort with someone already under Grand Jury investigation? Or the same jdegement that kept him a member of a congregation lead by a charismatic madman? Was it the same judgement that picked a campaign staff who all decided to jump the tracks in a single news cycle?

When you've already decided to run for higher office and have nothing to lose in your current job, you can say any dam*ed thing you want and then pretend you were wise when all you were was conniving.

[UrbanInterloper]

You raise provocative questions but provide no answers, although you do offer some wild speculation. Talk about honesty and integrity.

Let's say we try to find out the answers to those questions before jumping to conclusions. Let's see what "no one" (other than millions of people in the streets across the globe, including Obama) knew in September 2002:

Lack of hard evidence of Iraqi weapons worries top U.S. officials
By Jonathan S. Landay | Knight Ridder Newspapers
Posted on Friday, September 6, 2002
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/reports/intelligence/story/8546.html

An excerpt:

"It has long been known that Iraq is aggressively trying to rebuild its nuclear, chemical, biological-warfare and long-range missile programs. U.S.-led forces destroyed some of these weapons and production sites during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, and U.N. inspectors eliminated more of them afterward.

Since Saddam blocked inspections in 1998, Iraq secretly has been trying to buy weapons-related materials and technologies and to repair plants that could be used to produce weapons, some senior officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

But there is no new intelligence that indicates the Iraqis have made significant advances in their nuclear, biological or chemical weapons programs, said a U.S. intelligence official who argues that Cheney's and Rumsfeld's focus on Iraq is hurting the hunt for Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terrorist network.

"Do I have a smoking gun? No," said another U.S. official. "Can I tell you we've been looking like crazy? Yes."

Still another senior administration official said the Bush administration was finishing classified and unclassified versions of a report on Iraq for Congress, allies and other countries, but that it contained no dramatic new evidence that Iraq had made major advances on weapons of mass destruction or was supporting the al-Qaida terrorist network."


Another final point: Bush, not Saddam, ultimately stopped the inspectors prior to starting his war. Yes, it's true that Saddam kicked out inspectors, but that was in 1998. He was ready to let them back in in August 2002, and Bush refused, saying it was just a pretext to avoid the war that Bush wanted. (He was right on something at least.) They eventually did return months later, and Bush scoffed at their findings. Then Bush told the U.N. to pull its inspectors out again in March 2003 because the war was starting and he didn't want to bomb the inspectors. Yes, we would have known all about the lack of WMDs if the inspectors had been allowed to remain to do their jobs. We already had a pretty good idea nothing would be found, because nothing had been found by early 2003. But war was pre-ordained.

Some more stuff that "no one" knew:

Saddam's offer to talk about inspections draws skepticism
By Ron Hutcheson and Jonathan S. Landay | Knight Ridder Newspapers
Posted on Friday, August 2, 2002
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/staff/ron_hutcheson/story/8526.html

World leaders welcome Iraqi offer for inspections
By Ron Hutcheson and Diego Ibarguen | Knight Ridder Newspapers
Posted on Tuesday, September 17, 2002
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/staff/ron_hutcheson/story/8531.html

U.N. report deals setback to U.S. calls for military force against Iraq
By Diego Ibarguen | Knight Ridder Newspapers
Posted on Friday, February 14, 2003
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/staff/tim_johnson/story/8697.html

Diplomatic window `closed' as Bush issues ultimatum to Saddam
By Ron Hutcheson and Martin Merzer | Knight Ridder Newspapers
Posted on Monday, March 17, 2003
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/staff/ron_hutcheson/story/9014.html

An excerpt:

"WASHINGTON"The United States abandoned diplomacy, and the United Nations suspended weapons inspections Monday as President Bush delivered a final ultimatum to Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein: exile or war, decide within 48 hours."

And even after the war began, Bush opposed inspections again in April 2003:

France proposes suspending U.N. sanctions; U.S. rejects inspectors' return
By Tim Johnson and Diego Ibarguen | Knight Ridder Newspapers
Posted on Tuesday, April 22, 2003
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/staff/tim_johnson/story/9532.html

[UrbanInterloper]

You raise provocative questions but provide no answers, although you do offer some wild speculation. Talk about honesty and integrity. Instead of jumping to far-fetched conclusions, let's see what "no one" (other than millions of people in the streets across the globe, of which Obama was but one) knew in precisely September 2002:

Lack of hard evidence of Iraqi weapons worries top U.S. officials
By Jonathan S. Landay | Knight Ridder Newspapers
Posted on Friday, September 6, 2002
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/reports/intelligence/story/8546.html

An excerpt:

"It has long been known that Iraq is aggressively trying to rebuild its nuclear, chemical, biological-warfare and long-range missile programs. U.S.-led forces destroyed some of these weapons and production sites during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, and U.N. inspectors eliminated more of them afterward.

Since Saddam blocked inspections in 1998, Iraq secretly has been trying to buy weapons-related materials and technologies and to repair plants that could be used to produce weapons, some senior officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

But there is no new intelligence that indicates the Iraqis have made significant advances in their nuclear, biological or chemical weapons programs, said a U.S. intelligence official who argues that Cheney's and Rumsfeld's focus on Iraq is hurting the hunt for Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terrorist network.

"Do I have a smoking gun? No," said another U.S. official. "Can I tell you we've been looking like crazy? Yes."

Still another senior administration official said the Bush administration was finishing classified and unclassified versions of a report on Iraq for Congress, allies and other countries, but that it contained no dramatic new evidence that Iraq had made major advances on weapons of mass destruction or was supporting the al-Qaida terrorist network."


Another final point: Bush, not Saddam, ultimately stopped the inspectors prior to starting his war. Yes, it's true that Saddam kicked out inspectors, but that was in 1998. He was ready to let them back in in August 2002, and Bush refused, saying it was just a pretext to avoid the war that Bush wanted. (He was right on something at least.) They eventually did return months later, and Bush scoffed at their findings. Then Bush told the U.N. to pull its inspectors out again in March 2003 because the war was starting and he didn't want to bomb the inspectors. Yes, we would have known all about the lack of WMDs if the inspectors had been allowed to remain to do their jobs. We already had a pretty good idea nothing would be found, because nothing had been found by early 2003. But war was pre-ordained.

Some more stuff that "no one" knew:

Saddam's offer to talk about inspections draws skepticism
By Ron Hutcheson and Jonathan S. Landay | Knight Ridder Newspapers
Posted on Friday, August 2, 2002
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/staff/ron_hutcheson/story/8526.html

World leaders welcome Iraqi offer for inspections
By Ron Hutcheson and Diego Ibarguen | Knight Ridder Newspapers
Posted on Tuesday, September 17, 2002
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/staff/ron_hutcheson/story/8531.html

U.N. report deals setback to U.S. calls for military force against Iraq
By Diego Ibarguen | Knight Ridder Newspapers
Posted on Friday, February 14, 2003
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/staff/tim_johnson/story/8697.html

Diplomatic window `closed' as Bush issues ultimatum to Saddam
By Ron Hutcheson and Martin Merzer | Knight Ridder Newspapers
Posted on Monday, March 17, 2003
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/staff/ron_hutcheson/story/9014.html

An excerpt:

"WASHINGTON"The United States abandoned diplomacy, and the United Nations suspended weapons inspections Monday as President Bush delivered a final ultimatum to Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein: exile or war, decide within 48 hours."

And even after the war began, Bush opposed inspections again in April 2003:

France proposes suspending U.N. sanctions; U.S. rejects inspectors' return
By Tim Johnson and Diego Ibarguen | Knight Ridder Newspapers
Posted on Tuesday, April 22, 2003
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/staff/tim_johnson/story/9532.html

[rosal]

The "experienced" had her big chance of showing she would be "ready on day one". Wrong then, wrong now, wrong in the next 100 years.
What she has shown is her readiness to do whatever is convenient for her ambitions, and the willingness to use despicable tactics to get what she is "entitled" to.
By the way, when is she releaseing her taxes, list of earmarks, list of donors to her husband's library, her phone logs, list of pardons he granted?
Blue-collar workers have every right to know whose interest she has at heart.

[bestyf]

When I read the comments here and below other articles it is clear that there are many, many people who hate Hillary Clinton. When most of the Huff readers are Democrats or independents, that should be a signal. Add all of these people to the Republicans who have hated the Clintons for decades and how could she ever win the general election? You can argue about the logic or what you believe is lack of reason but that doesn't change anything. You can't talk people out of hate, especially when it is so ingrained.

[BubbaC33]

So far I have not read a posting by an Obama supporter seeking to end the hate.

[UrbanInterloper]

I don't hate Clinton, but I disagree with her and don't want to vote for her in the primary. There's a difference and accuracy matters.

Has anyone else noticed a similarity between the tendency of Republicans to change the topic when criticized by blaming the Clintons, and the tendency of some (not all) of Clinton's supporters to change the topic when Clinton is criticized by blaming Obama?

[Janelynne]

Give me a break. The anti Clinton diatribes are revolting. I have not seen such group-think since the Bush presidential election X's 2. The culture is deleriously gripped in a non stop propaganda machine, and I think the voters are poised to screw up America one more time: threepeat!

[timinhi]

JEEZUS!!!
Yeah--This is Hillary's war--She's solely responsible for it--It was completely her idea--She led the attack personally--She was driving the first tank that crossed the border--She gives Bush bj's under his desk. I mean, for crissakes, quit trying to make this the sole issue of the Obama campaign. I hope he has more qualifications than just being able to give an antiwar speech to a crowd of antiwar voters when he doesn't even have to make a real vote on whether the country goes to war or not. You people are shallow, and too cowardly to admit that you supported going into Iraq at the time, just like the other 70-80% of Americans. Get a clue--Even if Hillary actually WAS wrong to vote yes given the information we had--even if she (as you like to claim) hasn't "apologized" for it or admitted it was a mistake--It doesn't really matter, because we're there and we can't climb into a time machine and change the way she or any of the other 80 or so senators who voted yes voted. What matters now is that Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld deceived everyone and screwed up the whole thing. Now what matters is we need a person in the White House who can not only undo the whole mess, but can do so in a manner that won't further ruin our international image and leave us or our allies vulnerable to further attack. If you think Obama is that person, then fine--support and vote for him, but stop misrepresenting something that happened in the past and which we can't simply undo by talking about a stupid speech given by a guy running in an overwhelmingly liberal and antiwar district for a part-time seat in the state legislature of a medium-sized state.

[ME08]

Good post...people are still rehashing this ridiculous claptrap about Hillary...in case these idiots haven't noticed, the man responsible for keeping us in Iraq resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue...if Hillary or Barack for that matter were so powerful, could they have gotten us out of Iraq? Clearly no. Yes, we are there now...we must strategize on how best to extricate ourselves without rashness and any more poor judgement ASAP, obviously...

[slow2]

timinhi,

suggest you read or re-read "uscitizen" above. Answers your points.

[raats6662]

I don't fault Senator Clinton for 2002 vote. With the information she was given (false though it may have been) it was understandable. My problem is....she has never said the vote was a mistake. What she has said is 'If I had know this president was not going to take other action I never would have voted to give him that authority'.

The added fact that she has learned NOTHING about this President in the last five years is VERY disturbing. The fact that she would even entertain the idea of ANY preemptive action against Iran is absolutely absurd!

IF Iran attacks the United States or it's citizens or allies then and ONLY then should actions be taken BY THE UNITED NATIONS.

Had Dumbya done the right think, which was take his complaint to the UN and ask the UN to take action we wouldn't be where we are today. The UN wouldn't have touched this, because the UN (and the US) had NEVER attacked a sovereign nation with justification. That is why there are only 20 nations (besides the US) with troops totaling less then 10,000 currently stationed in Iraq.

[mamamay]

Was Hil given false info, or was Hil's interpretation of what she did read, misunderstood by Hil and she reacted to her own judgement? Hil often excuses her own doings. She shifts blame and ever copies others to others, that she may appear superior, and on the up & up, AFTER she learns later on what was considered to be the POLITICAL correct thing to say or do. Who was to blame for allowing so much money to go for donuts, rather than dip & veggie sticks? This is called WASTING the donors money. How do you think folks on food stamps feel about the COST of these sweet treats, when they have to worry about feeding their babies healthy foods on a govt budget? Think about it ? Their votes count too. Hil's vote for the war was based upon Hil's Judgement. Now she is blaming Geo Bush. No Hil, you made this decision on your own,as a means to ACCOMMODATE Bush. You need to admit it and stop waffling. Stop blaming others. Bush has served his 8 yrs and we do not want anyone like you or McC to give Bush anymore time. Hil's decisions are based on not being ready, or prepared to think reasonably to deduce economics and safety that will benefit America.

[appleknocker]

If, after 30 years of her vaunted "experience" - including 8 years in the White House - she was still gullible enough to swallow the "information she was given", she had to be stupid. And she's not.
It is far more likely that she was watching the opinion polls.

But if she was actually deceived, then she certainly won't "be ready on day one" - or ever. If she could be fooled by frauds as transparent as Bush and Cheney, what will happen when she has to contend with someone moderately clever?

[nazgul]

In linguistics, there is a concept called a SPEECH ACT. Speech acts can be promising, accusing, bequeathing, etc.

When Clinton voted to give Bush the right to go to war with Iraq she also made a speech act. She clearly preferred renewed inspections and negotiations. She clearly was opposed to pre-emptive war. However, she voted give Bush free reign to deal with Iraq, knowing full well, as we all did since 9/11, that he was intent on invading Iraq and toppling Saddam. In her speech, she said, in effect: Saddam poses a serious, imminent threat and he has supported al Qaeda, and he must be removed, even if that requires War.

Hillary Clinton's SPEECH ACT was thus to APPROVE and SUPPORT both the Bush administration worldview of Hussein AND its right to pursue any and all means to deal with him, at its discretion.

Hillary has since attempted to rewrite history, claiming that she was voting to approve negotiations. That's nothing less than a lie. She had a chance to limit the scope of Bush's actions with the Levin Amendment. She specifically chose to give Bush free reign.

Barack Obama, on the other committed his own speech act. He INFORMED people that Saddam Hussein was not an imminent threat . He REMINDED people of the reasons given during the Gulf War for not invading and occupying Iraq. He WARNED that such an invasion and occupation would increase, not decrease, terrorism. He PROMOTED a focused campaign against bin Laden and al Qaeda. He PROMOTED a constructive Homeland Security program (not color-coded security alerts). He AFFIRMED the thoughts and feelings of those who knew, based on the information already available, that the War was misguided in every war imaginable.

Obama's speech performed several ACTIONS.


Running for the IL Senate, Obama had nothing to gain and everything to lose by speaking out against the War at a time when such people were vilified by the administration, the hawk-stacked choirs of media pundits and the right-wing talk radio hosts. It was the opposite of opportunism.

Imagine if Hillary, as the celebrity Senator she is, spoke the words that Obama did. She would be having an entirely different campaign. Imagine if a few other dozen Senators and Congresspeople spoke what they knew to be true. It might an entirely different country. By ceding, as she and so many others did, to the power lords of false patriotism and seeking political cover, she has suffered. And so have we.

[nazgul]

In linguistics, there is a concept called a SPEECH ACT. Speech acts can be promising, accusing, bequeathing, etc.

When Clinton voted to give Bush the right to go to war with Iraq she also made a speech act. She clearly preferred renewed inspections and negotiations. She clearly was opposed to pre-emptive war. However, she voted give Bush free reign to deal with Iraq, knowing full well, as we all did since 9/11, that he was intent on invading Iraq and toppling Saddam. In her speech, she said, in effect: Saddam poses a serious, imminent threat and he has supported al Qaeda, and he must be removed, even if that requires War.

Hillary Clinton's SPEECH ACT was thus to APPROVE and SUPPORT both the Bush administration worldview of Hussein AND its right to pursue any and all means to deal with him, at its discretion.

Hillary has since attempted to rewrite history, claiming that she was voting to approve negotiations. That's nothing less than a lie. She had a chance to limit the scope of Bush's actions with the Levin Amendment. She specifically chose to give Bush free reign.

Barack Obama, on the other committed his own speech act. He INFORMED people that Saddam Hussein was not an imminent threat . He REMINDED people of the reasons given during the Gulf War for not invading and occupying Iraq. He WARNED that such an invasion and occupation would increase, not decrease, terrorism. He PROMOTED a focused campaign against bin Laden and al Qaeda. He PROMOTED a constructive Homeland Security program (not color-coded security alerts). He AFFIRMED the thoughts and feelings of those who knew, based on the information already available, that the War was misguided in every war imaginable.

Obama's speech performed several ACTIONS.

Imagine if Hillary, as the celebrity Senator she is, spoke the words that Obama did. Imagine if a few other dozen Senators and Congresspeople spoke what they knew to be true.

Running for the IL Senate, Obama had nothing to gain and everything to lose by speaking out against the War. It was the opposite of opportunism.

[slow2]

Great analysis.

Thank you and hope you'll write more.

[mojomagic]

He was running agains crazy Alan Keyes for God's sake. What risk did he take speaking up against the war in the most liberal county in Illinois. Give me a break!

[jstock]

Focus not on Obama for just a second, and listen to what this piece says (as in, Hillary is too comfy w/neo-con-type thinking.)

[Plank]

Five years later and she still hasn't apologized.

[BubbaC33]

Nor should she apologize for a vote that she explained at the time was to go through the UN to find a solution to the Iraq problem. She has explained the reasons for her vote and has said if she knew at the time what she now knows she would have voted differently. Given the circunstances at that time her vote was not to go to war, but to go to the UN.
As for Obama and his opposition to the war since 2002, that doesn;t fly with comments he has made since 2002. He said at one point he did not know how he would have voted on the IWR. Yes, he said other stuff, but nothing that changes his initial answer. And he later said his position and the Bush position on Iraq were not that far apart. And if Obama was as opposed to the war as he claims he could have sponsored legislation to end it. But he has not done so. He has, in fact, voted in a manner similar to Ms. Clinton.

[bestyf]

The vote was not a vote to go through the UN to find a solution. The vote was called "autorization to use force". If you want to excuse it fine, but don't change it.

[mojomagic]

Sounds like a broken record

[voisme]

Get over yourself's.....9/11.....New York....Terrorists....knowledge of previous WMD....how would you have voted? Just like Obama when he got to Washington I imagine!

Sandra

[GoreyFantod]

Millions of people saw through the obvious lie that Iraq or Saddam Hussein had anything to do with September 11, 2001. Millions of people around the world marched against the war before it began. You may not have seen it on your teevee, but it happened.

You were bamboozled into believing a bald-faced lie and that's extremely unfortunate, but don't pretend that we all were.

[mojomagic]

Some people still believe Saddam had something to do with the Trade Tower attack.
At the time many people believed it!

[BubbaC33]

It is amazing how many people now claim to have perfectly understood what Bush would do in 2003. Some folks voted against the war not because they could see the what Bush would do, but because they were against anything Bush would do.
I just think it is funny and amazing that so many folks now claim to have this ability to see into the future.

[mojomagic]

Obama voted just like Hillary when he finally got to the senate. They have identical voting records in the Congress...........to defend the war. Personally I would have voted against all funding cuz I was against the war in the first place. Unfortunately I and all the original people who were against the war in the first place, but wait a minute, that includes Obama and he has voted for funding each time it came up in the congress.

[slow2]

Sandra,

Millions of citizens worldwide OPPOSED the invasion. Bush's own pastor opposed the war. People everywhere, all over this country did not believe Bush or his "information." Laypeople, military, clergy, professors, more than 20 senators, the list goes on.

No, some of us believe Barack Obama and take his word that he opposed the invasion, just like we opposed the invasion. Bush's lies are easliy read on his countenance; that SOTU speech re: yellowcake, etc., was a joke -- except, of course, to the hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded from the US and Iraq.

[robeson]

Actually Hillary was not passive nor fooled. She was an active agent for the PNAC principles in the mid-east. Hillary warned of the terrorist connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam, a position not offered by any intelligence, but only by the Bush WH and their PNAC agents.

[Bettysdad]

Nice to see you've come around, Jon.

The most obvious problem with Mrs. Bill Clinton's vote is that she allowed herself to be BSed by George Bush! What kind of idiot does one have to be for that to happen.

Or maybe it was political posturing.

Five paragraphs frpm the end of her speech Mrs. Bill Clinton says: "And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation."

So she had started her Senate campaign based on the phony issue of 'experience' after about one year in the Senate.

[athy]

All I have to say to this article for now is :

For me-actions speak louder than words.

Obama-an anti war candidate?

I dont think so.

Obama- an opportunist- a vote who*e who will say& do anything to get elected? Perhaps...

Sen Obama flew into CT to support Joe Lieberman in Senate race against the popular anti- Iraq war candidate Ned Lamont.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/02/nyregion/02lieberman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
I no longer trust Sen Obama or his message.

[nazgul]

In linguistics, there is a concept called a SPEECH ACT. Speech acts can be promising, accusing, bequeathing, etc.

When Clinton voted to give Bush the right to go to war with Iraq she also made a speech act. She clearly preferred renewed inspections and negotiations. She clearly was opposed to pre-emptive war. However, she voted give Bush free reign to deal with Iraq, knowing full well, as we all did since 9/11, that he was intent on invading Iraq and toppling Saddam. In her speech, she said, in effect: Saddam poses a serious, imminent threat and he has supported al Qaeda, and he must be removed, even if that requires War.

Hillary Clinton's SPEECH ACT was thus to APPROVE and SUPPORT both the Bush administration worldview of Hussein AND its right to pursue any and all means to deal with him, at its discretion.

Hillary has since attempted to rewrite history, claiming that she was voting to approve negotiations. That's nothing less than a lie. She had a chance to limit the scope of Bush's actions with the Levin Amendment. She specifically chose to give Bush free reign.

Barack Obama, on the other committed his own speech act. He INFORMED people that Saddam Hussein was not an imminent threat . He REMINDED people of the reasons given during the Gulf War for not invading and occupying Iraq. He WARNED that such an invasion and occupation would increase, not decrease, terrorism. He PROMOTED a focused campaign against bin Laden and al Qaeda. He PROMOTED a constructive Homeland Security program (not color-coded security alerts). He AFFIRMED the thoughts and feelings of those who knew, based on the information already available, that the War was misguided in every war imaginable.

Obama's speech performed several ACTIONS.

Imagine if Hillary, as the celebrity Senator she is, spoke the words that Obama did. Imagine if a few other dozen Senators and Congresspeople spoke what they knew to be true.

Running for the IL Senate, Obama had nothing to gain and everything to lose by speaking out against the War. It was the opposite of opportunism.

[mamamay]

A true Dem will help another Dem, Who knew Lieberman was going to change to Rep/ Ind? Obama is not a waffler. McC and Hil are quasi Reps. They think alike and support Bush. A vote for either is a vote for Bush for 4 more years. Obama says what he means and means what he says. He does not say or do anything just to get elected. If you don't know, ask somebody, before you foolishly persuade others to throw their vote away as you. One must think wisely in this election. not continue to live in the past and be left alone. I am past 70 and even I know this. Think about it. Obama is for all people. Even for you and me.

[Ivotedemocrat]

And who did you think Joe Lieberman was running against , a Republican? Ned Lamont was an ANTI-WAR Democrat, so stop writing from your butt. As for Obama, he says what he means? Obama is indeed an opportunist who has used a vague slogan of change to bamboozle a bunch of people who are currently feeling the withdrawal symptoms from their pro-war "highs", and Obama has become their fix. As pointed out above, if Obama truly was anti-war, he would not be voting to fund the war. This fact should put the Obama anti-war myth to rest, but it hasn't. You see, people are truly tired of the war and its costs. If the war had lasted for only a year or so, then George Bush would have actually be considered an American hero. But do to major miscalculations by the likes of Mr. Rumsfeld, et al., this war is 5 years strong and still going! Should we just up and run from Iraq, as Obama seems to suggest? This is the easy answer, but that would be absurd! We are in such a fix, and there are no easy answers. Therefore, I don't believe Obama for one minute. To blame Hillary as if she was the primary reason for the start of the war is also absurd. Do to his obfuscation, the real blame for the war lies with Saddam Hussein. Saddam played games right up to the very end. It wasn't implausible that his regime had weapons of mass destruction, or was tyring to obtain them for that matter. He gassed his own population! He was a brutal murderer, and for that I am thankful that the US stood up to him. I am a lifelong Democrat, but every day that I see Democrats whining about the Iraq war, and how the US should just up and leave, I see the wisdom in Joe Lieberman's decision to leave the Democrat party. What's done, is done. The Democrats should be thinking of ways to "fix" the situation in Iraq, not just leave. What will happen to Iraq if the US were to pull out at this point? Do you think it would make the world a more stable place? No! The US, like it or not, has a responsibility to leave Iraq in a more stable condition. Like it or not, we initiated the war, and we are responsible for the outcome. Do I like this war? Hell no! But Americans need to get real. We started something, and we need to finish it in the right way which is not running away from it.