|
||
So Hillary Voted For The War In 2003: So What?
I really wish that Hillary Clinton had the judgment and fortitude not to tacitly endorse our invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Obviously, her funding votes were ass-covers for a future Presidential run in which toughness would need to be proven. Plus, it would have been politically difficult for a Senator from a state where the towers fell to vote against the war so soon after 9/11- when the lack of links between Saddam and A-Q were not so widely acknowledged as they are now.
But my point here is those votes were five years ago.
I hope you are not one of those raging, howling, against-the-Iraq-War Democrats whose enduring anger against any political figures who supported this war precludes you from ever considering voting for any former-war supporting candidate.
I sense there are people like you out there, otherwise Democratic voters who, in an election between still avid Iraq war supporter John McCain and one-time war supporter Hillary Clinton- who will sit out this election rather than vote for the "lesser of two evils."
Listen. I hope it doesn't come to that. I am leaning toward Barack Obama.
Still, even though I have been critical of Hillary, I must vote for her if she runs against McCain.
In such a case, I would care far less about Hillary's votes in 2003 then I do the absolute necessity of a Hillary Clinton then I do her ability to get us out of Iraq sooner ather than later, steer us toward universal health care, and appoint a progressive Supreme Court Justice who wouldn't overturn Roe.
So, I ask you members of the "I'll never vote for Hillary" crowd to consider the alternative.
A non-progressive John McCain Presidency.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I agree with you. As the senator of New York, it was Hillary's duty as their REPRESENTATIVE to vote they would have wanted her to. 70% of America in 2003 BELIEVED what the BUSH administration told us. The MEDIA, who is supposed to INVESTIGATIVE, cowed the line also. If anyone is to be held blame it is the CURRENT adminstration that refuses even the littlest inquiry. IMPEACHMENT proceedings need to start. This country is lost if we wait 10 YEARS for documents to be made public if they ever are. Since the media has refused to INVESTIGATE then we must demand that our REPRESENTATIVE government do so.
Since when is a vote to authorize the President to use force against Iraq a "tacit" endorsement. At least you admit that Hillary has no principles and will do whatever is politically expedient to attain and retain power.
"But my point here is those votes were five years ago."
Until May 2007 Hillary stubbornly maintained that she would vote the same way, even with hindsight. Then, under pressure from Code Pink, Cindy Sheehan, and MoveOn.org, she revised history, saying George W. had tricked her.
In September 2006 she voted against Senate Amendment 4882, which would have banned the use of cluster bombs in heavily populated civilian areas.
In September 2007 she voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which Sen. Jim Webb described as "...a backdoor method of gaining congressional validation for military action..." against Iran.
It's not just one vote five years ago. She has a long history of being either a hawk or a dupe. If she's the Dem nominee, I will hold my nose and vote for her. But I'd much rather it be Obama.
I have a confession. A few weeks ago, I was an ardent Hillary-hater who was one of the people saying I'd never vote for Hillary and I'd rather vote for the Republican... but in the past few days I've come to realize that that's not really true.
I'd rather have the flipflopper half-heartedly attempt to end the war than have the old codger who wants to stay there for a hundred years.
Thus, I'll hold my nose and just vote for HRC if she's the nominee. But I won't like it!!!
The authorization to use force in Iraq was a transparently fraudulent document from the beginning, that's what. We needed Congress to call BS on the two claims contained therein:
1. Iraq has WMDs.
2. Iraq is a direct threat to USA.
Politicians who still say they believed those two claims above strike me as people who can't be trusted.
1. U.S. and foreign intelligence suggested that Iraq had WMDs. Even Saddam's generals though he had WMDs.
2. Iraq was a direct threat, it funded terrorism. An no, I'm not saying that Iraq was directly responsible for 9-11. George Bush never said that either.
Mr. Shaw:
About 30% of the USA knew Bush and Cheney were lying about Iraq from day 1. Voting for that proposition was either sincere or a political move on Hillary's part. If it was sincere, it means she has really bad judgement. If it was a political vote, it means she has no spine and no morals. Whichever it is, it doesn't change because the vote was 5 years ago. You talk about it like it was just a vote - she's responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis, for making the US a more dangerous place, and for putting us into trillions of dollars of debt. It was a vote to authorize the President to LAUNCH A WAR. You should rethink your cavalier dismissal of its significance.
That vote is just one thing that shows me that Hillary is not a good candidate. The vote shows me that she did not thoroughly research the issue. Since I was able to be against the Iraq War even back then, I think that anyone in Congress should have been able to reach the same conclusion I did. I refuse to vote against another candidate, even though I'm sick of the Republicans. I have only voted *for* two candidates, Gore and Kerry. I'm not ashamed of those votes. I would be ashamed if I felt compelled to vote for Hillary Clinton just to keep John McCain out of office. I would rather vote for no one.
You don't have to go all the way back to 2003 to see the pattern of political expediency trumping (professed) principals.
I believe it was just last year that Sen. Clinton voted against an ammendment that prohibited american use of cluster bombs in civilian areas.
Sen. Obama, fwiw, voted in favor of the ammendment to ban these lethal weapons that leave so much unexploded ordinance to be discovered by non-combatants for years to come.
I hate the idea of "lesser of two evils" too, but in this case, even our "lesser" ain't that bad! Yes, I wish she had not voted for the war, or for the money for the war. And I wish her anti-base weren't so rabid. And I wish there was going to be more of a difference to draw between Clinton and McMoreWars during the general. And I wish she wasn't so beholden to lobbyists and big business and "Homeland Security". But I'm SURE AS HELL gonna vote for her if she's the nominee. Because with all her faults, and Obama's too (I voted Edwards) they are heads and shoulders above EVERY Republican candidate. I'm still holding out hope for an Obama/Edwards ticket - Power of Change and Power to the People running together, but after the last 7 years a Clinton OR Obama will be like a ray of sunshine after a dark storm!
Vote Democratic to save the country!
I'm sick-o-frigging tired of voting for the lesser of two evils, in Iraq for more than 100 years McCain or in Iraq for well at least a little longer Hillary? If Hill gets the nominations, it will be a replay of '04. MCain's minions will even get to pull out teh old Kerry flipflopper thing that she was for the war before she was against it. Look at the most recent Times poll. Obama does 5 points better over McCain than Hillary. I know it's a poll and doesn't mean a thing because the election isn't until November, but when Rushbo and Coulter come out to support Hillary over McCain, something just doesn't pass the smell test, here.
Sure, her vote to cede warmaking authority to a demonstratedly immoral and ignorant president was five years ago.
But her vote in favor of the Lieberman-Kyle bill was just last September.
Seems that after five years of breathtaking duplicity and incompetence from this administration, Clinton is still inclined to give Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran.
This is a textbook example of a person who does not learn from past mistakes. It is hardly the hallmark of a "change-maker."
I wonder how Mr. Obama would have behaved had he actually been in a position in which his opposition or support had practical implications. I was against the war vote as well, but, like Illinois State Senator Obama's, my opposition was practically meaningless.
Yeah, so what? She voted for an unnecessary war that has killed nearly 4,000 American soldiers, so she could cover her ass for a future presidential run.
What's the big deal, right?
If Hillary really wanted to be "tough", she would have done something that was unpopular at the time, but the right thing to do. Supporting a popular war was easy and the politically expedient thing to do. Everyone who voted for the war has blood on their hands. And, just for the record, I still support the war in Afghanistan (as does Barbara boxer and many other anti-Iraq Democrats).
The fact of the matter is that she voted for an unjust war in 2003, voted for Lieberman's Iran bill in 2007, and then proceeded to use the same lame-ass excuse: "I did't think Bush would actually go to war." Lying or incompetent, you choose.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
