Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
- Accidentally Released - and Incredibly Embarrassing - Documents Show How Goldman et al Engaged in 'Naked Short Selling'
- Apocalypse Fairly Soon: The Moment of Truth in Europe
- NDAA's 'Indefinite Detention' Provisions Unconstitutional, says Judge
- Preying on Poverty: How Government and Corporations Use the Poor as Piggy Banks
- Associated Press Calls Out Romney's Lies in 'Prairie Fire' Speech
- Accidentally Released - and Incredibly Embarrassing - Documents Show How Goldman et al Engaged in 'Naked Short Selling'
- The Rise of the New Economy Movement
- Preying on Poverty: How Government and Corporations Use the Poor as Piggy Banks
- The Organic Watergate: Alarming Report Reveals USDA's Cozy Relationship with Corporate Agribusinesses in 'Organics'
- Updated: Under Pressure, TED Releases 'Income Inequality' Talk
Popular content
Today's Top News
In Defending War Vote, Clintons Contradict Record
WASHINGTON - Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton have repeatedly invoked the name of Senator Chuck Hagel, a longtime critic of the Iraq war, as they defend Mrs. Clinton's 2002 vote to authorize the war.
In interviews and at a recent campaign event, they have said that Mr. Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, helped draft the resolution, which they said was proof that the measure was more about urging Saddam Hussein to comply with weapons inspections, instead of authorizing combat.
Mrs. Clinton repeated the claim Sunday during an interview on "Meet the Press," saying "Chuck Hagel, who helped to draft the resolution, said it was not a vote for war."
"It was a vote to use the threat of force against Saddam Hussein, who never did anything without being made to do so," Mrs. Clinton said.
But the talking point appears to misconstrue the facts.
In October 2002, Mr. Hagel had in fact been working with Senators Joseph R. Biden Jr., Democrat of Delaware, and Richard G. Lugar, Republican of Indiana, on drafting a resolution that would have authorized the war.
But while those negotiations were under way, to the disappointment of some Congressional Democrats, the Bush administration circumvented their effort and reached a separate agreement with Representative Richard A. Gephardt, Democrat of Missouri, then the House minority leader.
That agreement resulted in a bill, sponsored in the Senate by Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, now an independent, which was slightly less restrictive than the proposal that Mr. Hagel had been helping to develop.
In the original proposal Mr. Hagel had backed, force was authorized only to secure the destruction of Iraq's unconventional weapons, not to enforce "all relevant" United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, which was the language in the version that ultimately passed.
It was the White House proposal, not Mr. Hagel's, that Mrs. Clinton supported, explaining in an Oct. 10, 2002, speech on the Senate floor that it was time to tell Saddam Hussein that "this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed."
The repeated references to Mr. Hagel by the Clintons make it clear that they are trying to distance her from the Bush administration's handling of Iraq, by associating her with a persistent critic of the war.
Bill Clinton has raised the claim at least twice, including in an April 2007 interview on "Larry King Live" and, most recently, at a campaign event in New Hampshire just before the Democratic primary there.
"Chuck Hagel was one of the co-authors of that resolution, the only Republican Senator that always opposed the war, every day, from the get-go," Mr. Clinton said on Jan. 7. "He authored the resolution to say that Bush could go to war only if they didn't cooperate with the inspectors."
A spokesman for Mr. Hagel declined on Sunday to comment about the matter.
In an interview published in GQ magazine in January 2007, Mr. Hagel said that he helped shape the course of the debate - even if it was not his resolution that ultimately passed. He said he helped convince the White House to narrow its request for authorization to go to war just to Iraq. Initially, the administration wanted Congress to approve a broad measure that would not have necessarily specified Iraq as the only target, potentially allowing action elsewhere in the Middle East.
Phil Singer, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, said Sunday that the statements by the senator and Mr. Clinton accurately reflected the role that Mr. Hagel played in the overall negotiations, even if it was not his bill that Congress voted on.
"Senator Hagel not only played a key role in drafting the 2002 authorization," Mr. Singer said, "but has spoken about those efforts at length."
© 2008 The New York Times

34 Comments so far
Show AllAccording to the NYT, national polls put Hillary far out in front of Obama and Edwards trails them both. If these polls are right maybe we should be joining a new strategy. I understand McCain is Bush warmed over.
And lynch they will, before this campaign is over. Every kid I speak to (under 30 and over 18) seem to back Obama unconditionally ! But the Clintons will do what they do best ... kill hope.
The Clintons are masters of distortion and their campaign is so disgusting and ugly one wonders what will be left of the democratic party once they have secured the nomination. John Edwards could show some courage by publicly denouncing their race baiting and gender germ warfare. It is so ironic that so many blacks are supporting the Clintons as they attempt to lynch the young black candidate.
The clintons are neocons. No ifs ands or buts. They will lie and cajole and do whatever it takes to continue to pursue their agenda.
baruch,
Well said!
ezeflyer,
With all due respect, my "new strategy" is still my old strategy. I'm still voting for Kucinich next month. If enough liberals/ progressives and folks around the country still want an honest politician who has been a fighter since day one, then Kucinich is worth voting for. Most follow the dictates of MSM and we know what they stand for.
countess,
So right! I just crowned you 'queen for a day!'
gyptian,
Billy boy, (I voted for him twice-for the record) sure gets angry over Obama, but for eight years of Republican diatribes against him, he was always cordial and respectful to the 'other' party. One wonders.
Peaceman - My strategy as well. There's not a dime's worth of difference between the policies of Clinton and Obama. Like Glenn Ford of the Blackagendareport describes them, they are "Political siamese twins who stand there slapping each other upside the head."
Kucinich is the only real democrat running. The only who sees the corporate corruption and refuses to take one dime of their tainted bribe money. THE ONLY ONE who remembers he's a PUBLIC SERVANT and not a Corporate Servant.
MY vote will always be for KUCINICH. He's represents the PEOPLE. I've met him several times --- He's the real deal.
Maybe she didn't know which one she was voting for???
It may come as a surprise to some, but MANY of our highly-paid representatives and senators DO NOT even READ the bills they vote on....and when asked, say that there are TOO MANY!!!
###
Hillary Signals Free Pass for Bush
By Robert Parry
December 31, 2007
Hillary Clinton's campaign is signaling that a second Clinton presidency will follow the look-to-the-future, don't-worry-about-accountability approach toward Republican wrongdoing that marked Bill Clinton's years in office.
That was the significance of former President Clinton's remarkable Dec. 17 comment that his wife's first act in the White House would be to send Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush on an around-the-world mission to repair America's damaged image.
"The first thing she intends to do is to send me and former President Bush and a number of other people around the world to tell them that America is open for business and cooperation again," said Bill Clinton, who has accompanied the senior Bush on international humanitarian missions over the past several years.
What was perhaps most stunning about the remark was its assumption that Americans would be impressed that the country's two dominant political dynasties would team up in early 2009 to tidy up some of the mess created by the headstrong son of the senior dynasty, the Bush Family.
The Bushes and the Clintons – who have held pieces of the nation's executive power for more than a quarter century dating back to George H.W. Bush's election as Vice President in 1980 – essentially would be keeping matters within the board rooms of the Washington Establishment.
In responding to Bill Clinton's remark, George H.W. Bush issued a statement making clear he would not join in any slap at his son's foreign policy. That also means Hillary Clinton's "first thing" is unthinkable if her new administration were trying to exact any accountability from George W. Bush for his wrongdoing.
So, to get the senior Bush's cooperation on the worldwide tour, there would have to be an implicit understanding that the second Clinton administration wouldn't investigate the younger Bush's crimes – from authorizing torture, ordering warrantless wiretaps, exposing CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity, waging war under false pretenses and other abuses of executive powers.
If Hillary Clinton does get elected, you can expect to hear lots of talk about "leaving that one for the historians" or about the danger of increased partisanship if the Democrats were viewed as trying "get even" by exposing Bush's offenses.
The wise heads of Washington surely would nod in approval at this "bipartisanship" of a Democratic administration deciding not to get bogged down in "refighting the battles" of the second Bush administration.
The First Clinton-Bush Deal
That's exactly what happened in 1993 when Bill Clinton entered the White House after defeating George H.W. Bush.
Clinton and other senior Democrats shut down or wrapped up four investigations that implicated senior Republicans, including Bush, in constitutional abuses of power and criminal wrongdoing during the Reagan-Bush years.
The Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages case was still alive, with special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh furious over new evidence that President George H.W. Bush may have obstructed justice by withholding his own notes from investigators and then ducking an interview that Walsh had put off until after the 1992 elections.
Bush also had sabotaged the investigation by pardoning six Iran-Contra defendants on Christmas Eve 1992, possibly the first presidential pardon ever issued to protect the same President from criminal liability.
In late 1992, Congress also was investigating Bush's alleged role in secretly aiding Iraq's Saddam Hussein during and after Hussein's eight-year-long war with Iran.
Representative Henry Gonzalez, a Democrat from Texas who had served three decades in Congress, had exposed intricate financial schemes that the Reagan-Bush administrations employed to assist Hussein. There also were allegations of indirect U.S. military aid through third countries, including the supply of dangerous chemicals to Iraq.
Lesser known investigations were examining two other sets of alleged wrongdoing: the so-called October Surprise issue (allegations that Bush and other Republicans interfered with Jimmy Carter's hostage negotiations with Iran during the 1980 campaign) and the Passportgate affair (evidence that Bush operatives improperly searched Clinton's passport file in 1992, looking for dirt that could be used to discredit his patriotism and secure reelection for Bush).
All told, the four sets of allegations, if true, would paint an unflattering portrait of the 12-year Republican rule, with two illegal dirty tricks (October Surprise and Passportgate) book-ending ill-considered national security schemes in the Middle East (Iran-Contra and Iraqgate).
Had the full stories been told, the American people might have perceived the legacies of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush quite differently.
But the Clinton administration and congressional Democrats dropped all four investigations beginning in early 1993, either through benign neglect – by failing to hold hearings and keeping the issues alive in the news media – or by actively closing the door on investigative leads.
Clinton let George H.W. Bush retreat gracefully into retirement. [For details on the scandals, see Robert Parry's Secrecy & Privilege.]
Joining the Cover-ups
In his 2004 memoir, My Life, Clinton wrote that he "disagreed with the [Iran-Contra] pardons and could have made more of them but didn't." Clinton cited several reasons for giving his predecessor a pass.
"I wanted the country to be more united, not more divided, even if that split would be to my political advantage," Clinton wrote. "Finally, President Bush had given decades of service to our country, and I thought we should allow him to retire in peace, leaving the matter between him and his conscience."
By his choice of words, Clinton revealed how he saw information – not something that belonged to the American people and had intrinsic value to the democratic process – but as a potential weapon that could be put to "political advantage."
On the Iran-Contra pardons, Clinton saw himself as generously passing up a club that he could have wielded to bludgeon an adversary. He chose instead to join in a cover-up in the name of national unity.
Similarly, the Democratic congressional leadership ignored the flood of incriminating evidence pouring in to the "October Surprise" task force in December 1992.
Chief counsel Lawrence Barcella told me later that he urged task force chairman Lee Hamilton to extend the investigation several months to examine this new evidence of Republican guilt, but Hamilton ordered Barcella simply to wrap up the probe with a finding that the 1980 Reagan-Bush campaign had done nothing wrong.
Some of the new incriminating evidence – including an unprecedented report from the Russian government about its knowledge of illicit Republican contacts with Iran – was simply hidden away in boxes that I discovered two years later and dubbed "The October Surprise X-Files."
The "Iraqgate" investigation met a similar fate under Clinton's Justice Department, which chose to ignore or dismiss evidence of covert shipments of war materiel to Saddam Hussein during the 1980s.
In 1996, when former Reagan national security official Howard Teicher came forward with an affidavit describing secret U.S.-backed arms shipments to Iraq, Clinton's Justice Department went on the offensive – against Teicher, trying to discredit him and bullying him into silence.
That same year, the Clinton administration did nothing when Reagan's 1984 campaign chief Ed Rollins wrote in his 1996 memoir Bare Knuckles and Back Rooms that a top Filipino politician had admitted delivering an illegal $10 million cash payment to Reagan from Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos.
"I was the guy who gave the ten million from Marcos to your campaign," the Filipino told Rollins in 1991, according to the memoir. "I was the guy who made the arrangements and delivered the cash personally. ...It was a personal gift from Marcos to Reagan."
Rollins withheld the names of the Filipino politician and the Republican lobbyist who allegedly handled the pay-off.
The stunning anecdote did attract some press coverage in 1996 but the story died because the Clinton administration made no effort to follow it up.
(Rollins is now chairman of Republican Mike Huckabee's presidential campaign.) [For details on Marcos-Reagan case, see Consortiumnews.com's "Huckabee's Chairman Hid Payoff Secret."]
Proving Themselves
In the mid-1990s, even as the Republican attack machine pounded the Clintons with allegations about alleged ethical lapses and marital infidelities, the Clinton administration acted like it was determined to prove that it could be trusted with the nation's dark secrets, that it could cover up wrongdoing with the best of them.
The consequence for America, however, was different. With George H.W. Bush's dubious public record whitewashed, the door was opened to the restoration of the Bush Dynasty. If the full truth had been known about former President Bush, it's hard to conceive how George W. Bush ever could have become President.
Now, as Hillary Clinton seeks a strong showing in the Iowa caucuses to solidify her image as the inevitable Democratic nominee, she appears ready to pick up the mantle as the Democratic protector of the Bush Family's legacy. Though she may utter some tough words about George W. Bush on the campaign trail, she's not likely to follow up if she wins the White House.
If Bill Clinton is telling the truth about Hillary Clinton's "first thing" to do as President – recruiting George H.W. Bush for a worldwide goodwill tour on behalf of America's image – that will require closing the door on any serious investigation of George W. Bush.
The two dynastic families then can look to the future, again.
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth' are also available there. Or go to Amazon.com.
To comment at Consortiumblog, click here
"Kucinich is the only real democrat running. The only who sees the corporate corruption and refuses to take one dime of their tainted bribe money. THE ONLY ONE who remembers he's a PUBLIC SERVANT and not a Corporate Servant."
Hats off to Truthseeker58! I am with you. Now, why are Americans so terrified to take Kucinich seriously??? Yes, we can blame the lack of media attention, since there are many out there who don't even know who he is not to mention the fact that when the media does cover Dennis he is treated like a joke. The next question is...Do most Americans REALLY want change??? I think not. A colleague said to me today, "Well if there were no corporations this country would collapse economically. Corporations are not all bad." This is the kind of thinking Kucinich has to contend with...and there are millions of these so called "we need to be pragmatic about our choices" kind of people out there. If we do not make drastic changes in the way we view climate change, the healthcare system, education, and our foreign relations...we're done. Slow, non-existent changes that Hillary Rodham Clinton stresses that she has so much experience in handling WENT OUT IN 1992. So, What do we do?
KUCINICH 2008!!!
This is the same lawyer Clinton who signed the first Patriot Act without ever having read it. She is using the Republican tactic of blaming your own failures and errors on the opposition, even when untrue, to take the target off her own back. I am very disappointed in how she is waging this campaign! She won't get my vote!
Truthseeker58, and Byrne,
We've got to do the right thing by voting for, and encouraging others to do likewise. Kucinich in 2008!
Linda Sutton,
How many lawyers sign important documents without reading them? It is true that most politicians (that we the people rely on) don't read the plethora of bills craftily written by lobbiest's lawyers, and that is a primary reason we are regressing as a nation, rather than progressing.
Luvalu,
Clinton knew what she was signing, and every bit of other legislation from day one.
Efsawyer,
Thanks for the posting by one of the world's honest investigative reporters, Robert Parry.
What a sight! All the Hillary-haters come out of their holes in the wall, and spew their venom. These people wait impatiently, like vampires, at their keyboards, for any sign of a topic that involves Hillary. Such a "sign" is revealed here, from Eric Lipton. He writes a piece about a topic of enormous complexity, full of convoluted details, involving many people, many claims, etc. But he "concludes" that Hillary is evil. Any one of the details could flatten his conclusion. But he strikes on, confident, that there are enough half-witted leftists that have a knee-jerk reaction against Clinton, that he can circulate his nonsense with impunity; not to mention the even more reliably anti-Clinton republicans (they never admit it) that sit at wait, lusting after Clinton blood. There is also the endless and endlessly tiresome piece from Parry, spreading misinformation and lies, distortions and half-truths in 5 second pearls of wisdom, and all of which can be even more perfectly examined at Constortiumblog. Excuse me, while I vomit.
I've said for a long time that Hillary would be Bush in a dress. Not a pretty picture at all! And McCain is just plain warmed over.
The segue duo.
12 years as Mr. and Mrs. Arkansas.
8 years as Mr. President and First Lady
8 years as Senator from the State of New York.
Segue into "if it were not for Hillary Rodham" the blacks in America would still besitting in the back of the bus.
To segue into 4 years back in the WH ...leading possibly to a further 4 years
For a total of 30 years of blood sweat and tears and not to forget her cavalier use of gutter words and people dare call Hillary an "apparatchik". Shame, shame, shame.Just think what the country would be like "sans Hillary".
Sanity is in short supply.
I am far from a Clinton supporter but I fail to see the efficacy in swallowing Republican talking points and drinking the kool aid so very willingly. To torture this to death I see all you Clinton bashers as lemmings lining up cheerfully to leap off that cliff.
If Dennis had a snowballs chance in hell I think this nation would be far better under his stewardship, but he doesnt. Ron Paul's politics would be a disaster for America and a death knell for the social contract between our government and its citizens, plus he would drag us backwards into the 1800's and isolationism. Reqalistically it is going to come down to Clinton or Obama on the one hand and who cares on the GOP side. So why adopt a mind set that only benefits the who cares in the coming election?
"johncpt" -- I cannot for the life me understand why so many pro-Hillary supporters think that there's this personal vendetta out to hunt Hillary down. I have many reasons not to vote for her...THIS IS NOT A PERSONAL VENDETTA. Face it, her tract record for most liberals and non-REPUBLoCRATS is not good: her vote for the Iraq war, then her tough talk on Iran, her ties to corporate $$$, her mainstream "safe/down the middle" politics in general,etc... are all things I look at, and would not VOTE for someone with this history/stance.
KUCINICH 2008
I will vote for Kucinich unless it is a done deal by Feb 19 when I vote. If the dems are done and repub is still in the air I may vote Ron Paul just to wrench the repubs. All the local elections here a repub primaries with winner running unopposed in the general election in this part of Wisconsin.
Some years I have only voted on a referendum because everything else is unopposed republicans for local elections. I never vote for anyone running unopposed.
A woman in an expensive convertible cuts into the lane.
McClane: Hey! Who do you think you are lady? Hilary Clinton?
Zeus: That's it. The 21st president.
McClane: She'd be the 43rd president.
Die Hard 3 (1995)
She's hated then, and now.
All these cuties, from Carter to Clinton, can't resist invitations to join the Trilateral Commission. In the service of the autocracy, they puke lies. But don't let Obama off. With his positions on the defense budget (more!), taxes (cut 'em to the welathy), and education (worker bees!), he'd love to be invited into the TC. Edwards? Hmm...
I also know that Hillary was an attendee at a recent Bilderberg group gathering. The elites planning the fate of the world. Don't want any part of this; therefore, she'll never get my vote (humm, did I mention that earlier???)
KUCINICH 2008
If Hillary had shown any backbone, any fiery oratory, any hard-hitting fundamental criticisms of the Bush war machine and its plans for permanent bases in Iraq and expropriation of Iraqi oil ... if she had turned on her consistent past support for the war (how often do I recall Hillary urging that troop levels in Iraq be ESCALATED over what Bush had sent in) ... if she had actually OPPOSED Bush on the war comparable to Bobby Kennedy in 1968 or Edwards currently ... she would have had me.
But its just not there. She is not going to fight to roll the worldwide archipelago of bases back, to turn imperial America to a peaceful republic, despite some words about restoring good relations with the world community etcetera. She voted with Bush to enable war with Iran, and it is clear she hardly differs from Bush toward Iran in substance, the usual rhetoric about "preferring diplomacy" aside (which is Bush's rhetoric as well).
Bill Clinton did the horrible children-killing sanctions on Iraq, bombings on Iraq, bombings and invasion of Kosovo over false pretenses [false claims of genocide of tens of thousands], and when the ruling Labor Party of England was on the brink over joining Bush in the attack of Iraq, Bill Clinton went to England and threw all his public weight and influence into URGING Britons to back Blair in going WITH Bush. That is how anti-war Bill, and Hillary, have been on Iraq!
Granted I want to see Bush and crew out of power so BADLY I would probably hold my nose and reluctantly vote for Hillary versus the Republican (as like the feeling of with a gun to my head)--unless it becomes too much and I say "to hell with it" and vote Nader or something. A Democratic Clinton administration probably would be marginally less cruel, in aggregate terms, than an e.g. Giuliani or Romney regime.
But in the next two to three weeks there is a window of opportunity--once its gone it may not be back for who knows how many years. That opportunity is to vote either Edwards or Obama now, and in the end back Obama. Obama is an uncertainty as well but there is a glimmer of hope with Obama that is not there with Clinton.
There are real differences with Obama, compared to Clinton. Obama advocates raising the social security (payroll) regressive tax above the 97,000 income level (i.e. make it less regressive); Clinton has declined to say she would press for that. Obama energizes young people (who are likely to be the real agent of change for America, if there is to be any). Obama appeals to all sectors of America. He is an American Gorbachev in the making. That underneath the soaring rhetoric is progressive instincts for real is suggested by such things as: his work for a PIRG; his expressing his religious convictions in an address to Sojourners (who are left evangelicals, social-conscience Christians who walk the walk [contrast Republicans and Bob Jones University]); the progressive politics of his long-time family church pastor in Chicago; his choice of community organizing rather than corporate law post-Harvard law degree, and so on.
It appears to be close to a two-person choice between Hillary and Obama, with Edwards possibly being swing vote. With Hillary, there is almost a Democratic version of neoconservatism in power. Edwards talks the good fight but may be too far back in third place to become the nominee. The leader of the U.S. affects the world in a big, big way. The best shot at a better world given the existing constraints is Obama. Republicans want Hillary to be the nominee rather than Obama because they believe, probably correctly, that Hillary will be easier to beat. Obama is widely and probably correctly considered a stronger candidate than Hillary in the general election. Will America elect a black man with a middle name Hussein who had a Muslim father? Yes!--if they like him for his substance and these attacks are perceived as unfair (then it is the Teflon effect, like nothing could touch Reagan because people just liked him). These things did not stop white, rural Republicans from joining Democrats in electing Obama by a huge margin in Illinois where he is well liked. Let Obama's rhetoric soar, let him be elected by a landslide in November, and let Americans then work under an Obama administration to turn the small glimmer of hope into real change for America.
This is the beauty of the American media. Check this quote out:
"Here's a small surprise: wacky actor Viggo Mortensen has joined The Nation in endorsing the sickly and demented elf Dennis Kucinich for President. ..."
I'm sorry that Kucinich is not tall, dark, and handsome. I am sorry America that Kucinich can't entertain you with fodder like playing the sax or the guitar. That's america for ya...shallow, shallow, shallow. Watching Real Time with Bill Maher last night provided another example of shallow America...Bill asked a woman about her intended choice to vote for Obama and why, etc...she gave no real substantial reason...but did say he was "good looking!"
KUCINICH 2008
Hillary was a better Lieberman than Joe.
If the princess of change did not have her own agenda and truly wanted to help people...Arkansas was the answer, not the self-serving golden ladder of New York. Read 'Partners in Power' to understand just how clever the Clintons are...nothing is left to chance. BTW is anyone else on the verge of throwing-up over public hand-holding gone bad?
Would Clinton or Obama promise the following:
- Repeal of anti-terrorism legislation and elimination of secret trials and evidence, as well as of racial profiling of Muslims, those perceived to be Muslims, and other racialized communities such as people of African descent.
- Shift the objective of the Afghan mission from military combat to reconstruction and development projects that promote a pluralistic society.
(from El-Farouk Khaki's election platform)
http://www.elfaroukkhaki.ca/bio.php
Obama won't have to worry about contradicting his votes very much. Check out his record, he's missed an awful lot of key votes: http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490.
I assume this will be his modus operandi in the White House as well. When push comes to shove, he'll be a no-show?
Dear johncpt:
"There is also the endless and endlessly tiresome piece from Parry, spreading misinformation and lies, distortions and half-truths in 5 second pearls of wisdom, and all of which can be even more perfectly examined at Constortiumblog. Excuse me, while I vomit."
Instead of "..vomit."kindly substantiate the above with a few pearls of your own wisdom.
Facts.
Just the facts, PLEASE.
Thank you!
The clintons are motherfucking dogs, and no one should be surprised at any of their bullshit.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jan2008/bush-j14.shtml
"Bush is able to count on the complicity of the Democratic Congress in conducting his warmongering policy against Iran. Democrats in the Senate helped pass a resolution last September, urging the Bush administration to declare the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps of Iran a terrorist organization. The two leading presidential candidates, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, have repeatedly made bellicose anti-Iranian statements, declaring their willingness to use the military against Iran."
Clinton and Edwards did not vote for more inspectors. They voted for war. In fact, the resolution that Clinton and Edwards voted for has no conditions attached to it. It is a resolution for war to invade and occupy Iraq for any reason Bush determines.
What H.J. Resolution 114 "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq" actually says:
"Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution."
[Section 8(a)(1): SEC. 8. (a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred–(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution." http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/warpower.htm]
"The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to—(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/october02/houseres_10-10-02.pdf
"Some seek to rewrite history. They argue that they weren't really voting for war, they were voting for inspectors, or for diplomacy. But the Congress, the Administration, the media, and the American people all understood what we were debating in the fall of 2002. This was a vote about whether or not to go to war. That's the truth as we all understood it then, and as we need to understand it now. And we need to ask those who voted for the war: how can you give the President a blank check and then act surprised when he cashes it?…
We thought we learned this lesson. After Vietnam, Congress swore it would never again be duped into war, and even wrote a new law — the War Powers Act — to ensure it would not repeat its mistakes. But no law can force a Congress to stand up to the President. No law can make Senators read the intelligence that showed the President was overstating the case for war. No law can give Congress a backbone if it refuses to stand up as the co-equal branch the Constitution made it.
That is why it is not enough to change parties. It is time to change our politics. We don't need another President who puts politics and loyalty over candor. We don't need another President who thinks big but doesn't feel the need to tell the American people what they think. We don't need another President who shuts the door on the American people when they make policy. The American people are not the problem in this country - they are the answer. And it's time we had a President who acted like that."- Barack Obama, probably the next President of the United States
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_27.php
Hillary most certainly voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq and she is lying her ass off now by saying she didn't. Hillary forgets there is 2002 video of her speaking about "disarming" Saddam through force, contradicting all the bullshit she was peddling on "Meet the Press" recently.
The Clinton camp is showing signs of desperation despite their narrow victory in NH. Hillary supported using force in clear violation international law and the Constitution, thinking it was the most politically expedient move at the time, probably anticipating her eventual run for the presidency. She has treated anti-war Americans with utter contempt since it became clear even to hawks like herself that supporting the war was becoming a negative political position, refusing to acknowledge her mistake.
Russert sat there like an imbecile and let her lie the whole damn hour. I really hope she loses now.
The Neo-Cons know they can't hold much political ground in the near future so the propaganda machine supports their look-a-likes in Clinton and Obama. It's an old trick, Blair is a Tory look-a like, every policy he supported was anti working class and to prove it he's just landed a $5 million job at JP Morgan.
Clinton is by far the worst candidate of all including the likes of Romney because she is not only a hypocrite and phoney but a bigger liar than Bush if that's possible.
The working class have to support Kucinich if they are to get back to good wages and working conditions by making the corporation hacks pay some taxes to help pay for the wars they love to start but never go to fight in.
Don't forget it was Clinton who ordered the attack on an aspirin factory in Sudan, and Afgahnistan camps. This is a good sign for the future if that woman gets in to carry on the same policy. When did either of the Clintons wear a uniform, where were they when the country needed defending? Answer, making money in Little Rock.
They knew full well that 9/11 was an inside job but what did they do, nothing, in fact worse, help cover up the crime by not denouncing it.
Will the Clinton soap opera ever end?
Johncpt, I suppose if Dick Cheney became a Democrat and was a leader in the presidential race you would chastise us for criticizing him. After all, we could have a "Democratic" victory right? Tell me one area of foreign policy that Hillary and Cheney disagree on. If there is one it would be that the bloodthirsty killer Hillary wants to reinvade Serbia, and Cheney doesn't seem to. Wake up and smell the deceit and the immorality of this hideous, murderous, power worshiping Democratic pretender. Democracy was designed to keep people like Hillary and Cheney out of power. If we abuse democracy by voting for Hillary, then we deserve to live under tyranny and constant war.