Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Clinton Bought Bush's War Talk, Obama Didn't
In determining which of the two leading Democratic candidates would make the most competent and credible commander in chief, it is revealing to compare the public statements of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama during October 2002, when Congress voted to authorize the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Former President Bill Clinton insisted recently that Clinton and Obama had had virtually identical records on the Iraq war and that Obama's claim that he "had the judgment to oppose this war from the beginning" was "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."
The record from that month, however, shows that there were indeed major differences between the two future presidential contenders, with Clinton supporting the Bush administration's push for war and its exaggerated claims about Iraq's alleged military prowess while Obama was opposing a U.S. invasion of that oil-rich country and openly challenging the administration's exaggerated claims of an Iraqi threat so urgent it required a march to war.
Though under no obligation as an Illinois state senator to make any public statements on foreign policy, Obama spoke out against the prospects of war at an anti-war rally in Chicago.
Obama certainly carried no pretense about the nature of Saddam Hussein's regime, referring to the late Iraqi dictator as "brutal" and "ruthless" and acknowledging that "the world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him." At the same time, he recognized that "Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors." Furthermore, Obama recognized "that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military is a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained."
That same month in Washington, Clinton was insisting incorrectly that Iraq had ties to al-Qaida, was "trying to develop nuclear weapons," and that Iraq's possession of biological and chemical weapons was "not in doubt."
Clinton then went on record insisting that the risk that Saddam would "employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States" was enough to "justify action by the United States to defend itself," specifically by authorizing President Bush to launch an invasion of Iraq at the time and circumstances of his choosing.
Whether Iraq constituted such a threat to U.S. national security was not the only thing that separated Clinton and Obama back in October 2002. In the months leading up to the Senate vote, former State Department and intelligence officials, representatives of European and Mideast allies, scholars specializing in the region, and other experts advised Clinton that a U.S. invasion would likely result in a bloody insurgency, a rise in Islamist extremism and terrorism, increased sectarian and ethnic conflict, and related problems. So did thousands of ordinary citizens.
Despite this, Clinton insisted that her voting to authorize the invasion was "in the best interests of our nation."
Meanwhile, back in Chicago, Obama was observing how "even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences." He also recognized that "an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida."
On one of the most critical policy questions of a generation, a state senator from Illinois was able to figure out what an experienced member of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee could not -- that Saddam was no longer a threat and that an invasion of Iraq would harm America's national security interests.
That kind of judgment shows itself today in their respective choices as senior foreign policy advisers, many of whom would likely take top policy-making positions if the candidate does become president. Obama has assembled a foreign policy team whose members overwhelmingly opposed the war, in contrast to Clinton's, whose members overwhelmingly supported it.
Wisconsin voters should keep this in mind in choosing which of these two Democratic candidates has the best judgment to lead this country during this next critical period.
122 Comments so far
Show AllI found it quite troubling that during the last debate she defended her vote using Bush's lies to justify the invasion and occupation. She is not be trusted on peace and war as her working with Lieberman and cheney proved again. She obviously has changed her tune for the primaries but this is only expediency.
I could not vote for Hillary because of her war vote for Iraq and Iran... But then I am "safe" I don't live in the US, thank God.
Anyone who actually trusted whatever Dubya, Cheney, & Co. put out as "truth," then acted upon it, do not deserve my vote and did not get it. Compounding Clinton's troubles is her obstinacy in admitting it was a mistake (something that Edwards had no problem admitting).
Hillary is a Senator from New York. As a consequence, she is dependant on the the support of AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee). I believe she heard what she wanted to hear about Iraq and then cast her vote for war to save her own political viability.
Her Iraq war vote was the greatest test, and failure, of her leadership.
There is a reason Obama is winning this Primary. He is winning in states. He is winning in the popular vote. He is winning on delegates, even taking into account those "Super" establishment delegates. The reason is simple. He is the better candidate who can bring all of us together to work towards real and lasting change.
Obama is the most electable Democratic candidate by far. He is the way we take back the White House. The proof is in the polls. He averages 6 points better against McCain than Hillary does. Obama beats McCain in polls. Hillary only ties.
One of McCain's own top strategists even said he would resign if Obama is the Democratic nominee because he doesn't want to attack Obama. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/13/top-mccain-adviser-ill-_n_86578.html
And, contrary to popular belief, Obama is tougher than Clinton. Of the two candidates, only he had the guts to oppose the Iraq war from the start. Hillary Clinton still hasn't come to terms with the most important vote of her relatively short-lived political career as an elected official. She still won't admit she made a mistake on Iraq. She said Bush duped her.
Just last Fall Clinton voted for Bush's bill to declare Iran's military to be "terrorists." This was the equivalent of an unnecessary declaration of war. At the same time Bush was waiving around the image of World War III with Iran in support of his bill, Bush knew about a secret National Intelligence Estimate prepared by the CIA which found that Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons development program in 2003 and probably hadn't restarted it. Hillary Clinton was duped again. And again she wouldn't admit she made a mistake. Instead she sent a letter to the White House "clarifying" her position.
Yes, there is a reason the McCain is hoping that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. McCain is hoping he can keep independents as well as his own campaign managers from jumping ship because they like Obama. And McCain is hoping he can debate Hillary Clinton on Iraq because her spinning on that issue just is not very convincing.
And Hillary Clinton says she is more prepared and detail oriented than Obama. Once again the proof is in the pudding. Her campaign ran out of money, was unprepared to deal with caucuses and has had to fire a whole bunch of people for poor performance and political low blows. In contrast, Obama's campaign is well run, well financed (even though they don't take money from lobbyists while Clinton does), and consistent in its message.
It's time to vote for the Democratic nominee who is most electable and will make a great President. It's time to vote for a President who can unify America. Without unity, without hope, there is no chance of real change. Without hope there never would have been civil rights reform. Without hope we never would have come out of the Great Depression. Once again, we have nothing to fear but fear itself. Obama '08.
Yes we can!
PS I came across this post written by someone else and thought it was good so here it is:
Let's take a closer look at who's really qualified and or who's really working for the good of all of us in the Senate. Obama or Clinton.
These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress www.thomas.loc.gov
Please pass this on
========
Clinton
========
Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term - 6yrs. - and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law - 20 - twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years.
These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress www.thomas.loc.gov, but to save you trouble, I'll post them here for you.
1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.
2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.
3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor.
4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.
5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson.
6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea.
7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death.
10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program.
13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.
14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death.
15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty. Only five of Clinton's bills are, more substantive.
16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.
17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11
18. Assist landmine victims in other countries.
19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.
20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.
There you have it, the fact's straight from the Senate Record.
=============
Obama
=============
During the first - 8 - eight years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced
233 regarding healthcare reform,
125 on poverty and public assistance,
112 crime fighting bills,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans affairs and many others.
NY TImes Obama's record in the Illinois Senate
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/07/29/us/politics/20070730_OBAMA_GRAPHIC.html
His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These inculded:
1. The Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 - became law,
2. The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, - became law,
3. The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate,
4. The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, - became law,
5. The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, In committee, and many more.
In all, since entering the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096.
An impressive record, for someone who supposedly has no record according to some who would prefer that this comparison not be made public.
"Clinton bought bush's war, Obama didn't"
They both FUNDED it, and continue to do so.
Hillary Clinton is a neo-con--that's why she voted yes for war on Iraq and yes for future war on Iran. On points, I'd give my vote to Obama on that score.
The ruling class,however, of which Obama and Clinton are representatives of, wants America Hegemony of the world. That's the rub, mates. Perhaps as more and more of the rich refuse to pay taxes and refuse to serve in the military our empire will go down the tubes and we'll be more like Britain is today. It happened to Rome, the Ottoman's etc.--it could happen here. One can only hope.
Don't forget that Obama has voted for FUNDING of the Iraq war. Why is that, if he's so wonderful?
One more point. Obama is gonna win this thing hands down. Why? Both Clinton and McCain as so old news. Take a look at their supporters on TV, the ones who stand or sit behind the talking candidate.
McCain's and Clinton's--- right out of a American Legion post beer hall.
Obama--bright, young,beaming things.
Looks rule, America!!!
chelsea clinton recently said that hillary "considered all the evidence"
cept for the fact that all the evidence was FALSE, and everybody who could use logic and reason KNEW THE EVIDECE WAS FALSE, this would be a great stratgy
I didn't have access to all the info, and I knew that those aluminum tubes were for missiles. the size alone gave that away
al queda in Iraq ??? how could I know that the al queda camp was in Kurdish territory controled by America
yellow cake from Africa ??? I couldn't understand why saddam would buy more yelloow cake. Saddam had something like 200,000 tons of yellow cake already, why buy more
if I new this, sitting on my ass reading the New York times in the heart of california, why couldn't hillary figure this out. she has a staff to do her research
I didn't buy Bush's Bull either. Now that Kucinich and Paul are out of the race, my first choice is Obama.
Hillary voted the way she did to support the start of the war because she perceived that it was in her political self interest to do so. In this she placed her career ambitions above the lives of millions of other people. The is not unusual for a politician, but it is despicable. If she is the nominee of the Democratic Party, I will not be able to vote for her. If this gives the election to the Republicans, so be it. But she isn't worthy of our support. God help us from this choice.
Talk is cheap. Follow the money, and when you do, you'll find that Obama voted to fund the wars too.
Pretty much anyone with a brain could have figured out that Bush's Congressional blank check from Congress to attack Iraq was founded on lies. The U.N. weapons inspectors (and Scott Ritter) had long disproved that Iraq was some sort of massive threat to its neighbors, much less the United States.
Sure, Hillary Clinton is a war hawk, but what's the point here? Funding the wars is the same thing as supporting the wars. Let's not split hairs.
Please don't support anyone, Presidential or Congressional, who voted to support the wars in any way. What other issue is more important? Don't let any warmongers get elected or reelected.
So, are your saying, "Sit this one out"?
Not an option, for me.
I don't want John McCain making the next two Supreme Court appointments.
The rhetorical and charismatic smokescreen that Obama throws up is very impressive for all you kool aid drinkers out there who actually believe he'll change things while keeping and/or increasing the Pentagon's TRILLION $$ beast. WTF kinda "change" is that? You are being fooled again, Democrats! Good Luck.
Obama had publically stated, that if he had been a US Senator in 2001, he is not sure how he would have voted on proposition 114. Obama stated, that he would not have wished to vote NO on that proposition, because he had endored, and or supported Senator Kerry and would not want to embarrass Kerry by not voting yes. __ WHAT???
Obama, like the 77 US Senators who did vote yes, knew the proposition 114 was NOT a declaratin of war. It only gave our president the authority, to use military force against Iraq, (IF that was deemed to be absolutly necessary.) ___ It never was necessary. Then as others here have properly noted, Obama has voted YES to continue to fund the war, ever since he was in the US Senate. His claims that he was against the war are nothing but political hash and he is making hash with that issue and millions of voters are gobbling it up.
If Obama's mind set and humanitarian beliefs about the illegal Iraqi war and occupation are as he now states they are, he should have voted NO on every vote to fund the war. And then when he says if he had been able to vote on prop 114, he can't say how he would have voted, and gives a very lame excuse for that reveiling comment. He is a very smart politician and the best orator of the bunch. ___ Is Obama truly noble and self rightious with his now public statements concerning the Iraqi issue? ___ The evidence to determie if he honestly is, are self evident, and if any really examine that evidence, they would know the truth about Obama.
Hillary, Edwards and 75 other Senators were guilty of trusting the flawed and purposfully altered NIE report of 2002 and the words of President Bush at that time. Obama is guilty of altering the truth of his supposed convictions. Who to vote for? Whichever one the nominee is, we sure can't afford McCain.
Duck Soup: That was fantastic and I haven't stopped laughing yet.
What a true leader she is, how courageous she is to get out in front of those dangerous issues of who to name some non-descript building after.
I can't stand it, I think I'm going to pass out!
Obama is for AIPAC like the rest:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/832668.html
By the way look up McCain's Dad and the USS Liberty.
Also look up Marc Rich's background and the Clinton's.
Goodnight and good luck America.
There is a big difference between the two and the conclusions reached. Mr. Obama wasn't in those closed senate committee meetings listening to Bush's lies and Mrs Clinton was. Mr. Obama didn't have to actually vote and Mrs. Clinton did. We don't know how he would have voted because it's a choice he didn't have to make. We do know how he voted AFTER he was elected. He voted the same way she did on the Iraq war.
I didn't believe Bush's bullshit but that's because my only reliable source was Scott Ritter and a former CIA agent who both said Chalibi was a liar.
So absent any other insight I marched in the streets with a sign that said "Send Bush To Iraq.
I don't blame Hillary or anyone outside of the Bush administration for this. It was Bush's choice and he should go to jail for it.
Wanting to be with the in-crowd and focusing on her campaign, Hillary could not give a damn whether or not Bush was lying about the war.
The fact is that Hillary will do anything and sing any song, irrespective of honesty, decency and personal conviction just to get elected.
No one needs a president in the person of Billary, who thinks so much like Bush.
America deseves better this time. The country needs something new that brings hope to a battered and beleaguered image internationally.
Anyone with the IQ of at least a houseplant knew that the invasion of Iraq would become a disaster. So much for Hillary and her "experience."
I just hope , that out of the three options you have left - Clinton, McCain and Obama - that you choose the tall skinny lad, who seems to think before he speaks, because the other two scare the wits out of me.
~JBOWEN~ Very appropiate points.
What I find to be rather troubling is, so many believe Clinton and the other 76 senators who voted yes on prop 114, voted to go to war with Iraq. That is is NOT what they voted for at all, prop 114 was not a declaration for war with Iraq. __ Read prop 114 carefully.
When they voted, Hans Bliss, who headed the UN inspection team, was in Iraq searching for any WMDs, or evidence of Saddam building a nuclear arsenal. Saddam had stopped his childish actions and was not interferring with the UN inspection teams. Our Congress believed, with full justification in that belief, that Hans Bliss WOULD BE allowed to finish the inspections. As soon as the Senate voted on prop 114 however, Bush forced Bliss out of Iraq and we the people and our "valued" press and media didn't protest that incredible act by Bush. We then went to war.
The point here with this article is however, that Obama didn't buy into Bush's lies and Hillary did and he didn't vote for the war and she did. That is neither fair nor halfway accurate on Obama's part and is the reason I won't support him. He is a very smart, well spoken charlaton, and I fear his being our president, far more than I do Hillary. That's how I see him, his words sound great, many of his actions on the other hand, are that of a very shrewd, calculating and devious con-artist.
They ALL scare the wits out of me--the whole broken system scares the wits outta me. 'Murrika is a doomed Empire and neither Obama or Clinton are gonna save it. The signs are all there...but go ahead--keep believin' if you can. Don't let my cynicism keep you from the Big Capitalist Corporate Circus!
Required reading: "Beltway Baccanal" by Ken Silverstein in Harper's Magazine, March 2008.
Obama then: "an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida."
Obama now (off his web site): "if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."
So if he was so clear about the pitfalls in the Middle East then why isn't he now? He plans to keep us there because we all know al-Queda isn't going to fold up and leave just because Obama becomes president.
Notice we have to go back six years to talk about his anti-war speech. Where is his anti-war speech NOW? Why is he not talking about reducing military spending? Why does he want to grow the military by 100.000 more troops if he is so against the war? Oh please.
Obamist: Please provide a link to an anti-war speech that isn't 6 years old (and by the way that one was taken down off his site once he became a senator). I mean a speech, not a few vague words about ending it devoid of the type of specifics he puts on his website that makes it clear the troops are really not going anywhere.
It's weird he sounded better back then than he does now.
This silliness that Hillary didn't vote to go to war because Prop 114 wasn't a declaration of war is pure bullsh*t. We all knew at the time that Bush would use the vote as a legal cover to go to war. No one had a drop of doubt about this. Hillary knew this or she's an idiot. Either way, she ruled herself out as a future president because either (a) she's an idiot or (b) she voted to go to war. Either way, we shouldn't vote for her now, any more than we should vote for McCain. Any American who votes for either of these people is a war collaborator. At least we can say that we don't yet know about Obama, although his record of voting to continue funding the war makes it likely that he won't be much better. But a vote for Hillary cleary is collusion with crimes.
"Of the 22 senators who reported reading the full NIE, eight are Republicans and 14 are Democrats. All but one Democrat on the 17-person Intelligence Committee in 2002 recalled reading the NIE: Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) told a campaign-trail audience earlier this month that he had, but later recanted. Edwards voted to authorize war."
"Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy, one of the senators who read the report and a staunch critic of the war, said the findings were "enough to have me vote against going to war in Iraq."
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/few-senators-read-iraq-nie-report-2007-06-19.html
Hillary and the 2002 NIE
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/25/204032.aspx
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, the next President of the United States
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_27.php
Kem its Hans Blix.
Clinton and Lieberman went out of their way to provoke a scant score of Saudis to airmail their objections.
Bumper sticker: "HONK IF YOU WANT ANOTHER 100 YEARS IN IRAQ"
Why would anybody who considers themselves a Democrat vote for a Clinton?
Bill and Hill gave money to and actively campaigned for independent Joe Lieberman in his 2006 Connecticut Senate campaign against anti-war Democrat Ned Lamont. Real party loyalty there, eh !!!
Although President Barrack Obama will not get the US out of Iraq, he will probably not invade Iran. President Hillary Clinton will invade Iran and have all kinds of excuses afterward.
Like Obama, I've been opposed to the Iraq war from before the beginning, but I think Steven Zunes' choice and characterization of "facts" is almost as selective and disingenous as Bush's rationale for going to war. A lot of very thoughtful and knowledgable people struggled with whether to pass the resolution in question and they were under a lot more pressure and under the influence of a lot more disinformation than Obama was at the time he voiced his opposition. The resolution, we should remember, was NOT a vote for war; it was an authorization to use force...under certain very specific conditions...which were never met...and which Bush lied about in a written certification to Congress. Things are rarely as black and white as Mr. Zunes and countless other pundits would have us believe.
No, I'm not Hans Bliss, but I agreed with him an dhis statements about Iraq when he complained to the UN. Of course by that time it was too late, attacking Iraq was a slam dunk remember.
Dougwagner keeps insiting here and on several other threads, that proposition 114 was a declaration to go to war. Dougwagner has a serious reading disability. On another thread today, he told me to pull my head out of my ass because I disagree with his opinions. Actually, it's a nice warm place for quiet comtemplation and serious, intelligent thought. Besides, my shit don't stink. You ought to try it Dougwagner. Of course by the way you write, I'd bet your shit does stink and besides, you can't stick your head into a hole that is already full of shit.
Another very important fact is, the NIE report that any in Congress did bother to read, had been corrupted and altered by the orders of Bush, that is the big crime of the ages.
Oops typo error, 114. Oops, now it corrected.
I spelled Hans Bliss wrong, it's Blix, sorry for my stupidity there. __ I'm stupid, just ask Dougwagner.
This is sad. The anti war left are feeling their oats with Obama's surge and it may cost the Dems the Presidency. I wasn't too worried about losing the chance to win the White House until all this HRC bashing on her vote has shifted into high gear. Its ridiculous. The anti war far left sound like Republicans on this issue. I'll try to make the facts as short as possible.
Bush prior to September 2002 was all out for invading Iraq - Its true.
Bush had two authorizations which he could have used at anytime to attack Iraq. Not the one that HRC voted for.
In September 2002 however Bush openly mouthed the words in public and according to HRC the White House told her in private that he now would not invade if we could get inspections restarted.
When HRC voted she had knowledge that Bush could invade anyway but since he openly and privately assured his intent was inspections, HRC decided inspections needed a chance.
The JR did address what Bush was saying about inspections. Those who say it didn't are lying.
Bush wanted the threat of US Force to insure Saddam would not play games with the inspectors again.
Saddam cooperated fully with the inspectors.
Bush lied to HRC about inspections, she was not faked out about his lies about WMD.
HRC has tried to tell the left but she has no media that will tell the full story.
HRC took a stand for our national security by seeking a way to have the inspections resume and completed. Her vote worked. Saddam gave in to the UN
It was Bush who decided to end the inspections and invade anyway. Its all Bush's invasion. Now you all want to punish HRC for Bush's lie. Its rediculous, and the pro-war Republicans love you all for it.
c farris wrote: "Anyone with the IQ of at least a houseplant knew that the invasion of Iraq would become a disaster. So much for Hillary and her "experience."
If farris had some IQ [s]he'd know that Bush had all the authorization he needed to attack Iraq at any time before HRC voted in October. In September Bush stated he had a conversion to allowing inspections to take place. The inspections restarted and Bush kicked them out. Now who is evil and wrong here?
notfooooldbyW February 18th, 2008 8:30 pm
Okay now explain why she continued to fund the war, please. This question applies to the Obomist also. And if you like, explain what she was doing in Iraq with John "100 Yrs. War" McCain touting the success of the war or whatever she was doing over there last year.
They both funded the war. They both are going to keep troops in Iraq - Obama longer, in fact. The Democrats do not have an anti-war candidate anymore. The one who definitely didn't vote for the war or for funding it was Kucinich, but people were too busy falling blindly in love with Oprah's candidate to notice.
Hillary didn't just buy Bush's criminally fraudulent rationale for going to war; she sold it, too.
HI there ~RIVERMAN~, about time for some humor here and you are funny. BTW, Kem Patrick is a 72 year old boy, __ another of your wild assumptions. Sorry, please excuse my poor eyesight River and my worse speling. I didn't mean to write I'd kiss your ass, I had a typo as usual, having my head stuffed up my ass, and meant to write, ___ I'd kick your ass for your attempts to help the well spoken con artist win. __ Of course I was joking about kicking your ass, after all, you are entitled to your strange opinions.
I see ~AlexLawyer~ didn't understand the very fine post here by ~NotfoooledbyW~at 8:21 pm. Sure don't want him defending me in a possible insanity suit.
This Stephen Zunes opinion piece is as one-sided as it was the first time CommonDreams published it on January 22, when it was called "Obama vs. Clinton – October 2002." http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/22/6527/
How ridiculous to compare the two candidates' records on the Iraq War by examining only what they said in October 2002. Hasn't Zunes noticed that this is February 2008?
Here's the full record.
(1) H.J.Res 114 passed the House and Senate in October 2002. 77 of 100 Senators voted for it, including Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama was not a U.S. Senator then, so he had no vote.
(2) In 2004, when he was running for the U.S. Senate, Obama was asked how he would have voted on H.J.Res 114. He hedged, "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don't know." (Meet the Press, July 2004)
(3) When he was asked the question again, he hedged again: "You know, I didn't have the information that was available to senators. I think I would have voted no. But keep in mind, I think this is a tough question and a tough call." (Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, July 24, 2004)
(4) After Obama became a U.S. Senator in January 2005, he voted FOR every Senate measure to CONTINUE the Iraq War throughout 2005 and 2006.
(5) Then in March 2007, while running for president, Obama finally cast his first vote against the war (S. 965, which mandated a timetable for withdrawal). It's apparent he did so out of political expediency (since Hillary also voted for it).
(6) In September 2007, Obama had his first chance to vote on a war resolution in the U.S. Senate --- this time regarding Iran and highly dubious claims about the threat posed by that country. The vote was on the Kyl-Lieberman resolution (S.Amdt. 3017) which Senator James Webb, former Secretary of the Navy, warned was tantamount to a declaration of war. Obama, the Great Prevaricator, was one of only two Senators to skip the vote. The other was Perpetual-War John McCain.
(7) Obama now openly says that, as President, he will increase military spending, and increase the size of the uniformed armed forces by more than 92,000 troops. (Why would he need to do that if he sincerely intends to withdraw from Iraq?)
(8) Obama now openly says that, as President, he will send air strikes and ground troops into Pakistan, with or without Pakistan's permission. (Attacking a country which is not an imminent threat is a war crime.)
The truth is, Hillary and Obama have almost identical records on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the potential war with Iran. There is only one "distinction without a difference," and that is Obama's October 2002 anti-war speech (again, while he was not in the U.S. Congress and had no vote), and the tunnel-vision analysis of Stephen Zunes is more than a little tiring.
notfooooldbyW makes some good points. I would just add that, while Hillary's war authorization vote was a mistake, we should bear in mind that 77% of the Senate voted for it. Hillary was in a tough spot as a U.S. Senator from New York where the 9/11 attacks occurred. With the corporate media ready to bludgeon any prominent politician who appeared "weak on defense," Hillary would probably not have been re-elected to the Senate, much less the White House, had she voted against the resolution. That is not to excuse her vote, but only to (at least partly) explain it.
Furthermore, if the 9/11 attack had been on Chicago instead of New York, and if Obama had been a U.S. Senator from Illinois at the time, there is no doubt he would have fallen in line with the 77% voting for the war authorization. That much is clear from examining his full record above.
Wars are fought for profit, control of a market, control of natural resources, and interests that have very little to do with whats good for the majority of the U.S. citizens.
I am beginning to see, that the same people who said they had all these insights, proving to them that very little being put forward as an excuse to go to war with Iraq was true. These same people don't have the insight to see, supporting this economic system means supporting war.
War is business, business is war. Billions of dollars have been made as a result of 9-11 and the Iraq war by the likes of, Lockheed Martin, Halliburton, Carlyle, Northrup Grumann, etc. From 2000 to 2004 Lockheed Martin stock rose 300%. Eighty percent of its business comes from U.S. government contracts. D. O. D. contracts to Northrup Grumann grew from 3.2 billion in 2000 to 11.1 billion in 2004. Just to name a few to make the point.
You want to fight for a reform? I will support any candidate that organizes to make it illegal to profit from war. If these wonderful multinational companies are so patriotic and ready to spread democracy around the world then let them do it for cost. If young men and women are willing to die, then these corporations can give up their profits. Now that would end war.
dougnwagner February 18th, 2008 6:46 pm
"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?…"
Your style, construction, and language are so similar to mine I had to do a double-take to make sure it wasn't. And oh yeah, the sentiment too. Future histories of this time will contain a paragraph not much different from that, as that is the unalterable truth. And the whole world WAS watching.
Amen, good-night, turn out the lights and lock the door on your way out.
a state senator from Illinois was able to figure out what an experienced member of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee could not — that Saddam was no longer a threat and that an invasion of Iraq would harm America's national security interests.
Stephen Zunes must be on the DLC payroll. O'Bama could say things as a state senator that he cannot say as a US senator. US senators toe the capitalist/zionist line. State senators do not. After Mr. O'Bama went to Washington he instantly learned how to toe the line - by voting to continue funding the war over and over. Stephen Zunes's assignment is to keep the rabble focused on the O'Bama/Hellary gladiator battle and make them forget all about options that could actually benefit them - writing in Kucinich, Nader, and other true progressives.
Bob K. February 18th, 2008 10:55 pm
"The truth is, Hillary and Obama have almost identical records on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the potential war with Iran. There is only one "distinction without a difference," and that is Obama's October 2002 anti-war speech"
one big difference b/w clinton's and obama's record is their responsibilities as public figures before the war, the sanctions imposed on iraq and the bombing campaigns that were directed against the iraqi people on b clinton's watch. if clinton claims her husband's office on her resume, she needs to explain how denying medicine to the sick and elderly while destroying their infrastructure was justified (m albright could explain it away i'm sure).the clintons had an antagonistic relationship w/ iraq before the war, her actions were not surprising.
KEM PATRICK February 18th, 2008 7:23 pm
mr patrick i'm glad you have a strong voice, it's refreshing to hear a person with such convictions. but sir your dead wrong about our recent wars, they were designed many years before bush came to power (google project for a new american century, listen to n chomsky) and they were designed by people tied to the maintenance of US hegemony through the control of oil. just look at the map. iran (very large oil reserves) is essentially surrounded by US troops. if iran fell, the saudi/US gov't will have indescribable power over all, emerging economies like china and india and other blocks (like the europeans for example, who seem to have a higher sense of the dignity of people - if the euro's want to object to some offensive policy in the future we can turn off the spigot, as the russians threatened with natural gas last year). iran would not feel as threatened today w/out our presence in iraq. iran is the next phase in the endless war for resources. obama has agreed to open up diplomatic relations with iran (clinton, who did authorize military force in iraq calls him naive).
my sign in 2002 said no blood for oil, it was as easy to understand then as it is now. BTW- clinton's experience includes being married to a man who is responsible for the death of over 500,000 civilians (mostly children) who died excruciating deaths from lack of medicine. is that the experience you want in your court kem?
I remember well the debate on the Bush war-authorization vote. I remember the courageous speeches by Sen. Byrd asking "why the rush?" and trying everything in his power to stop the rush to war, an 80-plus year old statesman going out like a lion. I remember Ted Kennedy opposing the resolution. I remember constitutional experts trying to point out that Congress has no right to give its war-declaring power over to the President, though no one paid attention. (The Constitution does not give one branch the right to gives its powers to another branch.) I remember Hillary gung-ho for Bush at the time. I remember (even if this news escaped most Americans) husband Bill in England when there were massive antiwar demonstrations in the streets and real division within the ruling Labor Party on whether to support Blair in taking their country to war with Bush...and Bill used his considerable charisma and reputation overseas to BACK Blair into GOING TO WAR WITH BUSH. The notion that Hillary was any different than Bill on this is just not credible to me. I remember Hillary afterward repeatedly calling for more troops in Iraq than Bush sent in. I remember the Democrats putting up Kerry in 2004 and how hollow it sounded to criticize Bush for a war that both Kerry and Edwards had voted for.
And lest anyone say that wasn't a vote for war (as Hillary tries to say now--unlike Edwards who to his credit straightforwardly said that yes vote was the worst mistake of his life), bullshit. EVERYONE knew that was a vote for war, only the rhetoric, including from Bush, said otherwise, but everyone at the time knew. It was just obvious Bush was gunning for war, was building the consensus. There was first the massive buildup of troops and ships. Then there were articles about how they had to be used before May when it got too hot to do anything in the summer, and why waste all that expense having the troops there not to use them...just to bring them home again? I vividly recall a press conference at this time in which press secretery Ari Fleischer insisted with a straight face, with great emphasis: "NOBODY but NOBODY wants to avoid war MORE than George W. Bush." (And the press, who probably to a man and woman without exception knew inside this was 100% bullshit, just remained polite as if humoring the idiot speaking those words.)
If Hillary was seeking to avoid war by voting for its authorization (which is what she and Bill are seriously claiming even now), that is no different than Bush's public rhetoric (he was seeking to avoid war too, and if you don't believe it just ask him, he'll tell you himself that was what he was trying to do). But there wasn't one journalist in a thousand then who couldn't tell what was going down. Everyone knew what was going down. That resolution was simply a way for everyone to go along and have a shot at deniability later if it went badly.
The Democrats put up a candidate in 2004 who voted for that resolution, voted to give Bush a green light to what EVERYONE KNEW Bush was intent on: Kerry (Ted Kennedy's Massachusetts colleague who went the other way than Kennedy on this). How did that work out in the election? I hope to God Democrats don't make the same mistake again by putting up Hillary. Hillary's continued denial that she wasn't voting to go to war, and her claim that she had no idea Bush was going to cut short diplomacy, has as much credibility as all those French post-WW2 who had been part of the Resistance, or all those Germans of the Nazi era who had no idea what was going on. If Hillary had done like Edwards and come to terms with it, gone to the core of what had gone wrong, and then out of the depths of that with real passion then ripped into Bush in a principled way (as did Edwards), that would be a different matter. But she didn't ... and yes, this is a deal-killer for me, and no, this has nothing to do with misogynism (I am male).
Recommended reading: David Talbot's book "The Brothers" on JFK and RFK, which brings back the history which has since been re-written: i.e., while a Cold Warrior, John Kennedy was despised by the right wing and publically & constantly criticized by generals for being 'soft' on communism & by the CIA for not giving them free rein. CIA vets since tried to implicate JFK in every black-op they ran, even tho' Kennedy's man at the head of the CIA was marginalized by the old boys. It took Robert Kennedy a few more years to move from his own hawkish past, and he did so in the teeth of a party establishment. The Kennedys were obliged to live up to the new tomorrows they campaigned on, when their records did not always demonstrate that they would.
The difficulty for JFK was his marginal win in the election & the tensions with the Pentagon & the CIA, and he didn't have a lot of deep party support. Obama's trajectory shows someone heading in progressive directions, and should he win, he would be confronting a military & an intelligence community much chastened & disabled by the neocons' delusional aims.
Hillary has staked her claim to be the Margaret Thatcher of Democratic foreign policy; any actual advocates for peace woould have the door slammed in their faces once again, while Obama, growing up in the shadow of one war & seeing his children growing up in the lengthening shadow of another which threatens to become even wider, will not.
iowablackbird,
"one big difference b/w clinton's and obama's record . . ."
That's not a difference. The whole point is that Obama's actual record since 2002 has given the lie to his comments in 2002 as a "public figure."
You say half a million died on Bill Clinton's watch. But, more than a million have died while Obama prevaricated, voted to continue the war, and skipped the crucial vote on Iran. If there's any difference, it's that a blockade is less deadly than an invasion and occupation.
Now Obama makes explicit threats against Pakistan, a nation of 165 million (compared to Iraq's 27 million) and with an arsenal of nuclear weapons. He calls it the "right battlefield." Even Hillary blanched at that.