onegoodmove

So what should we do? Vote 3rd-party? Move to another country? Ritualistic, mass suicide?

I'm all ears.

Re: Clinton v. Obama, part 4,323

So what should we do? Vote 3rd-party? Move to another country? Ritualistic, mass suicide?

I'm all ears.

Hillary Clinton's three most significant endorsements to-date have come from pillars of the Right wing. Richard Melon Scaife spent $2.3 million smearing Bill Clinton in the 90's. A fiercely dedicated conservative, he has weighed in to endorse Hillary as the Democratic candidate. Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox news spends every day engaged in the character assassination of liberals and anyone who opposes media consolidation not just in the United States but world-wide, has heavily funded Hillary's campaign. Anne Coulter, hysterical reactionary sock-puppet has said that if McCain and Clinton were the two candidates for office in November she'd vote for Clinton.

There is no evidence that Hillary has met with Coulter to thank her for the vocal public support, but she hasn't returned Murdoch's money and she met with Scaife to personally court the nut-job's scabby blessing.

Either these nuttiest of right-wing nutjobs have suddenly found their liberal conscience or they are supporting Hiilary during the primaries because they believe even McCain can beat her in November or they really do believe, as Coulter has said, that she is more conservative than their own candidate.

Significantly, as she and her proxies continue to harp about Obama's associations, no one has asked her to about Murdoch. No one has asked her if in kneeling to kiss Scaife's septic signet is something she should be squirming about.

fp

We do not, of course, have any guarantee that Obama will successfully resist the warmongers' desire for another war in the middle east (Iran, probably), but his initial denunciation of the war in Iraq gives us some hope that he would like to. Hillary's talk of an "umbrella of security" in the Middle East makes me think she is likely to enmesh in even more middle-eastern war. She really seems to buy into the cold-war like view of of our middle-eastern policy - more than I have seen come out (explicitly, at least) from Obama.

Am I happy that the remaining Democratic candidates have both concluded that Bush has hopelessly and indefinitely tied us to some significant military role in Iraq? No - I'm not happy at all. I have some hope that Obama, who saw this war as stupid from the outset, has also seen the course of this war as confirming his initial assessment. Hillary, not sot so much.

I have been trying to understand the two candidates (both wonderful candidates) advisors to help me guess really where they are going. I think the below article quoted is correct, the advisors may tell us much more than the political rhetoric. Here are three online articles see what you all think? My bias is I am a bit of an Obamaphile.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118895877299317784.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_obama_doctrine

When considering any presidential hopeful's foreign-policy promises, it's important to remember that what candidates say is, at best, an imperfect guide to their actions in office. What proves to be a more reliable indicator of presidential behavior is a candidate's roster of advisers. (If the press had paid better attention, the country would have seen through Bush's pitch about a humble foreign policy and realized that many of his advisers, including Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, were conspiracy-minded warmongers.)

They also share a formative experience with each other and with Obama. Each opposed the Iraq War at a time when doing so was derided by their colleagues, by journalists, and by the foreign-policy establishment. Each did so because they understood that the invasion and occupation ran counter to the goal of destroying al-Qaeda. And each bore the frustration of endless lectures on their lack of so-called seriousness from those who suffered from strategic myopia.

"There is a popular notion that Democrats have to try to appear like Republicans to pass some test on national security. The fact that that's still the case after Iraq is absurd," says one of Obama's closest advisers. "So you break from that orthodoxy and say 'I don't care if the Republicans attack me because I'm willing to meet with the leadership in Iran. We haven't for 25 years, and it's not gotten us anywhere.'"<

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=4d40a39e-8f57-4054-bd99-94bc9d19be1a

So what should we do? Vote 3rd-party? Move to another country? Ritualistic, mass suicide?

I'm all ears.

I'm with you Zaphod.

I'm also all ears.

Hillary's talk of an "umbrella of security" in the Middle East makes me think she is likely to enmesh in even more middle-eastern war. She really seems to buy into the cold-war like view of of our middle-eastern policy - more than I have seen come out (explicitly, at least) from Obama.

This worries me too Tim. This "umbrella of securty" business worries me.

Do the Obama supporters still believe he is a better choice on the war? I don't see a nickles worth of difference.

You can't be serious? Scahill explains that Obama was way ahead of the pack, 8 months, on regulating the use of contractors, and was the person who came introduced the legislation for it. His considered view is a pragmatic one: it is not possible to pull all contractors out of Iraq during a phased withdrawal.

You may not agree with that view--but simply pointing to the mess that the war is , is not an argument. Since the problem with contractors is largely--but not entirely--that their behavior is not held to any rules, putting them under U.S. civilian law is an absolutely necessary first step. I fully endorse Obama's view.

Clinton, by contrast, as Scahill explains, has done "nothing for 8 years while on the house Armed Services Committee", and then takes a voceriferous and transparently ideological stand, about which, so far, she's done exactly nothing.

Remind me: Which candidate is just a talker and which the one who actually does stuff?

There is a popular notion that Democrats have to try to appear like Republicans to pass some test on national security.

Yep. Thus we have Hillary going after Obama on questions of his patriotism.

Obama may attack Hillary, but he never attacks her patriotism.

Hillary is being sold to us as the more pro small-town gun-loving god-fearing patriot.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080121/berman

another link about the difference in their advisors, from the Nation. This article makes me believe there really is significant difference their approach to foreign policy. Most interesting of my links is this one. Even discusses John Edwards a bit.

Do the Obama supporters still believe he is a better choice on the war? I don't see a nickles worth of difference

I see HIllary's vote to attack Iraq and agreeing with George Bush, her vote with George Bush to consider Iran worthy of attack, and her own words re "massive retaliation" as concerns not only Iran but also other countries which fall under the "umbrella", to be words and votes and acts which signal to me that she is quite the war hawk as compared to other Democrats, most notably those Democrats who either voted against or spoke out against the war in Iraq.

Hillary Clinton's views about a "massive retaliation" against Iran and any other country who is under the umbrella scares the hell out of me.

She has also stated that she disagrees with the foreign policy statements set forth by Moveon.org. What does that mean?

Hillary Clinton has been presenting herself as being duck-shooting gun-toting good-ole-gal who disagrees with the foreign policy of Moveon.org and who has disdain for the San Francisco voters that Barack Obama was speaking to. She represents those conservative Reagon democrats. She's been casting Obama as this nasty San Francisco out-of-touch Democrat.

Scahill explains that Obama was way ahead of the pack, 8 months, on regulating the use of contractors, and was the person who came introduced the legislation for it

He also pointed out that it was empty legislation that would accomplish nothing. Does that concern you? Obama know's that, so it seems to me to be that once again it is more hope than change.

Hillary's promise to get rid of Blackwater was an opportunistic one, but she is on record now as opposing it, not so Barack.

What can we do? support a candidate based on issues not empty promises. Quit repeating the Barack is something different chant, he's not, and then when the primaries are over support the democratic candidate.

Hil

Although it's not true that MoveOn opposed the Afghanistan war, Hillary Clinton is saying behind closed doors that the reason that "democratic activists" oppose her is because she doesn't agree with them on their foreign policy.

Moveon responded:

"Senator Clinton has her facts wrong again. MoveOn never opposed the war in Afghanistan, and we set the record straight years ago when Karl Rove made the same claim. Senator Clinton's attack on our members is divisive at a time when Democrats will soon need to unify to beat Senator McCain. MoveOn is 3.2 million reliable voters and volunteers who are an important part of any winning Democratic coalition in November. They deserve better than to be dismissed using Republican talking points."

When and if Hillary Clinton becomes president of the U.S. and wages war against Iran, I would imagine that anyone who supported her will not feign surprise when she moves towards a "massive retaliation" against Iran.

January 20, 2006 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/19/AR2006011903220.html

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) accused the Bush administration of playing down the threat of a nuclear Iran and called for swift action at the United Nations to impose sanctions on the Iranian government.

Clinton's call for sanctions was another example of the hawkish posture on national security issues that has marked her tenure in the Senate and is seen as part of her preparation for a possible 2008 presidential campaign.

On Iraq, she has often criticized the administration for not preparing for the chaos and violence after the initial invasion. But she has remained steadfast in resisting calls within her own party to support a rapid withdrawal of troops there, to the dismay of some on the left.

He also pointed out that it was empty legislation that would accomplish nothing. Does that concern you? Obama know's that, so it seems to me to be that once again it is more hope than change.

Yes, I heard that, but I think Scahill's view here is absurd and fanatical. Simply because enforcement is difficult does not mean it is empty. We may not catch all of their crimes--but we already know about some of them, and there was no clear jurisdiction for prosecuting them. Surely this shows that such legislation is far from "empty" or totally unenforcable.

Quit repeating the Barack is something different chant,

I don't recall chanting about anything. But so long as the difference I point to is concrete and verifiable--say, legislation proposed and defended--your criticism is merely rhetorical.

Barack is a politician like any other--I happen to think, however, that there are limits to how far he will go when a course of action just does not make any sense. Which is to say, politics is a dirty business he plays just like every other, but I have yet to see it become for him merely end in itself, not as now a means for ultimately establishing judicious and pragmatic policies. I don't like Blackwater or any other military contractor any more than you do, but the fact remains that we went to war without enough troops. Short of (a.) activating the draft, or (b.) precipitous withdrawal, I see no other option in a Iraq in the short-term but to rely on military contractors.

Hillary Clinton has been attacking Barack Obama for his association with Reverend Wright. But what about her association with her recently former top-strategist Mark Penn whose public relations company helped prepare the chief of the controversial military contractor Blackwater USA for his congressional testimony?,as well as Mark Penn's work against union organizing, as well as the Mark Penn's discussions re the bilateral free-trade agreement with Columbia's ambassador.

Mark Penn was not Hillary's paster, he was her top strategist and supporter.

oops!

paster = that should have been "pastor"

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) - Democrat John Edwards said Friday the top strategist for presidential rival Hillary Rodham Clinton has ties to the controversial Blackwater security firm, and warned against installing "a group of corporate Democrats" to replace the Bush White House.

Edwards suggested similarities between Clinton, the Democratic front- runner, and the Republican president.

"George Bush has been a perfect example of cronyism because Blackwater has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to Republicans and to President Bush," he said in an interview with The Associated Press.

"I also saw this morning that Senator Clinton's primary adviser, Mark Penn, who is like her Karl Rove, his firm is representing Blackwater."

I see HIllary's vote to attack Iraq

I think the vote was an authorization to attack not a mandate to attack. It would be nice if that distinction were part of the Obama supporters talking points, but alas it's not.

k: you raise a crucial point, I believe, and the TNR article you cite is excellent, I think. My support for Obama is motivated far less by so-called "hope" but the possibility of different style of political will formation and, relatedly, a view of policy making grounded in data and pragmatism.

I think the vote was an authorization to attack not a mandate to attack.

That is the excuse she gives for voting for the bill called "Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq" And it is false--as we now know, she contacted a political consultant to see whether a vote against the bill would hurt her presidential prospects. It was well understood that it was Bush's intent to go to war, as the minority of Democrats in congress who strongly opposed the authorization demonstrates:

In her efforts to paint Obama as unfit to be the commander in chief, Clinton has recklessly gone so far as to argue that she and McCain are readier than Obama is: "Senator McCain will bring a lifetime of experience...I will bring a lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will bring a speech that he gave in 2002." Thus she dismisses Obama's claim that he had shown better judgment in 2002 by opposing the Iraq war. She has never come up with a plausible explanation of her vote to authorize the war because there isn't one. It won't do to say, as she has, that "if I would have known then what I know now," because there was ample reason to know then. Senator Bob Graham of Florida, the then chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, knew enough to strongly urge his colleagues to vote against the resolution; and he was one of twenty-two Democratic senators to do so. It was widely understood that Bush was intent on going to war. Clinton is known to have wavered on how to vote, and, like other Democrats, was advised by Democratic consultants to play it safe—to not cast a vote that might damage her political future. The irony is, of course, that she did just that.

Clinton vs Obama on Blackwater

SCAHILL: Look, I mean, Barack Obama has a perfect sort of response to her on this: where have you been? For the past five years of occupation, where have you been on this issue, when you were a key member of a key Senate committee that deals with these issues of war and war contracting? Where were you after Nisour Square when 17 Iraqis were killed by Blackwater? And where have you been on this issue? Obama actually introduced the legislation in the Senate on this eight months before Nisour Square. So I don't think it's actually going to become a major campaign issue. I think Hillary Clinton did this in the lead-up to Ohio and Texas as just sort of a way to curry some favor with the antiwar movement, because this has actually been a major issue in the antiwar movement. I can't imagine that her staff thought this through too deeply, because she has stuck her neck way further out than anyone else in the Senate besides Bernie Sanders on this issue. It's quite astonishing. Hey, I'm looking forward to seeing how much of a legislative priority it's going to be for her to ban Blackwater.

PALEVSKY: But one of the major problems with military contractors is that they're hard to hold accountable, that they're basically under no law, US law or Iraqi law. Have either of them or has John McCain taken up that issue of not using them or not using them, but using them while holding them accountable?

SCAHILL: Barack Obama's legislation, which he introduced in February 2007—and I should say I'm actually very critical of Barack Obama on this issue, but just to talk in very mainstream political terminology about this, Barack Obama introduced legislation in February 2007 that basically seeks to do the following: make it so that all contractors, whether they work for the Pentagon or the State Department, as Blackwater works for the State Department, will be held accountable under US civilian law. In other words, if they commit a murder or another crime in Iraq, they can be arrested and brought back to the United States and put on trial for that murder in Iraq. That has a likelihood of passing, probably. It's Obama in the Senate, David Price in the House. It passed the House; it's now being discussed in the Senate. It could well pass. The problem with that is that it's ridiculous—it cannot be enforced. How on earth are you going to oversee an army of over 180,000 private contractors? The military, with all its bureaucracy, can't even oversee 150,000 soldiers effectively. So it's sort of like it's a game that we're playing. Do they try to have something that looks good on the books? Absolutely. Is it like a fairytale? Absolutely. It's not enforcible.

PALEVSKY: And many people support Barack Obama saying he's stronger antiwar than Hillary Clinton. But if he's saying that he's going to pull out the troops and replace them with military contractors, does anything change?

SCAHILL: He's not saying he's going to pull out the troops or replace them with military contractors. What Obama is saying is that he's going to keep in place the Green Zone, the US embassy, and the Baghdad airport, three of the largest sites for the use of private contractors, and he's actually calling for an increase in funding of the State Department division that employs them. But what's disturbing about Obama's Iraq plan, as well as Hillary Clinton's, is that both of them have plans that would keep 40,000 to 80,000 troops in Iraq. It's based on the Iraq Study Group, the Baker-Hamilton report, and the 2007 defense supplemental that was portrayed as the Democrats' withdrawal plan. That's not a plan to end the occupation; it's a plan to continue it through the use of residual forces. I actually believe, and former senior military officials' who've reviewed Barack Obama's plan have said this too, that he's misleading voters with his rhetoric of ending the war. He's not going to end the war, end the occupation; he's going to withdraw some combat brigades and then maintain a force that is going to be repackaged as a counterterrorism strike force and a protection force for US diplomats. The reality is you have 500 US soldiers in Iraq; you're going to have a major resistance against them.

PALEVSKY: So do any of the candidates we currently see running for president offer real change when it comes to the contractors that are hired in Iraq and Afghanistan?

SCAHILL: Well, I mean, I think third-party candidates, you know, who stand absolutely no chance of winning have been clear on this. But of the viable candidates, John McCain, Hillary, Clinton, and Barack Obama, there's a difference in the sense that John McCain is basically campaigning on four more years of Bush-type policies. He wants soldiers in Iraq to be there basically until they're basically as old as he is right now. But Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, I think in a way it's even more insidious, because people actually with good faith believe that by supporting their campaigns they're supporting an end to the war in Iraq, and it's a ruse, it's just not true. And so I think there's something that's even more insidious about it. I mean, at least John McCain is clear where he stands. These guys sort of send one message, and behind the scenes put together these plans that are war by other means.

I think the vote was an authorization to attack not a mandate to attack. It would be nice if that distinction were part of the Obama supporters talking points, but alas it's not.

Well, Hillary has authorized an attack on Iran, both with her vote and with her words in the last debate. Barack Obama has not authorized an attack on Iran.

Hillary voted to attack Iraq. Barack spoke out vociferously against the attack on Iraq.

I think the vote was an authorization to attack not a mandate to attack

If people such as you and Charles manage to make it such that Hillary Clinton is elected president of the U.S., don't be surprised when she uses "massive retaliation" against Iran or any other countries under the "umbrella".

as the minority of Democrats in congress who strongly opposed the authorizationfor demonstrates:

A small minority of Senate Democrats opposed the Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq . The majority of House Democrat opposed the authorization

Also, in October 2002, in the House of Representatives, out of 208 Democrats, 126 voted against the Iraq War Resolution. That would be 60% of House democrats voting against the resolution.

In the Senate, out of 50 Democrats, 21 voted against the Iraq War Resolution. That would be 42% of Senate Democrats voting against the Iraq War Resolution.

However, one of the rare voices on cable news to speak out against the war, Phil Donohue, had his show cancelled.

LOL, with PA primary only two more days away--at last, at last--it is totally on here again.

Clintonistas will accuse the Obamaphiles of using 'talking points' by linking to evidence that supports their arguments while they themselves offer lines directly from the Master herself.

Someone will mention Hillary has a "better" health care plan--even though she has provided no enforcement mechanisms, and so the plan is amorphous and empty.

Another will mention Barack spoke out against the war and Hillary vote for it, and for labeling the Revolutionary Guard a 'terrorist organization'.

Another will tell us if we'd only read Canetti, we'd see what a danger demogogue Obama is.

And on, and on, and on we go.

But I'm loving the links!

How is this for balance. Do the Obama supporters still believe he is a better choice on the war? I don't see a nickles worth of difference.

Pull your head our from under that rock Norm.

He was against the war from 2002-2005 three years during which Clinton was a war booster because she thought it would help her presidential chances. They have both been for pulling out since but Clinton has been pro-Iranian conflict.

You don't think that speaks volumes about her credibility?

Sure I want my candidate to disband blackwater, but I am sure what his advisers are telling him is that the army can't function with out them in its current state. If we are going to get out of Iraq we will need to win in Afghanistan, or democrats will be back in a 2002 like situation and this country will be completely fucked.

Lets not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Hillary vs Obama: who is Better on Blackwater?" ~Article by the expert on this subject, Jeremy Scahill:

At the end of the day, both Obama and Clinton have Iraq plans that for the foreseeable future will necessitate using private armed security forces. While Obama's campaign has acknowledged that fact, Clinton has seized it as an opportunity to attack Obama. Short of dramatically shrinking the size of the US civilian and diplomatic presence in Iraq, the next president may have no choice but to continue the current contracting arrangements.

If Hillary Clinton expects any credibility on this issue, especially after her recent condemnation of Blackwater and the pledge to ban private security forces in Iraq, it would mean radically revising her Iraq plan to one of complete withdrawal. That means no residual forces, "strike forces," or the army of "diplomats" necessitating security, which regularly proves fatal for Iraqi civilians. At the same time, if either Obama or Clinton really wants to end the occupation, it means a pledge to swiftly withdraw all US troops and contractors. At this point, neither seems willing to do that.

Oh and fuck Hillary for her view on the flag burning amendment, I consider that much worse than the Obama's flag pin story.

Norm: I think the vote was an authorization to attack not a mandate to attack. It would be nice if that distinction were part of the Obama supporters talking points, but alas it's not.

JoAnn: That is the excuse she gives for voting for the bill called "Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq" And it is false--as we now know, she contacted a political consultant to see whether a vote against the bill would hurt her presidential prospects. It was well understood that it was Bush's intent to go to war,...

Man ... I've gotta say that JoAnn is dead right about this. If I were to accept that Clinton fig (clover) leaf (authorization ≠ mandate), that would pretty much mean that all the "experience" she claims to have amassed isn't worth a plugged nickel, wouldn't it? Anyone with any political experience at all knew damned well they were voting for war - as did any journalist with an ounce of sense and who wasn't a lazy TV news hack.

Ooops ... that was Adam I was quoting (blush).

You must mean the flag pin non story right? hell why dont we just vote for the guy who makes a complete suit outta flag pins. Face it hillary has basically lost unless a miracle happens, so lets support obama!!! I know i do.

That is the excuse she gives for voting for the bill called "Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq"

Quite apart from Clinton's motives, and I agree they were not good, the distinction is an important one. When you leave it out the description of what she voted for is inaccurate. You don't need to mischaracterize the bill she voted for to make a the point that she wanted it both ways, and I think it is dishonest to do so.

...I think it is dishonest to do so.

I honestly believe that Hillary knew that when she voted to authorize Bush to go to war she knew, in fact, that Bush fully intended to go to war and her vote was the last vote she'd ever get on the question. Therefore, it is not "dishonest" for I, or anyone who believes as I do about her having that knowledge, to not include the distinction between "authorization" and "mandate" when describing her vote – I don't think the distinction is important because I think she knew the likely result of an affirmative vote. You can argue that I'm wrong in thinking she knew that, and it is possible that I am, but in my honest opinion, that possibility is remote.

Furthermore, since I think Hillary's insistence that she didn't know the likely result of her authorization is nothing more than a worm-eaten fig leaf (that fails) to cover her complicity, it is Hillary who is being dishonest. John Edwards finally did the honest thing (belatedly) - he apologized for his vote.

Norm: I think the vote was an authorization to attack not a mandate to attack. It would be nice if that distinction were part of the Obama supporters talking points, but alas it's not.

So she learned her lesson, right?

No. Hillary didn't get it. She then proceeded to vote aye on the Kyle-Lieberman amendment. The only republican who voted nay was Chuck Hagel. So Hillary is more hawkish than Chuck Hagel.

Obama did not vote, but stated that he would have voted nay.

But Jim Webb got it:

Those who regret their vote five years ago to authorize military action in Iraq should think hard before supporting this approach. Because, in my view, it has the same potential to do harm where many are seeking to do good

And Hillary has promised potential "massive retaliation" against Iran.

I thought these things might be clues.

Roll call link

Those senators who voted nay regarding the"National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008)
Statement of Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding Iran"

Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Byrd (D-WV) Cantwell (D-WA) Dodd (D-CT) Feingold (D-WI) Hagel (R-NE) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Leahy (D-VT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lugar (R-IN) McCaskill (D-MO) Sanders (I-VT) Tester (D-MT) Webb (D-VA) Wyden (D-OR)

Turns out that another Republican, Lugar, voted against this bill, but Hillary Clinton did not.

Norm: I think the vote was an authorization to attack not a mandate to attack. It would be nice if that distinction were part of the Obama supporters talking points, but alas it's not.

Again, were there not anti-war protests before the vote?

Was there not talk of the Neo-cons plotting our return to Iraq?

Were there not already inspectors saying there were no weapons and therefore nothing for Saddam to turn over?

Let's not delude ourselves. Bushes intentions were obvious. He was given authorization to do what he intended to use regardless.

Obama and his supporters are not obliged to spin Clinton's poor judgment for her.

Norm:

Oh and fuck Hillary for her view on the flag burning amendment, I consider that much worse than the Obama's flag pin story.

Zap (in Mark Hamill's voice):

I can sense it...there is still some good in you...

Obama's position is that he will not ban contractors in general. That still leaves him open to banning Blackwater specifically if he chose to, but who cares?

What's important is that ALL American contractors wherever they may be, whoever they may be, be accountable under our laws, at least in principle. Hillary's not promising to keep the contractors accountable under the law, she's just promising to remove one of them, Blackwater, from Iraq ... Blackwater will probably just move operations to other countries.

So yes, Obama is ahead of Hillary on this issue.

I think the vote was an authorization to attack not a mandate to attack.

The decision to invade, was entirely Bush's.

The decision to invade, was entirely Bush's.

How much are houses going for in the state of denial?

It was bush's decision and he made it before the vote.

So the vote authorized Bush'e intended action.

GOING TO WAR!

Sorry, there is also no Santa Claus.

Norm: Can't we just have an exchange of views without your charging me with dishonesty? I cited evidence that the general understanding at the time was that Bush would go to war, no matter what.

Here, for fucksake, is the bill. Rather than speculating on what it contains, or going on Clinton the spin-master's say so, why not read it? Here are the relevant sections. It is obviously not the case that the bill only enables U.N. weapons inspectors. Although, I wish to emphasize, it contains provisions for that, it already stipulates that whatever they could discover is decisively demonstrated. ("Whereas" is legal language for "it being the case that..."). Hence, the bill contains a statement of what conditions must be satisfied to justified an invasion, directly states that those conditions obtain, and delegates the authority to decide on invasion to the president. Clinton is an outrageous liar, and the only reason she has gotten away with that absurd talking point is only because the media has been too lazy to call her on it, or examine the relevant sections of said bill.

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations; SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. 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.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Note: This is an excerpt from two seperate sections. There should be an ellipses between the two "whereas" clauses, and also between them and the section entitled "3. Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq"

Sorry, forgot to include those!

How much are houses going for in the state of denial?

You should know, you're apparently living in one of them.

The measure authorized presidential use of force against the "continuing threat posed by Iraq." On October 8, 2001, on the eve of the vote in Congress, Bush delivered a major address to the nation on the Iraqi threat. He said: "Approving this resolution does not mean that the military action is imminent or unavoidable. This resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice."

This spirit of the resolution was reflected in speeches legislators from both parties made prior to the vote. Senator John Warner, Virginia Republican, said passing the authorization was important to convince Saddam Hussein that American and international resolve is "real, unshakable and enforceable if there is to be a peaceful resolution." Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, New York Democrat, said passage of the resolution made diplomatic success at the UN "more likely, and, therefore, war less likely."

The resolution was not a "war vote" because, at the time, the administration repeatedly claimed that Bush had not made the decision to use force. Rather, Congress voted for diplomacy. The congressional action was designed to strengthen secretary of state Colin Powell's position as he negotiated passage of the unanimous UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which put world pressure on Iraq to accept international inspections. These inspections, if allowed to run their full course, would have demonstrated Iraq was indeed disarmed.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/eugene_b_kogan/2006/07/us_congress_must_overcome_its.html

It will not do the draw on the public statements of senators at the time. This is belied by

(1.) The sociological evidence, cited by myself and Joann above, that it was well understood at the time that an authorization for the use of force was a vote to go to war. As Joann amply details, this is why many democrats voted against the authorization. Of course their fellow democrats who didn't join them in this are not going to publicly declare that they gave up on diplomacy. Drawing on the statements of the public figures who themselves voted for the bill merely rehearses the problem: what did the bill actually say, and were they lying to us then, and are they lying to us now that it was not an authorization for war?

(2.) The bill itself makes transparent what it's function is--it fully delegates to the president the authority to wage war "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" and explicitly rules out the need to seek further permission or approval from the congress. Indeed, the resolution baldly states that the president need only inform the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate pro tem--both war-supporting republicans at the time--after having already invaded. This is absurd: What it means is, technically, that the authorization is an authorization to use force, because congress has forfeit its powers of oversight, other than a mere two high ranking senators being retroactively informed, which is an empty formalism. And practically, what this means is that, given that the only to people charged with "retrospective oversight" were Republican senators who strongly favored the invasion, war was inevitable.

It is all there in black and white. Whatever Clinton said then or now, it does not belie what it is that she in fact voted for. As Tim has already explained, she cannot have it both ways: either she made a cynical political bet with full understanding of what she was doing (I find this likely); or she made a naive and stupid decision, the implications of which were well-acknowledge by, indeed transparent to, many of the other members of her party and the time, and so her claim to "experience" is empty.

Okay, the evidence is in. It is impossible for an Obama supporter to say Hillary voted for an authorization to go to war. They insist on leaving out authorization. They are either lazy or dishonest or ? you tell me I'd really like to know. Words matter.

On October 8, 2001 on the eve of the vote in Congress, Bush delivered a major address to the nation on the Iraqi threat. He said: "Approving this resolution does not mean that the military action is imminent or unavoidable. This resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice."

First of all, I assume that you inadvertently got the year wrong and meant to write "2002". Secondly, I am amazed that you or Hillary Clinton would quote president Bush and expect that anyone, least of all the junior Senator from New York, would be so naive as to believe Bush. Third, no one seeks the advice of political consultants on a vote if they think they are voting for diplomacy. Fourth, as I said before, if Hillary didn't know she was voting for war, then she totally undermines any claim she makes to 'political sophistication' - the purpose of the bill is obvious and it had been obvious to intelligent journalists for months that Bush was determined to go to war, just as it was obvious to British Intelligence for months that Bush had decided to go to war.

Congress abdicated their constitutional prerogative to declare war with the Iraq war resolution. Their motivation for doing this for more than 50 years is nothing more than cowardice - so they can avoid the pressure if their vote is politically unpopular when it is taken and avoid the blame if the war goes badly later. I'm not letting any of the members of Congress who voted for the bill off the hook; the "authorization" provided Bush the power to go to war and I think Hillary knew full well that Bush had made up his mind - no matter what lies he was spewing in speeches by October of 2002.

They insist on leaving out authorization. They are either lazy or dishonest or ? you tell me I'd really like to know.

You'd like to know? Let me sum up what I wrote above: I agree that Hillary voted to "authorize" Bush to take this country to war. I also believe that there is no meaningful distinction between saying "she voted to authorize Bush to make the decision to go to war" and saying "she voted for the war" because I believe that she knew he had already made the decision. So, if JoAnn or Adam or I write "she voted for the war" and JoAnn or Adam agree with my view, then we are neither lazy nor dishonest - we're just being efficient and direct and holding her responsible for her decision by refusing to accept her feeble attempt to avoid responsibility for her action. You may believe that we are wrong about whether she knew she had voted for war - but I resent being called lazy or dishonest.

My my we are all so, upset.

Heh Norm.

I think Hillary voted for an authorization to go to war, not the invasion per say.... how come there was not a vote for the invasion??? i also don't really care about her vote that much. I don't think it is a big difference that the other obamaphiles do. Obama was not in the Senate and who knows really what he would have done. I suspect it was pretty difficult vote for all of them.
I do think in the general election it will be easier for Obama to come out clearly against the Bush foreign policy, Hillary will have to take a different tact on how she viewed the ward etc. Obama was not in the senate so, he may or may not have voted against it. I do think there are differences in Obama and Clintons foreign policy , and i believe that the links i referenced agree with that.

Obamas advisors were almost all against the war from the beginning. Hillary's were not. Some of Hilllary's prominent advisors were not advocating getting out till recently. The advisors have a slightly different slant on how things in the future should proceed, which i think is more important than who did what where and when.

I think their oposition to Iraq is based on different philosphies and different global wold views. I don't think any of them will get us out of Iraq quickly, nor am i convinced that we should be out quickly, just get us out safely and without making the situation worse. Then come up with a better way to handle foreign policy.

I do agree that the differences are subtle. I don't think the Iraq vote should be a deal breaker. I do think that Obama has the chance to make a bigger change ( sorry i used that word) in how we are viewed by the world.

I have said all along that there is not much difference between Hilary and Obama so I´ve been a bit confused by all of the anti-Obama vitriol here at OGM (mostly in the form of essays by what´s-his-face). I simply jumped on the Obama bandwagon because I feel that he has a better chance of trouncing any Republcan contender.

I hope that Obama wins soundly today in Pennsylvania so the Democrats can stop ripping into each other and go after the real enemy: the current administration and all who support it.

Okay, the evidence is in. It is impossible for an Obama supporter to say Hillary voted for an authorization to go to war.

You talk as though we concieved of this equivalence when we signed up for the Obama cult.

I for one thought it was a vote for war in 2002 when it happened, in 2004 when I supported John Kerry.

It's not Obama supporters trying to change the point of the vote, It's hillary supporters trying to justify the moronic vote to authorize a war that Bush intended to start.

Hey, get over it. Lots of good people took that vote. John Kerry and Joe Biden.

If that one vote was her only problem in terms of foreign relations, she could be a change candidate.

Okay, the evidence is in. It is impossible for an Obama supporter to say Hillary voted for an authorization to go to war.

Huh?

Hillary voted for the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, therefore, she voted for an authorization to go to war.

Voting for an authorization for the Use of U.S. armed forces against Iraq.

Talk about a clue.

Okay, the evidence is in. It is impossible for an Obama supporter to say Hillary voted for an authorization to go to war. They insist on leaving out authorization. They are either lazy or dishonest or ? you tell me I'd really like to know. Words matter.

...