Let's take Hillary's senate floor speech prior to her vote on the resolution to use force against Iraq, in its full context as she delivered it (Bold and Italics are mine and it may be multiple posts due to length):
Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.
I am honored to represent nearly 19 million New Yorkers, a thoughtful democracy of voices and opinions who make themselves heard on the great issues of our day especially this one. Many have contacted my office about this resolution, both in support of and in opposition to it, and I am grateful to all who have expressed an opinion.
I also greatly respect the differing opinions within this body. The debate they engender will aid our search for a wise, effective policy. Therefore, on no account should dissent be discouraged or disparaged. It is central to our freedom and to our progress, for on more than one occasion, history has proven our great dissenters to be right.
Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.
In 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait, losing the support of the United States. The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab states, and threw Saddam out after forty-three days of bombing and a hundred hours of ground operations. The U.S.-led coalition then withdrew, leaving the Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to Saddam's revenge.
As a condition for ending the conflict, the United Nations imposed a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to do the work. Saddam Hussein agreed, and an inspection system was set up to ensure compliance. And though he repeatedly lied, delayed, and obstructed the inspections work, the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities.
In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated "sovereign sites" including the so-called presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets. : In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.
Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?
Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.
This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom. However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.
If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?
So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.
Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it. This too has great appeal for different reasons. The UN deserves our support. Whenever possible we should work through it and strengthen it, for it enables the world to share the risks and burdens of global security and when it acts, it confers a legitimacy that increases the likelihood of long-term success. The UN can help lead the world into a new era of global cooperation and the United States should support that goal.
But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto, on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act. In Kosovo, the Russians did not approve NATO military action because of political, ethnic, and religious ties to the Serbs. The United States therefore could not obtain a Security Council resolution in favor of the action necessary to stop the dislocation and ethnic cleansing of more than a million Kosovar Albanians. However, most of the world was with us because there was a genuine emergency with thousands dead and a million driven from their homes. As soon as the American-led conflict was over, Russia joined the peacekeeping effort that is still underway.
In the case of Iraq, recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve force against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons.
So, Mr. President, the question is how do we do our best to both defuse the real threat that Saddam Hussein poses to his people, to the region, including Israel, to the United States, to the world, and at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations? Continued
I've forgiven some Presidents' bad mistakes but with Bush it's different. Every time I hear his name, I think about the almost 4,500 military people and the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died in the Iraq war and are still dying. It's not forgivable with me. :(
Yet you forgive Hillary for being on board with the decision.
She wasn't exactly on board with the decision as it went down but Slate did a story that I'm linking to so you can see why. Many people were lied to and many people died. The liars are responsible for the dead. It's worth watching Senator Clinton's speech on the Senate floor before the vote was cast to see the entire context. Have a great evening.
"...an explanation for her vote, something she has rarely done in the past. President Bush, she told the audience, had made a “very explicit appeal” that “getting this vote would be a strong piece of leverage in order to finish the inspections.” In other words, a resolution to use force would prod Saddam Hussein into readmitting U.N. inspectors, so they could continue their mission of verifying whether or not he had destroyed his chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons sites."
(snip)
She went on to say that there was “no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma” and that “people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposing conclusions.” But, she concluded, “I believe the best course is to go to the United Nations for a strong resolution” that calls “for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded” from Saddam.
“If we get the resolution the president seeks, and Saddam complies,” Clinton added, “disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. … If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.” This international support is “crucial,” she added, because, “after shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable.”
Then came, from today’s vantage, the key passage: “Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first … I take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible. Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely—and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause—I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go away with delay will oppose any United Nations resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.”
That is called having your cake and eating it too. She was fully on board just like Senator Leiberman but lacked the courage of her convictions and jumped ship when Obama went to her left. I'm sorry but nobody believed that senate chamber spin when she ran against Obama and nobody is believing it now. She is complicit in the Iraq war you hate and doesn't get to wash her hands of her vote. If you are truly unable to forgive George W Bush then you should be honest and recognize that she can't be forgiven as well.
Sorry, but this is all on GWB. It was a war of choice, an unnecessary war, a war congress approved but GWB didn't have to execute. Him and Cheney should both rot in hell and I really wonder how either of them sleep at night. You neocons can say it was right, blame it on Hillary or still believe there's WMDs in Iraq but it doesn't change the facts. GWB made a colossal mistake, one we're still paying for and will be paying for for generations.
Nobody is "blaming" Hillary. It was W's decision and his alone. She just happened to fully endorse the decision. Anybody who sees W's invasion of Iraq as "unforgiveable" and now supports Hillary because of her great judgement is being completely and utterly dishonest. She couldn't "spin" her way out of it when she ran against Obama and she can't "spin" her way out of it. She's the neocon in this race.
Trump is blaming Hillary. He's made that pretty clear....even though he's on record for supporting the war as well.
He's certainly trying to have it both ways as well. I am not defending him on this point. My argument is with all the Hillary supporters who just hated the decision to go to Iraq yet have no problem backing her. They are being dishonest and if they really think it was the worst foreign policy decision of all time then they shouldn't support her. Pick a third party or don't vote. After all you would be voting for someone who voted for the deaths of thousands of american troops and innocent Iraqis and who voted to destabilize the middle east. How could the haters of the war possibly vote for and yet sleep soundly at night? I just don't get it.
While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.
If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.
If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.
If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls for Saddam's compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving some nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose any Security Council action. They will say we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only support the United Nations when it does exactly what we want.
I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein's biological and chemical weapons. Today he has maximum incentive not to use them or give them away. If he did either, the world would demand his immediate removal. Once the battle is joined, however, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and to give what he can't use to terrorists who can torment us with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed by this possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it. And according to recent reports, the CIA agrees with this analysis. A world united in sharing the risk at least would make this occurrence less likely and more bearable and would be far more likely to share with us the considerable burden of rebuilding a secure and peaceful post-Saddam Iraq.
President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible . Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.
This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.
And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them.
My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.
Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.
And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am.
So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.
I've forgiven some Presidents' bad mistakes but with Bush it's different. Every time I hear his name, I think about the almost 4,500 military people and the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died in the Iraq war and are still dying. It's not forgivable with me. :(
Yet you forgive Hillary for being on board with the decision.
She wasn't exactly on board with the decision as it went down but Slate did a story that I'm linking to so you can see why. Many people were lied to and many people died. The liars are responsible for the dead. It's worth watching Senator Clinton's speech on the Senate floor before the vote was cast to see the entire context. Have a great evening.
"...an explanation for her vote, something she has rarely done in the past. President Bush, she told the audience, had made a “very explicit appeal” that “getting this vote would be a strong piece of leverage in order to finish the inspections.” In other words, a resolution to use force would prod Saddam Hussein into readmitting U.N. inspectors, so they could continue their mission of verifying whether or not he had destroyed his chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons sites."
(snip)
She went on to say that there was “no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma” and that “people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposing conclusions.” But, she concluded, “I believe the best course is to go to the United Nations for a strong resolution” that calls “for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded” from Saddam.
“If we get the resolution the president seeks, and Saddam complies,” Clinton added, “disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. … If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.” This international support is “crucial,” she added, because, “after shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable.”
Then came, from today’s vantage, the key passage: “Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first … I take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible. Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely—and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause—I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go away with delay will oppose any United Nations resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.”
That is called having your cake and eating it too. She was fully on board just like Senator Leiberman but lacked the courage of her convictions and jumped ship when Obama went to her left. I'm sorry but nobody believed that senate chamber spin when she ran against Obama and nobody is believing it now. She is complicit in the Iraq war you hate and doesn't get to wash her hands of her vote. If you are truly unable to forgive George W Bush then you should be honest and recognize that she can't be forgiven as well.
Sorry, but this is all on GWB. It was a war of choice, an unnecessary war, a war congress approved but GWB didn't have to execute. Him and Cheney should both rot in hell and I really wonder how either of them sleep at night. You neocons can say it was right, blame it on Hillary or still believe there's WMDs in Iraq but it doesn't change the facts. GWB made a colossal mistake, one we're still paying for and will be paying for for generations.
Nobody is "blaming" Hillary. It was W's decision and his alone. She just happened to fully endorse the decision. Anybody who sees W's invasion of Iraq as "unforgiveable" and now supports Hillary because of her great judgement is being completely and utterly dishonest. She couldn't "spin" her way out of it when she ran against Obama and she can't "spin" her way out of it. She's the neocon in this race.
Trump is blaming Hillary. He's made that pretty clear....even though he's on record for supporting the war as well.
He's certainly trying to have it both ways as well. I am not defending him on this point. My argument is with all the Hillary supporters who just hated the decision to go to Iraq yet have no problem backing her. They are being dishonest and if they really think it was the worst foreign policy decision of all time then they shouldn't support her. Pick a third party or don't vote. After all you would be voting for someone who voted for the deaths of thousands of american troops and innocent Iraqis and who voted to destabilize the middle east. How could the haters of the war possibly vote for and yet sleep soundly at night? I just don't get it.
Says the guy Professor from Canada.
Correct.
Why don't you ever criticize the neo-cons who lied us into war and the republican members of the house and senate who also voted for it? You continually blame Hillary and double down on the debacle from the safe and relatively cost free comforts of Canada. You are openly advocating for Canada to step up to the plate and pay more money and commit 100,000+ troops to the lost Iraq cause, yes? Talk about hypocrisy?
When is the Commander in Chief not the Commander in Chief? When you invade Iraq and it turns out you were duped.
I've forgiven some Presidents' bad mistakes but with Bush it's different. Every time I hear his name, I think about the almost 4,500 military people and the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died in the Iraq war and are still dying. It's not forgivable with me. :(
Yet you forgive Hillary for being on board with the decision.
She wasn't exactly on board with the decision as it went down but Slate did a story that I'm linking to so you can see why. Many people were lied to and many people died. The liars are responsible for the dead. It's worth watching Senator Clinton's speech on the Senate floor before the vote was cast to see the entire context. Have a great evening.
"...an explanation for her vote, something she has rarely done in the past. President Bush, she told the audience, had made a “very explicit appeal” that “getting this vote would be a strong piece of leverage in order to finish the inspections.” In other words, a resolution to use force would prod Saddam Hussein into readmitting U.N. inspectors, so they could continue their mission of verifying whether or not he had destroyed his chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons sites."
(snip)
She went on to say that there was “no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma” and that “people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposing conclusions.” But, she concluded, “I believe the best course is to go to the United Nations for a strong resolution” that calls “for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded” from Saddam.
“If we get the resolution the president seeks, and Saddam complies,” Clinton added, “disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. … If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.” This international support is “crucial,” she added, because, “after shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable.”
Then came, from today’s vantage, the key passage: “Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first … I take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible. Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely—and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause—I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go away with delay will oppose any United Nations resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.”
That is called having your cake and eating it too. She was fully on board just like Senator Leiberman but lacked the courage of her convictions and jumped ship when Obama went to her left. I'm sorry but nobody believed that senate chamber spin when she ran against Obama and nobody is believing it now. She is complicit in the Iraq war you hate and doesn't get to wash her hands of her vote. If you are truly unable to forgive George W Bush then you should be honest and recognize that she can't be forgiven as well.
Sorry, but this is all on GWB. It was a war of choice, an unnecessary war, a war congress approved but GWB didn't have to execute. Him and Cheney should both rot in hell and I really wonder how either of them sleep at night. You neocons can say it was right, blame it on Hillary or still believe there's WMDs in Iraq but it doesn't change the facts. GWB made a colossal mistake, one we're still paying for and will be paying for for generations.
Nobody is "blaming" Hillary. It was W's decision and his alone. She just happened to fully endorse the decision. Anybody who sees W's invasion of Iraq as "unforgiveable" and now supports Hillary because of her great judgement is being completely and utterly dishonest. She couldn't "spin" her way out of it when she ran against Obama and she can't "spin" her way out of it. She's the neocon in this race.
Trump is blaming Hillary. He's made that pretty clear....even though he's on record for supporting the war as well.
He's certainly trying to have it both ways as well. I am not defending him on this point. My argument is with all the Hillary supporters who just hated the decision to go to Iraq yet have no problem backing her. They are being dishonest and if they really think it was the worst foreign policy decision of all time then they shouldn't support her. Pick a third party or don't vote. After all you would be voting for someone who voted for the deaths of thousands of american troops and innocent Iraqis and who voted to destabilize the middle east. How could the haters of the war possibly vote for and yet sleep soundly at night? I just don't get it.
I've forgiven some Presidents' bad mistakes but with Bush it's different. Every time I hear his name, I think about the almost 4,500 military people and the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died in the Iraq war and are still dying. It's not forgivable with me. :(
Yet you forgive Hillary for being on board with the decision.
She wasn't exactly on board with the decision as it went down but Slate did a story that I'm linking to so you can see why. Many people were lied to and many people died. The liars are responsible for the dead. It's worth watching Senator Clinton's speech on the Senate floor before the vote was cast to see the entire context. Have a great evening.
"...an explanation for her vote, something she has rarely done in the past. President Bush, she told the audience, had made a “very explicit appeal” that “getting this vote would be a strong piece of leverage in order to finish the inspections.” In other words, a resolution to use force would prod Saddam Hussein into readmitting U.N. inspectors, so they could continue their mission of verifying whether or not he had destroyed his chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons sites."
(snip)
She went on to say that there was “no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma” and that “people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposing conclusions.” But, she concluded, “I believe the best course is to go to the United Nations for a strong resolution” that calls “for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded” from Saddam.
“If we get the resolution the president seeks, and Saddam complies,” Clinton added, “disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. … If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.” This international support is “crucial,” she added, because, “after shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable.”
Then came, from today’s vantage, the key passage: “Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first … I take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible. Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely—and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause—I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go away with delay will oppose any United Nations resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.”
That is called having your cake and eating it too. She was fully on board just like Senator Leiberman but lacked the courage of her convictions and jumped ship when Obama went to her left. I'm sorry but nobody believed that senate chamber spin when she ran against Obama and nobody is believing it now. She is complicit in the Iraq war you hate and doesn't get to wash her hands of her vote. If you are truly unable to forgive George W Bush then you should be honest and recognize that she can't be forgiven as well.
Sorry, but this is all on GWB. It was a war of choice, an unnecessary war, a war congress approved but GWB didn't have to execute. Him and Cheney should both rot in hell and I really wonder how either of them sleep at night. You neocons can say it was right, blame it on Hillary or still believe there's WMDs in Iraq but it doesn't change the facts. GWB made a colossal mistake, one we're still paying for and will be paying for for generations.
Nobody is "blaming" Hillary. It was W's decision and his alone. She just happened to fully endorse the decision. Anybody who sees W's invasion of Iraq as "unforgiveable" and now supports Hillary because of her great judgement is being completely and utterly dishonest. She couldn't "spin" her way out of it when she ran against Obama and she can't "spin" her way out of it. She's the neocon in this race.
Trump is blaming Hillary. He's made that pretty clear....even though he's on record for supporting the war as well.
He's certainly trying to have it both ways as well. I am not defending him on this point. My argument is with all the Hillary supporters who just hated the decision to go to Iraq yet have no problem backing her. They are being dishonest and if they really think it was the worst foreign policy decision of all time then they shouldn't support her. Pick a third party or don't vote. After all you would be voting for someone who voted for the deaths of thousands of american troops and innocent Iraqis and who voted to destabilize the middle east. How could the haters of the war possibly vote for and yet sleep soundly at night? I just don't get it.
i just watched the debate...hahahahhaah there are people still thinking to vote that lunatic???omg.. im not saying go vote hilary..but the guy is a clown is there a third party u can vote?or vote hilary,so u secure this guy dont get elected president good luck usa..i hope that u will not gonna need it
He actually had a few good points on taxation and trade...
i just watched the debate...hahahahhaah there are people still thinking to vote that lunatic???omg.. im not saying go vote hilary..but the guy is a clown is there a third party u can vote?or vote hilary,so u secure this guy dont get elected president good luck usa..i hope that u will not gonna need it
He actually had a few good points on taxation and trade...
What were those few good points on taxation and trade?
i just watched the debate...hahahahhaah there are people still thinking to vote that lunatic???omg.. im not saying go vote hilary..but the guy is a clown is there a third party u can vote?or vote hilary,so u secure this guy dont get elected president good luck usa..i hope that u will not gonna need it
He actually had a few good points on taxation and trade...
Well, whether they were good or not is completely subjective. I would call his points on taxation horrible myself, since I completely oppose his entire philosophy when it comes to taxation. As for trade... well he bashed NAFTA for a while, and that very quickly turned into him just freaking out. He really lost his composure during that segment.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I've forgiven some Presidents' bad mistakes but with Bush it's different. Every time I hear his name, I think about the almost 4,500 military people and the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died in the Iraq war and are still dying. It's not forgivable with me. :(
Yet you forgive Hillary for being on board with the decision.
She wasn't exactly on board with the decision as it went down but Slate did a story that I'm linking to so you can see why. Many people were lied to and many people died. The liars are responsible for the dead. It's worth watching Senator Clinton's speech on the Senate floor before the vote was cast to see the entire context. Have a great evening.
"...an explanation for her vote, something she has rarely done in the past. President Bush, she told the audience, had made a “very explicit appeal” that “getting this vote would be a strong piece of leverage in order to finish the inspections.” In other words, a resolution to use force would prod Saddam Hussein into readmitting U.N. inspectors, so they could continue their mission of verifying whether or not he had destroyed his chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons sites."
(snip)
She went on to say that there was “no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma” and that “people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposing conclusions.” But, she concluded, “I believe the best course is to go to the United Nations for a strong resolution” that calls “for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded” from Saddam.
“If we get the resolution the president seeks, and Saddam complies,” Clinton added, “disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. … If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.” This international support is “crucial,” she added, because, “after shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable.”
Then came, from today’s vantage, the key passage: “Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first … I take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible. Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely—and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause—I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go away with delay will oppose any United Nations resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.”
That is called having your cake and eating it too. She was fully on board just like Senator Leiberman but lacked the courage of her convictions and jumped ship when Obama went to her left. I'm sorry but nobody believed that senate chamber spin when she ran against Obama and nobody is believing it now. She is complicit in the Iraq war you hate and doesn't get to wash her hands of her vote. If you are truly unable to forgive George W Bush then you should be honest and recognize that she can't be forgiven as well.
Sorry, but this is all on GWB. It was a war of choice, an unnecessary war, a war congress approved but GWB didn't have to execute. Him and Cheney should both rot in hell and I really wonder how either of them sleep at night. You neocons can say it was right, blame it on Hillary or still believe there's WMDs in Iraq but it doesn't change the facts. GWB made a colossal mistake, one we're still paying for and will be paying for for generations.
Nobody is "blaming" Hillary. It was W's decision and his alone. She just happened to fully endorse the decision. Anybody who sees W's invasion of Iraq as "unforgiveable" and now supports Hillary because of her great judgement is being completely and utterly dishonest. She couldn't "spin" her way out of it when she ran against Obama and she can't "spin" her way out of it. She's the neocon in this race.
Trump is blaming Hillary. He's made that pretty clear....even though he's on record for supporting the war as well.
He's certainly trying to have it both ways as well. I am not defending him on this point. My argument is with all the Hillary supporters who just hated the decision to go to Iraq yet have no problem backing her. They are being dishonest and if they really think it was the worst foreign policy decision of all time then they shouldn't support her. Pick a third party or don't vote. After all you would be voting for someone who voted for the deaths of thousands of american troops and innocent Iraqis and who voted to destabilize the middle east. How could the haters of the war possibly vote for and yet sleep soundly at night? I just don't get it.
Says the guy Professor from Canada.
Correct.
Why don't you ever criticize the neo-cons who lied us into war and the republican members of the house and senate who also voted for it? You continually blame Hillary and double down on the debacle from the safe and relatively cost free comforts of Canada. You are openly advocating for Canada to step up to the plate and pay more money and commit 100,000+ troops to the lost Iraq cause, yes? Talk about hypocrisy?
When is the Commander in Chief not the Commander in Chief? When you invade Iraq and it turns out you were duped.
You clearly do not pay attention. I just said I do not "blame" Hillary. Please read what I write otherwise it becomes impossible to communicate with you. My students get that. I wish you would as well. So again...for the last time I do not "blame" Hillary for supporting the Iraq war. The argument I am making is that her speech does not absolve her from her vote. She wants to turn around and say "well I voted for a coalition and the UN and multilateralism" which is complete and utter bullshit. Obama knew it was bullshit and ran against her on it...my guess is you loved it when he did. She also proved with the invasion of Libya that she doesn't need UN authorization to go to war. You my friend hate neocons but you support Hillary who proved her neocon bonafides not just in Iraq but in Libya as well. At what point do you turn around and say "how can I support someone who keeps voting to invade other countries". So again and again and again until you finally process what I am saying...I am not blaming her for Iraq...I am calling you and others out for hating everything about neocon Bush and Cheney yet loving her. She is the neocon in this race and you are giving her your vote.
I agree that taxing the shit out of corporations is a bad idea. These large companies, along with the smaller ones, are what drives the economy. I agree they get tons of tax breaks and that needs to end also but if you make it impossible to operate in the US, then you see what happens...I think everyone should pay the same rate and cut the loopholes.Trump throws it out there that he pays zero Fed tax because the country allows it...that's brutally honest.
I agree that taxing the shit out of corporations is a bad idea. These large companies, along with the smaller ones, are what drives the economy. I agree they get tons of tax breaks and that needs to end also but if you make it impossible to operate in the US, then you see what happens...I think everyone should pay the same rate and cut the loopholes.Trump throws it out there that he pays zero Fed tax because the country allows it...that's brutally honest.
I just don't think trickle-down economics work at all. It's a fiscal-utopian myth, lol, nothing more. Trump wants to make the middle class more wealthy by lowering taxes for corporations... IMO that simply doesn't work, and in fact makes the problem he claims it fixes even worse.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I've forgiven some Presidents' bad mistakes but with Bush it's different. Every time I hear his name, I think about the almost 4,500 military people and the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died in the Iraq war and are still dying. It's not forgivable with me. :(
Yet you forgive Hillary for being on board with the decision.
She wasn't exactly on board with the decision as it went down but Slate did a story that I'm linking to so you can see why. Many people were lied to and many people died. The liars are responsible for the dead. It's worth watching Senator Clinton's speech on the Senate floor before the vote was cast to see the entire context. Have a great evening.
"...an explanation for her vote, something she has rarely done in the past. President Bush, she told the audience, had made a “very explicit appeal” that “getting this vote would be a strong piece of leverage in order to finish the inspections.” In other words, a resolution to use force would prod Saddam Hussein into readmitting U.N. inspectors, so they could continue their mission of verifying whether or not he had destroyed his chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons sites."
(snip)
She went on to say that there was “no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma” and that “people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposing conclusions.” But, she concluded, “I believe the best course is to go to the United Nations for a strong resolution” that calls “for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded” from Saddam.
“If we get the resolution the president seeks, and Saddam complies,” Clinton added, “disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. … If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.” This international support is “crucial,” she added, because, “after shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable.”
Then came, from today’s vantage, the key passage: “Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first … I take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible. Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely—and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause—I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go away with delay will oppose any United Nations resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.”
That is called having your cake and eating it too. She was fully on board just like Senator Leiberman but lacked the courage of her convictions and jumped ship when Obama went to her left. I'm sorry but nobody believed that senate chamber spin when she ran against Obama and nobody is believing it now. She is complicit in the Iraq war you hate and doesn't get to wash her hands of her vote. If you are truly unable to forgive George W Bush then you should be honest and recognize that she can't be forgiven as well.
Sorry, but this is all on GWB. It was a war of choice, an unnecessary war, a war congress approved but GWB didn't have to execute. Him and Cheney should both rot in hell and I really wonder how either of them sleep at night. You neocons can say it was right, blame it on Hillary or still believe there's WMDs in Iraq but it doesn't change the facts. GWB made a colossal mistake, one we're still paying for and will be paying for for generations.
Nobody is "blaming" Hillary. It was W's decision and his alone. She just happened to fully endorse the decision. Anybody who sees W's invasion of Iraq as "unforgiveable" and now supports Hillary because of her great judgement is being completely and utterly dishonest. She couldn't "spin" her way out of it when she ran against Obama and she can't "spin" her way out of it. She's the neocon in this race.
Trump is blaming Hillary. He's made that pretty clear....even though he's on record for supporting the war as well.
He's certainly trying to have it both ways as well. I am not defending him on this point. My argument is with all the Hillary supporters who just hated the decision to go to Iraq yet have no problem backing her. They are being dishonest and if they really think it was the worst foreign policy decision of all time then they shouldn't support her. Pick a third party or don't vote. After all you would be voting for someone who voted for the deaths of thousands of american troops and innocent Iraqis and who voted to destabilize the middle east. How could the haters of the war possibly vote for and yet sleep soundly at night? I just don't get it.
Says the guy Professor from Canada.
Correct.
Why don't you ever criticize the neo-cons who lied us into war and the republican members of the house and senate who also voted for it? You continually blame Hillary and double down on the debacle from the safe and relatively cost free comforts of Canada. You are openly advocating for Canada to step up to the plate and pay more money and commit 100,000+ troops to the lost Iraq cause, yes? Talk about hypocrisy?
When is the Commander in Chief not the Commander in Chief? When you invade Iraq and it turns out you were duped.
You clearly do not pay attention. I just said I do not "blame" Hillary. Please read what I write otherwise it becomes impossible to communicate with you. My students get that. I wish you would as well. So again...for the last time I do not "blame" Hillary for supporting the Iraq war. The argument I am making is that her speech does not absolve her from her vote. She wants to turn around and say "well I voted for a coalition and the UN and multilateralism" which is complete and utter bullshit. Obama knew it was bullshit and ran against her on it...my guess is you loved it when he did. She also proved with the invasion of Libya that she doesn't need UN authorization to go to war. You my friend hate neocons but you support Hillary who proved her neocon bonafides not just in Iraq but in Libya as well. At what point do you turn around and say "how can I support someone who keeps voting to invade other countries". So again and again and again until you finally process what I am saying...I am not blaming her for Iraq...I am calling you and others out for hating everything about neocon Bush and Cheney yet loving her. She is the neocon in this race and you are giving her your vote.
She's no Bush and sure as hell ain't no Cheney the devil himself , Trump has repeatedly said to bomb the hell out of Isis his no angel himself ...
Yeah well Trump seems to think he can stop ISIS without any effort. He seems to think it's easy and that it would have no consequences - pretty sure he believes he could start and finish that mission within a work week, lol.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I've forgiven some Presidents' bad mistakes but with Bush it's different. Every time I hear his name, I think about the almost 4,500 military people and the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died in the Iraq war and are still dying. It's not forgivable with me. :(
Yet you forgive Hillary for being on board with the decision.
She wasn't exactly on board with the decision as it went down but Slate did a story that I'm linking to so you can see why. Many people were lied to and many people died. The liars are responsible for the dead. It's worth watching Senator Clinton's speech on the Senate floor before the vote was cast to see the entire context. Have a great evening.
"...an explanation for her vote, something she has rarely done in the past. President Bush, she told the audience, had made a “very explicit appeal” that “getting this vote would be a strong piece of leverage in order to finish the inspections.” In other words, a resolution to use force would prod Saddam Hussein into readmitting U.N. inspectors, so they could continue their mission of verifying whether or not he had destroyed his chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons sites."
(snip)
She went on to say that there was “no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma” and that “people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposing conclusions.” But, she concluded, “I believe the best course is to go to the United Nations for a strong resolution” that calls “for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded” from Saddam.
“If we get the resolution the president seeks, and Saddam complies,” Clinton added, “disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. … If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.” This international support is “crucial,” she added, because, “after shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable.”
Then came, from today’s vantage, the key passage: “Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first … I take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible. Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely—and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause—I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go away with delay will oppose any United Nations resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.”
That is called having your cake and eating it too. She was fully on board just like Senator Leiberman but lacked the courage of her convictions and jumped ship when Obama went to her left. I'm sorry but nobody believed that senate chamber spin when she ran against Obama and nobody is believing it now. She is complicit in the Iraq war you hate and doesn't get to wash her hands of her vote. If you are truly unable to forgive George W Bush then you should be honest and recognize that she can't be forgiven as well.
Sorry, but this is all on GWB. It was a war of choice, an unnecessary war, a war congress approved but GWB didn't have to execute. Him and Cheney should both rot in hell and I really wonder how either of them sleep at night. You neocons can say it was right, blame it on Hillary or still believe there's WMDs in Iraq but it doesn't change the facts. GWB made a colossal mistake, one we're still paying for and will be paying for for generations.
Nobody is "blaming" Hillary. It was W's decision and his alone. She just happened to fully endorse the decision. Anybody who sees W's invasion of Iraq as "unforgiveable" and now supports Hillary because of her great judgement is being completely and utterly dishonest. She couldn't "spin" her way out of it when she ran against Obama and she can't "spin" her way out of it. She's the neocon in this race.
Trump is blaming Hillary. He's made that pretty clear....even though he's on record for supporting the war as well.
He's certainly trying to have it both ways as well. I am not defending him on this point. My argument is with all the Hillary supporters who just hated the decision to go to Iraq yet have no problem backing her. They are being dishonest and if they really think it was the worst foreign policy decision of all time then they shouldn't support her. Pick a third party or don't vote. After all you would be voting for someone who voted for the deaths of thousands of american troops and innocent Iraqis and who voted to destabilize the middle east. How could the haters of the war possibly vote for and yet sleep soundly at night? I just don't get it.
Says the guy Professor from Canada.
Correct.
Why don't you ever criticize the neo-cons who lied us into war and the republican members of the house and senate who also voted for it? You continually blame Hillary and double down on the debacle from the safe and relatively cost free comforts of Canada. You are openly advocating for Canada to step up to the plate and pay more money and commit 100,000+ troops to the lost Iraq cause, yes? Talk about hypocrisy?
When is the Commander in Chief not the Commander in Chief? When you invade Iraq and it turns out you were duped.
You clearly do not pay attention. I just said I do not "blame" Hillary. Please read what I write otherwise it becomes impossible to communicate with you. My students get that. I wish you would as well. So again...for the last time I do not "blame" Hillary for supporting the Iraq war. The argument I am making is that her speech does not absolve her from her vote. She wants to turn around and say "well I voted for a coalition and the UN and multilateralism" which is complete and utter bullshit. Obama knew it was bullshit and ran against her on it...my guess is you loved it when he did. She also proved with the invasion of Libya that she doesn't need UN authorization to go to war. You my friend hate neocons but you support Hillary who proved her neocon bonafides not just in Iraq but in Libya as well. At what point do you turn around and say "how can I support someone who keeps voting to invade other countries". So again and again and again until you finally process what I am saying...I am not blaming her for Iraq...I am calling you and others out for hating everything about neocon Bush and Cheney yet loving her. She is the neocon in this race and you are giving her your vote.
She's no Bush and sure as hell ain't no Cheney the devil himself , Trump has repeatedly said to bomb the hell out of Isis his no angel himself ...
Libya was her call. She took out gaddafi without united nations approval and let it collapse. It is the equivalent of Iraq minus the messy nation building part. She's the neocon in this race.
I agree that taxing the shit out of corporations is a bad idea. These large companies, along with the smaller ones, are what drives the economy. I agree they get tons of tax breaks and that needs to end also but if you make it impossible to operate in the US, then you see what happens...I think everyone should pay the same rate and cut the loopholes.Trump throws it out there that he pays zero Fed tax because the country allows it...that's brutally honest.
I just don't think trickle-down economics work at all. It's a fiscal-utopian myth, lol, nothing more. Trump wants to make the middle class more wealthy by lowering taxes for corporations... IMO that simply doesn't work, and in fact makes the problem he claims it fixes even worse.
I agree there is no " trickle-down " economics and lowering the taxes on corporations may not necessarily lower the cost of beans at your local Kroger... but It may actually lead to that Kroger being able to hire more employees at new stores that pay $15 an hour to a high school dropout.
I agree that taxing the shit out of corporations is a bad idea. These large companies, along with the smaller ones, are what drives the economy. I agree they get tons of tax breaks and that needs to end also but if you make it impossible to operate in the US, then you see what happens...I think everyone should pay the same rate and cut the loopholes.Trump throws it out there that he pays zero Fed tax because the country allows it...that's brutally honest.
I just don't think trickle-down economics work at all. It's a fiscal-utopian myth, lol, nothing more. Trump wants to make the middle class more wealthy by lowering taxes for corporations... IMO that simply doesn't work, and in fact makes the problem he claims it fixes even worse.
I agree there is no " trickle-down " economics and lowering the taxes on corporations may not necessarily lower the cost of beans at your local Kroger... but It may actually lead to that Kroger being able to hire more employees at new stores that pay $15 an hour to a high school dropout.
I understand that some think that, but I and many others just don't think that has been or ever will be the result of trickle down, especially not as technology makes it easier and easier for corporations to reduce the number of workers needed. Does Trump support a $15 minimum wage?? Doesn't he just say what he thinks the crowd wants to hear that night when it comes to wages, and never ever has he reached $15 while he does it?
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
No I don't think Trump supports $15 an hour..Hillary does..and it won't work..especially if you raise corp taxes..it will raise the price of your beans and cost jobs..They won't hire at that pay scale to start.
No I don't think Trump supports $15 an hour..Hillary does..and it won't work..especially if you raise corp taxes..it will raise the price of your beans and cost jobs..They won't hire at that pay scale to start.
I think minimum wage should match local economies myself. It should be the same everywhere. Some places it absolutely should be $15. In others absolutely not. It doesn't make sense to create a national standard for minimum wage. I do, however, believe that anyone who works one full time job, no matter what the work is, has a right to a minimum standard of living which includes all the basics with enough left over to make life worth living (and I don't mean trips to Europe, lol), and that sure isn't the case now (to say the least).... Not that Hillary is about to try and make that happen either, obviously.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Im in Va..min wage is lowest of any state and should go up..but $15 is way too much here compared to NY obviously..
Yeah, of course. I live in Vancouver, BC, which is one of the least affordable cities in the whole world (along with NYC), while the minimum wage is still under $11 CAD, which is, I think, the second lowest in the whole country (and pretty much all other salaries are doing just as badly when it comes to keeping pace with cost of living). It's fucking ridiculous. It's like politicians barely even see a connection between wages and cost of living or inflation at all.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Yet you forgive Hillary for being on board with the decision.
She wasn't exactly on board with the decision as it went down but Slate did a story that I'm linking to so you can see why. Many people were lied to and many people died. The liars are responsible for the dead. It's worth watching Senator Clinton's speech on the Senate floor before the vote was cast to see the entire context. Have a great evening.
"...an explanation for her vote, something she has rarely done in the past. President Bush, she told the audience, had made a “very explicit appeal” that “getting this vote would be a strong piece of leverage in order to finish the inspections.” In other words, a resolution to use force would prod Saddam Hussein into readmitting U.N. inspectors, so they could continue their mission of verifying whether or not he had destroyed his chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons sites."
(snip)
She went on to say that there was “no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma” and that “people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposing conclusions.” But, she concluded, “I believe the best course is to go to the United Nations for a strong resolution” that calls “for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded” from Saddam.
“If we get the resolution the president seeks, and Saddam complies,” Clinton added, “disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. … If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.” This international support is “crucial,” she added, because, “after shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable.”
Then came, from today’s vantage, the key passage: “Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first … I take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible. Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely—and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause—I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go away with delay will oppose any United Nations resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.”
That is called having your cake and eating it too. She was fully on board just like Senator Leiberman but lacked the courage of her convictions and jumped ship when Obama went to her left. I'm sorry but nobody believed that senate chamber spin when she ran against Obama and nobody is believing it now. She is complicit in the Iraq war you hate and doesn't get to wash her hands of her vote. If you are truly unable to forgive George W Bush then you should be honest and recognize that she can't be forgiven as well.
Sorry, but this is all on GWB. It was a war of choice, an unnecessary war, a war congress approved but GWB didn't have to execute. Him and Cheney should both rot in hell and I really wonder how either of them sleep at night. You neocons can say it was right, blame it on Hillary or still believe there's WMDs in Iraq but it doesn't change the facts. GWB made a colossal mistake, one we're still paying for and will be paying for for generations.
Nobody is "blaming" Hillary. It was W's decision and his alone. She just happened to fully endorse the decision. Anybody who sees W's invasion of Iraq as "unforgiveable" and now supports Hillary because of her great judgement is being completely and utterly dishonest. She couldn't "spin" her way out of it when she ran against Obama and she can't "spin" her way out of it. She's the neocon in this race.
Trump is blaming Hillary. He's made that pretty clear....even though he's on record for supporting the war as well.
He's certainly trying to have it both ways as well. I am not defending him on this point. My argument is with all the Hillary supporters who just hated the decision to go to Iraq yet have no problem backing her. They are being dishonest and if they really think it was the worst foreign policy decision of all time then they shouldn't support her. Pick a third party or don't vote. After all you would be voting for someone who voted for the deaths of thousands of american troops and innocent Iraqis and who voted to destabilize the middle east. How could the haters of the war possibly vote for and yet sleep soundly at night? I just don't get it.
Says the guy Professor from Canada.
Correct.
Why don't you ever criticize the neo-cons who lied us into war and the republican members of the house and senate who also voted for it? You continually blame Hillary and double down on the debacle from the safe and relatively cost free comforts of Canada. You are openly advocating for Canada to step up to the plate and pay more money and commit 100,000+ troops to the lost Iraq cause, yes? Talk about hypocrisy?
When is the Commander in Chief not the Commander in Chief? When you invade Iraq and it turns out you were duped.
You clearly do not pay attention. I just said I do not "blame" Hillary. Please read what I write otherwise it becomes impossible to communicate with you. My students get that. I wish you would as well. So again...for the last time I do not "blame" Hillary for supporting the Iraq war. The argument I am making is that her speech does not absolve her from her vote. She wants to turn around and say "well I voted for a coalition and the UN and multilateralism" which is complete and utter bullshit. Obama knew it was bullshit and ran against her on it...my guess is you loved it when he did. She also proved with the invasion of Libya that she doesn't need UN authorization to go to war. You my friend hate neocons but you support Hillary who proved her neocon bonafides not just in Iraq but in Libya as well. At what point do you turn around and say "how can I support someone who keeps voting to invade other countries". So again and again and again until you finally process what I am saying...I am not blaming her for Iraq...I am calling you and others out for hating everything about neocon Bush and Cheney yet loving her. She is the neocon in this race and you are giving her your vote.
I went back four pages and nowhere did you say "I" don't blame Hillary, you said, "Nobody" blames Hillary. Are you a nobody? And just below that post someone pointed out that Trump was blaming Hillary to which you expressed was a legitimate criticism of her vote. Maybe you need to learn how to write better to express your true thoughts so as people like me who follow along and look at the larger body of evidence or discussion points can truly understand where you might be coming from. Further, you called Hillary "complicit" in the decision to go to war with Iraq. Does that not imply blame? You also seem to dismiss everything Hillary stated before she cast her vote. Did Hillary make her decision in a vacuum? Was the neocon led administration not clamoring for war, cherry picking intelligence, planting false stories and falsifying intelligence that was classified, knowing members of the intelligence committees would think they knew more than the rest of us, even if it was false (in hindsight)? Too bad those 22 million emails "disappeared", huh? Then you call her call for multilaterism "bullshit" without making the effort to explain why. Last time I checked the SOS can't authorize military actions. That's the CIC authority. Either you have a gross misunderstanding of our constitution or you want to blame Hillary for everything, much like Trump. Hillary is far from a neocon. If she was, you'd be her greatest champion.
If you work 40 a week..absolutely you should make enough to support yourself. But that means more to some than others...does that include owning your own house? How many kids should you be able to support on 40 a week? It's an endless debate.
I dont make very much at all. I dont think people should be making $15 an hour to START. Maybe there shoukd be minimum increases based on length of employment, etc, but $15 for an entry level job is too much. Or maybe base the starting wage on local economics, as pj soul eluded to.
I dont make very much at all. I dont think people should be making $15 an hour to START. Maybe there shoukd be minimum increases based on length of employment, etc, but $15 for an entry level job is too much. Or maybe base the starting wage on local economics, as pj soul eluded to.
Yeah, $15 minimum to start is perfectly reasonable in Vancouver (anything less is inhumane, actually. People could barely survive (or maybe still couldn't) with $15, so under $11 an hour (I think it's $10.87 or something now) is just a hard slap in the face). But it certainly wouldn't be reasonable in Winnipeg. I think it HAS to based on local cost of living.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Undecided voter here, and after last night's debate: i'm still undecided. Neither one did anything for me, one way or the other. Lets see how the next debates go.
You seriously can't be an undecided voter between Trump and Hillary at this point, right? You're kidding, right?
So, you think i'm the only voter who is still undecided right now? You're kidding right?
Like i said: still more debates to go, though i'm not entirely basing my decision solely on them.
I guess I don't understand how someone can still be deciding between two people who have completely different views of the world and country...
I can get folks would are thinking 3rd party or Hillary but can't comprehend Hillary/Trump
Damn, i'm almost sorry i said i was a undecided voter. I thought this was a thread about the debates. My fault for saying i'm undecided.
Cliffy, you got it: I'm looking at 3rd & 4th party options. Maybe even a write-in vote. And since they don't get the media coverage i have to do the research, so that's why i'm undecided.
Back to the Debates. Apologize if this has already been bought up: Why did Lester Holt ask the Birther question? That doesn't have anything to do with this election.
Comments
Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.
I am honored to represent nearly 19 million New Yorkers, a thoughtful democracy of voices and opinions who make themselves heard on the great issues of our day especially this one. Many have contacted my office about this resolution, both in support of and in opposition to it, and I am grateful to all who have expressed an opinion.
I also greatly respect the differing opinions within this body. The debate they engender will aid our search for a wise, effective policy. Therefore, on no account should dissent be discouraged or disparaged. It is central to our freedom and to our progress, for on more than one occasion, history has proven our great dissenters to be right.
Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.
In 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait, losing the support of the United States. The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab states, and threw Saddam out after forty-three days of bombing and a hundred hours of ground operations. The U.S.-led coalition then withdrew, leaving the Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to Saddam's revenge.
As a condition for ending the conflict, the United Nations imposed a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to do the work. Saddam Hussein agreed, and an inspection system was set up to ensure compliance. And though he repeatedly lied, delayed, and obstructed the inspections work, the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities.
In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated "sovereign sites" including the so-called presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.
:
In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.
Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?
Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.
This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.
However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.
If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?
So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.
Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it. This too has great appeal for different reasons. The UN deserves our support. Whenever possible we should work through it and strengthen it, for it enables the world to share the risks and burdens of global security and when it acts, it confers a legitimacy that increases the likelihood of long-term success. The UN can help lead the world into a new era of global cooperation and the United States should support that goal.
But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto, on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act. In Kosovo, the Russians did not approve NATO military action because of political, ethnic, and religious ties to the Serbs. The United States therefore could not obtain a Security Council resolution in favor of the action necessary to stop the dislocation and ethnic cleansing of more than a million Kosovar Albanians. However, most of the world was with us because there was a genuine emergency with thousands dead and a million driven from their homes. As soon as the American-led conflict was over, Russia joined the peacekeeping effort that is still underway.
In the case of Iraq, recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve force against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons.
So, Mr. President, the question is how do we do our best to both defuse the real threat that Saddam Hussein poses to his people, to the region, including Israel, to the United States, to the world, and at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations?
Continued
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.
If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.
If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.
If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls for Saddam's compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving some nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose any Security Council action. They will say we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only support the United Nations when it does exactly what we want.
I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein's biological and chemical weapons. Today he has maximum incentive not to use them or give them away. If he did either, the world would demand his immediate removal. Once the battle is joined, however, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and to give what he can't use to terrorists who can torment us with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed by this possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it. And according to recent reports, the CIA agrees with this analysis. A world united in sharing the risk at least would make this occurrence less likely and more bearable and would be far more likely to share with us the considerable burden of rebuilding a secure and peaceful post-Saddam Iraq.
President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible
.
Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.
This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.
And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them.
My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.
Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.
And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am.
So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
When is the Commander in Chief not the Commander in Chief? When you invade Iraq and it turns out you were duped.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Hampton 2016
Hampton 2016
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Hampton 2016
Hampton 2016
Hampton 2016
Does Trump support a $15 minimum wage?? Doesn't he just say what he thinks the crowd wants to hear that night when it comes to wages, and never ever has he reached $15 while he does it?
Hampton 2016
Hampton 2016
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Hampton 2016
www.headstonesband.com
Cliffy, you got it: I'm looking at 3rd & 4th party options. Maybe even a write-in vote. And since they don't get the media coverage i have to do the research, so that's why i'm undecided.
Back to the Debates. Apologize if this has already been bought up: Why did Lester Holt ask the Birther question? That doesn't have anything to do with this election.