The âyoung onesâ and the haters are not going to buy this but I do. I LIVED through harassment in 2008 and this is how it was handled. Everyone may WISH the same sanctimonious take-no-prisoners way of dealing with inappropriate behavior but it wasnât like that. Womenâs rights were already eroding (Thanks George Bush etal) and everyone was running for cover because of the recession. I hate the re-writing of history but it will happenâŚagain and again.
Sometimes, you get one chance to make the right decision.
Like voting for or against the Iraq War.
Ten years ago. Which of us can say we would make the same decisions today that we did 10 years ago? Clinton has to be the most inveighed against person in America history. These articles are worthless and verge on click-bait.
Yup, this was another MaggieH special to balance our her previous dayâs âbombshellâ (April Ryan covered it last July) about Trump wanting to fire Mueller.
Anything to maintain access and keep the waters muddied.
Cc @cmbudinger
You do know she never voted to go to war in Iraq, right?
But donât let the facts stop you.
She never voted to do what George Bush ended up doing.
She (and a lot of other Democrats) voted for the AUMF which was understood at the time to be a vote for an invasion to overthrow Saddam, which had been publicly debated for months by that point. To say that they thought it would only be a pressure tactic is disingenuous revisionist history.
It might be better to stay silent on this matter and let the clowns make fools of themselves. Anything she says can and will be used against her in a court of fools.
No, it was not understood at the time to be anything other than leverage to force Saddam into letting the UN inspectors do their jobs. As she said in her floor speech -
âSo 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.â
This stuffâs not too hard to find you know. But please, continue with revisionist oversimplifications and false equivalencies. A vote for the AUMF was not a vote for war anymore than a having private email server was the same as being a racist lying conman. But itâs funny how facts just donât matter to some people when theyâve already made up their minds.
Weird how Kennedy, Byrd, and regular people like me (both Democrats who were against it and Republicans who were for it) could see that giving an open AUMF to a president who had been going on a public campaign for regime change is in fact a rush to war, but Clinton, Kerry, and Biden couldnât.
Weird how actual facts donât seem to matter anymore and psychic premonitions are seen as a better route to governance to some people. What was actually said and done at that time is locked in the record, She clearly stated what she did and why she did it, if you want to transfer your own backwards looking precognition to it, well, whatever floats your boat I guess. But at the end of the day, 2+2=4, global warming is a real phenomenon, and Hillary Clinton did not factually vote to go to war, no matter how much you would like it to be true.
Disingenuous revisionist history? Youâve got a lot of nerve. Youâre the one that foolishly swallowed the Republican BS attempt to spread the blame for Wâs disastrous war.
Hereâs what John Kerry had to say at the time:
Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.
And here is what G. W. Bush said at the time:
If you want to keep the peace, youâve got to have the authorization to use force. But itâs â this will be â this is a chance for Congress to indicate support. Itâs a chance for Congress to say, we support the administrationâs ability to keep the peace. Thatâs what this is all about.
The Times also reported that Strider was fired from a Clinton-aligned super PAC, Correct the Record, in 2016, for similar reasons. Clinton did not address that in the Facebook post.
Wow her facebook posted sounded reasonable till the above. Question is did she know about the above?
As a candidate, It would be illegal for Clinton to be involved with decisions made by a PAC, even one that is âClinton-alignedâ
Well not being involved with actually firing him, but knowing that it had happened in the PAC, then hiring him for her campaign, and not firing him from her campaign when he did it again.
The super pac was 2016 right? The campaign issue when he was only demoted was from 2008.
2008 holy shit I need to pay more attention when I read, ok skim. I thought it was her 2016 campaign. Thatâs a lot different.
And it was transparent bullshit at the time, as a lot of people, in power and out, shouted at Clinton, Kerry et al. They ignored it all and believed Bush/Cheneyâs lies. The AUMF states âThe President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraqâ. Thatâs a blank check.
[quote]Hereâs what John Kerry had to say at the time:
Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.[/quote]
Durbinâs amendment to restrict it to only WMDs failed 30-70.
Here is an op-ed by James Baker, two months before the AUMF, arguing in favor of invading Iraq and saying itâs the administrationâs policy. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/25/opinion/the-right-way-to-change-a-regime.html
Hereâs a discussion on NPR, two weeks before the AUMF, about âregime change,â how itâs staunchly advocated by the Bush administration, and how it unequivocally means a major invasion. https://www.npr.org/programs/totn/transcripts/2002/sep/020925.conan.html
Hereâs George W. Bush, 10 days before the AUMF, in the infamous âsmoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloudâ speech where he says failure to comply with the weapons inspections means the US will invade and overthrow Saddam. Transcript: George Bush's speech on Iraq | US news | The Guardian
He also said this:
Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the situation worse. The situation could hardly get worse for world security and for the people of Iraq.
Take your goddamn head out of your ass.
Wow. This is the best you could do? Youâre not very bright, are you? Did you even bother to read the references you provided? It appears that you didnât.
The Op Ed piece in the NYT was written by James Baker, who was never a member of the GW Bush administration thus was only providing his personal opinions, not that of the administration or any other facet of the US Government. Even so, he is only saying that to realistically achieve the stated policy of both the Clinton and GW Bush administrations of âregime changeâ it would take a war to do it. He does not say anything about the authorization to use force and contrary to what you said he does not advocate for invasion a priori. He, like Bush, does advocate for aggressive inspections, but why do that if you are going to invade anyway? Certainly why would Iraq let the inspectors in if they believed that they would be invaded anyway? Well, because Bush deceptively let everyone think that if Iraq complied there would be no invasion.
The NPR piece you cite is just an interview with a PolySci prof at the U of C. Mearsheimer only provides his personal opinions, he does not speak for the administration nor does he speak for Congress. Itâs meaningless. Even so, he, like Baker, never even mentions the authorization to use force, not a word. If this is what you have to cite to make your point, you have no point.
Then there is Bushâs speech. I think youâd have to be cognitively impaired to cite this to make your argument. From your own reference, the only thing Bush says about the authorization to use force is this:
âApproving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and it is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something.
Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq that his only chance - his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited.â
So even Bush says it about sending a message. The rest of the speech is just a collection of lies about Iraqâs capabilities, lies given with the intent of deceiving Congress and the American people.
Finally, about this speech, even you say:
â[this is] where [Bush] says failure to comply with the weapons inspections means the US will invade and overthrow Saddam.â
Well yes, with the corollary being that if he does comply the US would not invade. Are you too thick to understand that? Iraq did comply. Bush lied and invaded anyway. Kerry didnât vote for that. Clinton didnât vote for that. They voted to put pressure on Hussain to let the inspectors in so we could find out the truth. They only erred in trusting Bush.
People like you who perpetrate this Bush talk point/ falsehood about how Congress agreed with Bushâs actions are very dishonest. But then youâre like our current president, you donât care what the truth is.