Irony
- Thread starter Cancel 2020.1
- Start date
evince
Truthmatters
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
I don't hate Hillary.
Like Bill, she is politically expedient. I don't think either her or Bill has much of a principled center. She voted yes because she had Presidential ambitions (like Kerry & Edwards), and didn't want to be seen as weak on national defense or foreign policy.
It's a drag that you will make excuses for anyone as long as they're a Democrat. But it doesn't matter; the history is written, and she was on the wrong side of it.
Like Bill, she is politically expedient. I don't think either her or Bill has much of a principled center. She voted yes because she had Presidential ambitions (like Kerry & Edwards), and didn't want to be seen as weak on national defense or foreign policy.
It's a drag that you will make excuses for anyone as long as they're a Democrat. But it doesn't matter; the history is written, and she was on the wrong side of it.
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
I don't hate her, at all.
That's a projection for you. I don't know you, but it seems like you're someone who carries a lot of hate for others.
I don't say anything insulting about her. Just facts.
evince
Truthmatters
Legion Troll
A fine upstanding poster
evince
Truthmatters
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffr...hs-about-hillary-iraq-war-vote_b_9177420.html
this guy agrees
states it very well
this guy agrees
states it very well
evince
Truthmatters
her vagina negates them all asshole?
evince
Truthmatters
5 Myths (And One Big Truth) About Hillary’s 2002 Iraq War Vote
Although Hillary Clinton has many advantages in the current Presidential campaign (advantages of policy, programs, and, yes, personality) surely her greatest strength vis-à-vis her principal primary opponent is in the area of foreign and global policy—including matters of war and peace, global development and economics, our war against terrorism, and even climate change and preserving the environment. This writer believes that the success of the next President in dealing with these issues will define her or his legacy; indeed the survival of the human race may well turn on how these issues are handled over the next eight years.
In the face of Secretary Clinton’s undisputed strength in these areas, when Bernie Sanders is asked how his experience measures up to hers in the “Commander In Chief” category, he invariably comes up with a single Talking Point.
Unfortunately that Talking Point, presented in Bernie’s shallow vernacular, simply isn’t true. It usually goes something like this:
The key foreign policy vote in modern American history was the 2002 vote as to whether we should go into Iraq. I made the decision not to go to war. Hillary Clinton on the other hand, voted for the war...
Like many simplistic and “sound bite” arguments of the modern era, and of Sanders in particular, the argument that Hillary Clinton supported the war George W. Bush prosecuted in Iraq is nonsense. This falsehood can be broken down into five sub-myths.
Myth #1: The 2002 Congressional Resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq, on which Hillary Clinton and a large majority of U.S. Senators voted yes, gave George W. Bush “carte blanche” to pursue war against Saddam Hussein.
False! In fact exactly the opposite is true: While that Resolution did indeed authorize President Bush, under strict requirements of the 1973 War Powers Act, to use force, Section 3(b) of the Act also required that sanctions or diplomacy be fully employed before force was used, i.e. force was to be used only as “necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq,” and to do so only upon the President certifying to Congress that “diplomatic or other peaceful means” would be insufficient to defang Saddam.
Despite those legal conditions, the following year we were at war—and millions of us were astonished that the Bush Administration, running roughshod over Congress’s requirements, hadn’t given more time for U.N. inspectors to complete their job of searching for weapons of mass destruction.
Myth #2: By voting for the 2002 Congressional Resolution which authorized (but was also designed to limit) George Bush’s power to wage war in Iraq, Hillary Clinton cannot be considered a “progressive” Democrat.
False! On October 11, 2002, Clinton joined a strong majority of Democrats, including liberal and left-center Democrats like Tom Harkin, John Kerry, and Joe Biden, in voting in favor of the Resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq. Later on, Clinton came to deeply regret giving President Bush the benefit of the doubt on the Resolution, and she has plainly admitted her mistake. Yet it is a “mistake” which many other senators of conscience made with her; if Clinton bears any blame for the resulting war, it is because she placed too much reliance on legislation that was actually designed to check a president’s war-making ability but instead inadvertently gave that president cover to run roughshod over the interests of both Congress and the public at large.
Myth #3: At the time of her vote, Clinton was very supportive of going to war in order to remove Saddam Hussein from power.
False! While Clinton quickly turned against the war, another piece of “lost history” is the deep concern she expressed at the very time of her vote in the fall of 2002. Given the Resolution’s several prerequisites to waging war, Clinton’s vote was for a Resolution that was also supposed to restrain the President’s ability to wage war, and her 2002 floor speech leading up to consideration of the Resolution made this clear:
My vote is not a vote for any new doctrine of preemption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose, all of which carry grave dangers for our Nation, the rule of international law, and the peace and security of people throughout the world.
These words presaged the doctrine of “smart power” Clinton later espoused as Secretary of State. Her vision is neither interventionist on the one hand nor hesitant and supine on the other, but rather something in between: a belief that the United States is the indispensable leader—in a troubled world where such leadership matters—but a belief still grounded in reality, the limits of American power and, perhaps most significantly, the importance of collaboration with like-minded actors who can be found in every corner of the globe. Meanwhile, as Clinton has said many times, then as now, armed intervention is only to be used as a last resort.
Myth #4: At the time of the 2002 vote, the “architecture” of George Bush’s Presidency was well understood, including a philosophy and history of carrying out pre-emptive wars.
False! In 2002, Clinton palpably feared a precipitous rush to war, but was willing to trust a leader who at the time was only in the second year of his presidency, having just suffered the most calamitous attack on the homeland since Pearl Harbor—and, notably, whose only international venture up until then was a widely applauded campaign to overthrow the Taliban in Al Qaida’s sanctuary of Afghanistan. While it was already well known that Bush had neocon advisers like Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, the true extent of their influence had not yet been manifested. (Colin Powell was also an important adviser and George W. was, after all, George H.W. Bush’s son.)
Myth #5. Hillary Clinton’s vote belies support for an “Imperial Presidency” that brooks no dissent, and disrespects Congress and other partners, foreign or domestic.
False! To the contrary, one of the reasons Hillary Clinton is so well qualified to be president is because she deeply respects the rule of law and, in particular, appropriate Congressional prerogatives and the Constitutional principle of checks and balances. (Indeed, this is precisely why she voted the way she did on the 2002 Iraq Resolution.) In this vein, she is also uniquely capable of reaching across the aisle to forge common-sense solutions, a “progressive who delivers results,” as she says.
One big truth: Hillary Clinton possesses another, singular, quality: she has the capacity to learn from the hard lessons that our Iraq adventure taught us, including from the misplaced trust she and others conferred on an Administration that brought so much grief to this country. She has said as much in her memoir, Hard Choices:
As much as I might have wanted to, I could never change my vote on Iraq. But I could try to help us learn the right lessons from that war and apply them to Afghanistan and other challenges where we had fundamental security interests. I was determined to do exactly that when facing future hard choices, with more experience, wisdom, skepticism, and humility.
It is clear that Hillary Clinton is a candidate for president who has learned from the lessons of history, and is capable of applying them to the future; in fact this quality is a critical ingredient of great leadership.
Although Hillary Clinton has many advantages in the current Presidential campaign (advantages of policy, programs, and, yes, personality) surely her greatest strength vis-à-vis her principal primary opponent is in the area of foreign and global policy—including matters of war and peace, global development and economics, our war against terrorism, and even climate change and preserving the environment. This writer believes that the success of the next President in dealing with these issues will define her or his legacy; indeed the survival of the human race may well turn on how these issues are handled over the next eight years.
In the face of Secretary Clinton’s undisputed strength in these areas, when Bernie Sanders is asked how his experience measures up to hers in the “Commander In Chief” category, he invariably comes up with a single Talking Point.
Unfortunately that Talking Point, presented in Bernie’s shallow vernacular, simply isn’t true. It usually goes something like this:
The key foreign policy vote in modern American history was the 2002 vote as to whether we should go into Iraq. I made the decision not to go to war. Hillary Clinton on the other hand, voted for the war...
Like many simplistic and “sound bite” arguments of the modern era, and of Sanders in particular, the argument that Hillary Clinton supported the war George W. Bush prosecuted in Iraq is nonsense. This falsehood can be broken down into five sub-myths.
Myth #1: The 2002 Congressional Resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq, on which Hillary Clinton and a large majority of U.S. Senators voted yes, gave George W. Bush “carte blanche” to pursue war against Saddam Hussein.
False! In fact exactly the opposite is true: While that Resolution did indeed authorize President Bush, under strict requirements of the 1973 War Powers Act, to use force, Section 3(b) of the Act also required that sanctions or diplomacy be fully employed before force was used, i.e. force was to be used only as “necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq,” and to do so only upon the President certifying to Congress that “diplomatic or other peaceful means” would be insufficient to defang Saddam.
Despite those legal conditions, the following year we were at war—and millions of us were astonished that the Bush Administration, running roughshod over Congress’s requirements, hadn’t given more time for U.N. inspectors to complete their job of searching for weapons of mass destruction.
Myth #2: By voting for the 2002 Congressional Resolution which authorized (but was also designed to limit) George Bush’s power to wage war in Iraq, Hillary Clinton cannot be considered a “progressive” Democrat.
False! On October 11, 2002, Clinton joined a strong majority of Democrats, including liberal and left-center Democrats like Tom Harkin, John Kerry, and Joe Biden, in voting in favor of the Resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq. Later on, Clinton came to deeply regret giving President Bush the benefit of the doubt on the Resolution, and she has plainly admitted her mistake. Yet it is a “mistake” which many other senators of conscience made with her; if Clinton bears any blame for the resulting war, it is because she placed too much reliance on legislation that was actually designed to check a president’s war-making ability but instead inadvertently gave that president cover to run roughshod over the interests of both Congress and the public at large.
Myth #3: At the time of her vote, Clinton was very supportive of going to war in order to remove Saddam Hussein from power.
False! While Clinton quickly turned against the war, another piece of “lost history” is the deep concern she expressed at the very time of her vote in the fall of 2002. Given the Resolution’s several prerequisites to waging war, Clinton’s vote was for a Resolution that was also supposed to restrain the President’s ability to wage war, and her 2002 floor speech leading up to consideration of the Resolution made this clear:
My vote is not a vote for any new doctrine of preemption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose, all of which carry grave dangers for our Nation, the rule of international law, and the peace and security of people throughout the world.
These words presaged the doctrine of “smart power” Clinton later espoused as Secretary of State. Her vision is neither interventionist on the one hand nor hesitant and supine on the other, but rather something in between: a belief that the United States is the indispensable leader—in a troubled world where such leadership matters—but a belief still grounded in reality, the limits of American power and, perhaps most significantly, the importance of collaboration with like-minded actors who can be found in every corner of the globe. Meanwhile, as Clinton has said many times, then as now, armed intervention is only to be used as a last resort.
Myth #4: At the time of the 2002 vote, the “architecture” of George Bush’s Presidency was well understood, including a philosophy and history of carrying out pre-emptive wars.
False! In 2002, Clinton palpably feared a precipitous rush to war, but was willing to trust a leader who at the time was only in the second year of his presidency, having just suffered the most calamitous attack on the homeland since Pearl Harbor—and, notably, whose only international venture up until then was a widely applauded campaign to overthrow the Taliban in Al Qaida’s sanctuary of Afghanistan. While it was already well known that Bush had neocon advisers like Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, the true extent of their influence had not yet been manifested. (Colin Powell was also an important adviser and George W. was, after all, George H.W. Bush’s son.)
Myth #5. Hillary Clinton’s vote belies support for an “Imperial Presidency” that brooks no dissent, and disrespects Congress and other partners, foreign or domestic.
False! To the contrary, one of the reasons Hillary Clinton is so well qualified to be president is because she deeply respects the rule of law and, in particular, appropriate Congressional prerogatives and the Constitutional principle of checks and balances. (Indeed, this is precisely why she voted the way she did on the 2002 Iraq Resolution.) In this vein, she is also uniquely capable of reaching across the aisle to forge common-sense solutions, a “progressive who delivers results,” as she says.
One big truth: Hillary Clinton possesses another, singular, quality: she has the capacity to learn from the hard lessons that our Iraq adventure taught us, including from the misplaced trust she and others conferred on an Administration that brought so much grief to this country. She has said as much in her memoir, Hard Choices:
As much as I might have wanted to, I could never change my vote on Iraq. But I could try to help us learn the right lessons from that war and apply them to Afghanistan and other challenges where we had fundamental security interests. I was determined to do exactly that when facing future hard choices, with more experience, wisdom, skepticism, and humility.
It is clear that Hillary Clinton is a candidate for president who has learned from the lessons of history, and is capable of applying them to the future; in fact this quality is a critical ingredient of great leadership.
You just went through this a few months ago and you just get stuck on stupid. You criticize people for exercising their free speech by burning their CD's while whining that people want to shut the DCs up.
You're blind on this and your inability to accept anything but what you want to believe hinders you to see the truth and your hypocrisy here.
evince
Truthmatters
see why I know you are no dem
evince
Truthmatters
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton
Clinton attended Wellesley College, graduating in 1969, and earned a J.D. from Yale Law School in 1973. After serving as a congressional legal counsel, she moved to Arkansas, marrying Bill Clinton in 1975. In 1977, she co-founded Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families. She was appointed the first female chair of the Legal Services Corporation in 1978, and, the following year, became the first woman partner at Rose Law Firm. As First Lady of Arkansas, she led a task force whose recommendations helped reform Arkansas's public schools, and served on several corporate boards.
As First Lady of the United States, Clinton led the unsuccessful effort to enact the Clinton health care plan of 1993. In 1997 and 1999, she helped create the State Children's Health Insurance Program. She also tackled the problems of adoption and family safety and foster care. At the 1995 UN conference on women, held in Beijing, Clinton stated in a then controversial and influential speech, that "human rights are women's rights and women's rights are human rights". Her marriage endured the Lewinsky scandal of 1998, and her role as first lady drew a polarized response from the public.
Clinton was elected in 2000 as the first female senator from New York, the only first lady ever to have sought elective office. Following the September 11 attacks, she voted to approve the war in Afghanistan. She also voted for the Iraq Resolution (a vote she later said she regretted). She took a leading role in investigating the health issues faced by 9/11 first responders. She voted against the Bush tax cuts. She was re-elected to the Senate in 2006. Running for president in 2008, she won far more delegates than any previous female candidate, but lost the Democratic nomination to Barack Obama.
As Secretary of State in the Obama administration from 2009 to 2013, Clinton responded to the Arab Spring, during which she advocated the U.S. military intervention in Libya. She helped organize a diplomatic isolation and international sanctions regime against Iran, in an effort to force curtailment of that country's nuclear program; this would eventually lead to the multinational Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action agreement in 2015. Leaving office after Obama's first term, she wrote her fifth book and undertook speaking engagements before announcing her second presidential run in the 2016 election.
Clinton received the most votes and primary delegates in the 2016 Democratic primaries, formally accepting her party's nomination for President of the United States on July 28, 2016, with vice presidential running mate, Senator Tim Kaine. She became the first female candidate to be nominated for president by a major U.S. political party. As part of her 2016 platform, she has emphasized raising incomes, improvements to the Affordable Care Act and reform of campaign finance and Wall Street. She favors allowing pathways to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, expanding and protecting LGBT and women's rights, and instituting family support through paid parental leave and universal preschool.
Clinton attended Wellesley College, graduating in 1969, and earned a J.D. from Yale Law School in 1973. After serving as a congressional legal counsel, she moved to Arkansas, marrying Bill Clinton in 1975. In 1977, she co-founded Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families. She was appointed the first female chair of the Legal Services Corporation in 1978, and, the following year, became the first woman partner at Rose Law Firm. As First Lady of Arkansas, she led a task force whose recommendations helped reform Arkansas's public schools, and served on several corporate boards.
As First Lady of the United States, Clinton led the unsuccessful effort to enact the Clinton health care plan of 1993. In 1997 and 1999, she helped create the State Children's Health Insurance Program. She also tackled the problems of adoption and family safety and foster care. At the 1995 UN conference on women, held in Beijing, Clinton stated in a then controversial and influential speech, that "human rights are women's rights and women's rights are human rights". Her marriage endured the Lewinsky scandal of 1998, and her role as first lady drew a polarized response from the public.
Clinton was elected in 2000 as the first female senator from New York, the only first lady ever to have sought elective office. Following the September 11 attacks, she voted to approve the war in Afghanistan. She also voted for the Iraq Resolution (a vote she later said she regretted). She took a leading role in investigating the health issues faced by 9/11 first responders. She voted against the Bush tax cuts. She was re-elected to the Senate in 2006. Running for president in 2008, she won far more delegates than any previous female candidate, but lost the Democratic nomination to Barack Obama.
As Secretary of State in the Obama administration from 2009 to 2013, Clinton responded to the Arab Spring, during which she advocated the U.S. military intervention in Libya. She helped organize a diplomatic isolation and international sanctions regime against Iran, in an effort to force curtailment of that country's nuclear program; this would eventually lead to the multinational Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action agreement in 2015. Leaving office after Obama's first term, she wrote her fifth book and undertook speaking engagements before announcing her second presidential run in the 2016 election.
Clinton received the most votes and primary delegates in the 2016 Democratic primaries, formally accepting her party's nomination for President of the United States on July 28, 2016, with vice presidential running mate, Senator Tim Kaine. She became the first female candidate to be nominated for president by a major U.S. political party. As part of her 2016 platform, she has emphasized raising incomes, improvements to the Affordable Care Act and reform of campaign finance and Wall Street. She favors allowing pathways to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, expanding and protecting LGBT and women's rights, and instituting family support through paid parental leave and universal preschool.
'Bill said we were in imminent danger and Hillary voted for the war......\
Hillary on WMD and Saddam
-------------------------------------------
evince
Truthmatters
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_(1998)
Bombing of Iraq (1998)
The December 1998 bombing of Iraq (code-named Operation Desert Fox) was a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets from December 16, 1998, to December 19, 1998, by the United States and United Kingdom. The contemporaneous justification for the strikes was Iraq's failure to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions and its interference with United Nations Special Commission inspectors.
The operation was a major flare-up in the Iraq disarmament crisis. The stated goal of the cruise missile and bombing attacks was to strike military and security targets in Iraq that contributed to Iraq's ability to produce, store, maintain and deliver weapons of mass destruction. The bombing campaign had been anticipated since February 1998 and incurred wide-ranging criticism and support, at home and abroad.[2] Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates initially announced they would deny U.S. military the use of local bases for the purpose of air strikes against Iraq.[3]
Bombing of Iraq (1998)
The December 1998 bombing of Iraq (code-named Operation Desert Fox) was a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets from December 16, 1998, to December 19, 1998, by the United States and United Kingdom. The contemporaneous justification for the strikes was Iraq's failure to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions and its interference with United Nations Special Commission inspectors.
The operation was a major flare-up in the Iraq disarmament crisis. The stated goal of the cruise missile and bombing attacks was to strike military and security targets in Iraq that contributed to Iraq's ability to produce, store, maintain and deliver weapons of mass destruction. The bombing campaign had been anticipated since February 1998 and incurred wide-ranging criticism and support, at home and abroad.[2] Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates initially announced they would deny U.S. military the use of local bases for the purpose of air strikes against Iraq.[3]