See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: Iraq war returns as prime debate issue
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/a ... returns_as_prime_debate_issue/
Published: Feb 1, 2008
Author: Susan Milligan
Post Date: 2008-02-01 08:10:02 by angle
Keywords: None
Views: 164
Comments: 9
LOS ANGELES - Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton last night defended her 2002 vote to authorize force in Iraq as a "reasoned" decision at the time, while her primary opponent, Senator Barack Obama, said Clinton's vote raised questions about whether she has the judgment to lead the country. In the last debate before Super Tuesday and the first two-person face-off since the campaign began more than a year ago, Iraq - long dormant as an issue in the Democratic race - returned to the forefront last night. Obama said his consistent antiwar stance would make him a stronger candidate against Senator John McCain of Arizona, the GOP front-runner. Clinton, meanwhile, portrayed herself as the contender with the experience and gravitas to confront a Republican opponent in the general election campaign. "I've said many times that if I knew then what I know now, I would never have given President Bush the authority" to attack Iraq, Clinton said, declining to apologize for her vote. But there was "a credible case" for the resolution, Clinton said, adding that she did not expect Bush to invade Iraq in March 2003 without letting the weapons inspectors first finish their work. Obama, an Illinois lawmaker who was not in the Senate when the vote was taken in October 2002, countered that "everybody, the day after the vote was taken, understood that this was a vote to go to war." While Clinton has "fairly" espoused her experience and ability to take charge from day one, he said, "it is important to be right on day one."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
"...In clinging to a lie that she concocted to protect herself politically, Clinton reinforces years of doubts about her credibility. To do so on the eve of the most important day in the political calendar is arrogant or reckless. Either way, it was a gift to Barack Obama, who, as a result, came away the big winner last night. But her claim about the 2002 vote set off my Whopper Alert. She insisted she was voting to send inspectors into Iraq and that the invasion was a "misuse" of the authority Congress gave Bush. The facts are otherwise. As Obama noted, the title of the resolution was the "Authorization for use of military force against Iraq," and news reports said it meant war was almost certain. There was no ambiguity..."
"Only the educated are free." ~ Epictetus
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4218509&page=1 By BRIAN ROSS, MADDY SAUER and RHONDA SCHWARTZ Jan. 31, 2008 In six years as a member of the Wal-Mart board of directors, between 1986 and 1992, Hillary Clinton remained silent as the world's largest retailer waged a major campaign against labor unions seeking to represent store workers. Clinton Was Silent As Wal-Mart Railed Against UnionsClinton has been endorsed for president by more than a dozen unions, according to her campaign Web site, which omits any reference to her role at Wal-Mart in its detailed biography of her. Wal-Mart's anti-union efforts were headed by one of Clinton's fellow board members, John Tate, a Wal-Mart executive vice president who also served on the board with Clinton for four of her six years.
"Only the educated are free." ~ Epictetus
...In the Senate debate in October 2002 on the vote on whether to give President Bush authority to invade Iraq, Senator Clinton made a well crafted and carefully thought out argument. In it she gave very much of an on the one hand but on the other hand speech, ultimately voting, of course, for authorization for war. In describing the rationale for approving the carte blanche given Bush, she focused on Saddam’s alleged efforts to rebuild his WMD program, including his nuclear program, as well as his links to al-Qaida, to whom she claimed he was giving "aid, comfort and sanctuary." She claimed that Saddam’s ongoing WMD programs and links to al-Qaida, were "undisputed." At the close of her speech she stressed that she cast this vote "with conviction" and asked President Bush to use these powers "wisely." She has admitted that she never read the National Intelligence Report relating to Iraq. It is common knowledge now that neither of her premises were correct. It is also clear that there was ample information in the intelligence community readily available at the time undercutting both assertions. Saddam had no WMD program, no nuclear program and no links to al-Qaida. Indeed Saddam and al- Qaida were enemies, the former the tyrannical ruler of a secular dictatorship and the latter religious fanatics. Not only was the alleged "link" nonexistent, it made no sense. Her request that President Bush use the powers she granted him "wisely" was classic abdication of responsibility when it was evident that the Bush Administration was determined to invade Iraq for reasons unrelated to alleged WMDs or links to al-Qaida. After the passage of that resolution the war was inevitable. Senator Clinton insists that she has no regrets about her vote...
"Only the educated are free." ~ Epictetus
Iraq and Iran in the Democratic Debate Here are the Iraq portions of the Barack-Hillary debate in Los Angeles Thursday night. Both candidates impressed me with their grasp of detail and the serious thought that they have given for how to get out of Iraq without leaving behind a catastrophe that will come around to bite us on the ass. Chuck Todd says he thought Barack won the debate on the strength of his Iraq comments, and that Hillary was at a disadvantage because she had to explain once again why she voted to authorize the war. She even put herself in a position of being called naive about Bush by Wolf Blitzer, the moderator, because she went on about how she hadn’t expected Bush to misuse the authorization. I didn’t see others comment on Barack’s dig at Hillary over "mission creep" toward Iran. This was a reference to her vote for the Kyl-Lieberman resolution encouraging Bush to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps a terrorist organization (even though they are now a regular military analogous to the US National Guards, and in the past terrorism has been defined as the action of a non-state actor). Clinton painted Obama as soft on Iran, he painted her as devoted to mission creep and confrontation with Iran. This might be another point on which he won; polling does not suggest the American public wants practical belligerent steps toward Iran. It is worth noting that Clinton misstated the 1998 events. The US did not bomb Iraq because Saddam "kicked out" the UN weapons inspectors. The US decided to bomb Iraq for other reasons and therefore ordered the inspectors out of the country. The myth that Saddam "kicked out" the inspectors just won’t die. Here is what the candidates said: OBAMA: And the last point I’ll make is on Iraq. Senator Clinton brought this up. I was opposed to Iraq from the start. (Cheers, applause.) And that —and I say that not just to look backwards but also to look forwards, because I think what the next president has to show is the kind of judgment that will ensure that we are using our military power wisely. It is true that I want to elevate diplomacy, so that it is part of our arsenal to serve the American people’s interests and to keep us safe. And I have disagreed with Senator Clinton on, for example, meeting with Iran. I think — and the National Intelligence Estimate, the last report suggested that if we are meeting with them, talking to them, and offering them both carrots and sticks, they are more likely to change their behavior, and we can do so in a way that does not ultimately cost billions of dollars, thousands of lives, and hurt our reputation around the world. (Applause.) . . . MR. MCMANUS: A question about the issue of Iraq. Senator Clinton, you’ve both called for a gradual withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq, but Senator Obama says he wants all combat troops out within 16 months of his Inauguration, and you haven’t offered a specific end date. Why shouldn’t voters worry that your position could turn into an open-ended committment? SEN. CLINTON: Well, because, Doyle, I have been very clear in saying that I will begin to withdraw troops in 60 days. I believe that it will take me one to two brigades a month, depending upon how many troops we have there, and that nearly all of them should be out within a year...
"Only the educated are free." ~ Epictetus
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
My goodness, what is wrong with you?
"Only the educated are free." ~ Epictetus
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
Specifically, I was referring to the word "decent" used in conjunction with hillary. and secondly that her pledges are anything other than vote getters.
"Only the educated are free." ~ Epictetus
Hillary gave the best defense of the Iraq Invasion I've heard. And the whole vote thing before in 2002. Haven't heard any Admin official lay it out like that. As far as any US withdrawals, don't hold your breath. IMO, the last American to die there hasn't been born yet and there's no way we're leaving.
www.nydailynews.com/news/...f_with_old_iraq_clai.html
#2. To: All (#0)
#3. To: All (#0)
www.californiaprogressrep...02/hillary_clinton_2.html
#4. To: All (#0)
www.agoravox.com/article.php3?id_article=7627
#5. To: angle (#0)
#6. To: ghostdogtxn (#5)
she will be decent enough to keep at least this pledge, to pull our troops out.
#7. To: angle (#6)
#8. To: ghostdogtxn (#7)
#9. To: ghostdogtxn (#7)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest