On Meet the Press: Clinton justifies war vote, hits Obama

Clinton justifies war vote, hits Obama
Posted: Sunday, January 13, 2008 10:31 AM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: 2008, Clinton

From NBC’s Domenico Montanaro

Clinton justified her 2002 Iraq war vote again on Meet the Press, saying that she “thought it was a vote to put inspectors back in” so Saddam Hussein could not go unchecked. She insisted that she was “told by the White House personally” as were others that that’s what the resolution was for and noted that Bush himself said publicly that the resolution was the best chance to avoid a confrontation.

Moderator Tim Russert pointed out that the title of the resolution was the “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.”

Clinton responded saying , “We can have this Jesuitical discussion on what it means….I thought it was to let inspectors go in.”

Clinton then turned it back to Obama as she had earlier in the show, noting that his anti-Iraq intervention speech was in 2002; by 2003 it was down from his Web site; by 2004, he “was saying he really didn’t disagree with how George Bush was conducting the war;” from 2005 to 2007, he voted for war funding and didn’t go to the floor to condemn the war for 18 months; and “wasn’t for timelines initially.”

After Russert noted that she voted similarly, Clinton said, "I’m not premising my campaign on something different. I’m not here saying anything different from that. Judgment is not a single snapshot."

She also defended Bill Clinton’s “fairy tale” comment about Obama’s campaign, saying it was taken out of context; that he was, in fact, directly referring to Obama’s stance on the war through the years.

Clinton also attacked Obama for his lobbying reform bill, noting that at the pre-New Hampshire debate, it was pointed out that lobbyists could still buy meals as long as they are standing up. She reiterated that the campaign is the contrast between "rhetoric" and "reality."

“When the cameras are gone and the lights are off, what do you do next?” Clinton said of Obama. She even went on to say, “He does not have a record of producing change.”

The Obama campaign responded, saying, “Obama introduced and helped pass the strongest ethics reform since Watergate. It includes a full ban on gifts and meals from lobbyists, an end to subsidized travel for lawmakers on corporate jets, full disclosure on lobbyists’ campaign contributions, and restrictions to close the revolving door that enables former congressmen to become high-paid lobbyists.” The campaign goes on to cite the Washington Post, which called it “the strongest ethics legislation to emerge from Congress yet.”

NOTES: Clinton also posited on more than one occasion on the show that any political progress in Iraq was "because they see this election, and they don’t have much time.... It is a big factor in pushing the Iraqi govt to push them to do what they should have been doing all along." ... On her emotional moment, she called it a moment of "real human connection."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/13/574097.aspx

Never mind that it was fucking titled "The Iraq War Resolution."...

Y'right :eyes:

considering the word "inspections" was not in the law.

Her campaign must assume (probably correctly) that no-one in America bothered to read the law.
There was no call for any inspections. The AuMF was exactly what the title says :"Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq". Completely self-explanatory.

Let's look at the actual law:

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the
President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

There were NO CONDITIONS. The Congress merely "supported the efforts" to enforce UNSC resolutions. It's empty, meaningless rhetoric.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

Bush is given 100% sole authority to determine whether to use force in Iraq. Bush decides. Period.

(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate HIS DETERMINATION that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

Bush decides. No conditions. It is a blank check.

Time to give up that canard.

And judging by his failure to make principled stances, he would have voted yes, even if he knew it was wrong.

Every time you post this so called quote and leave off the last line you are attempting to mislead. And I won't let you do that.

it's true no one can say, including Obama, how he would have voted if he were in the Senate because he was not at the time.
But at worst, he might have screwed it up as much as Clinton.
Not much of a campaign slogan is it?

He might have screwed up like I did.

Since you have the power to make judgments about things that never happened, please clarify this issue:

How would Hillary have voted on the 1846 Declaration of War against Mexico?

She wasn't in the Senate then, but why not make a blind guess and post it as fact?

Context, subtlety, details of the decision-making processes... BAH! Fuck that shit!

I've oversimplified what you do, what you say, what it means... JUST TAKE IT! I'M RIGHT BECAUSE I IMPATIENTLY SWEEP ALL IMPORTANT DETAIL OUT OF THE WAY!

PERIOD!

and their Jesuitical discussion.

The Jesuits are counter-reformation upstarts and were banned from Norway until 1956.

And most Democrats in Congress voted against the damned thing.

If Clinton *really* believed as she said, she would have voted for the Levin amendment.

She "responded" to her words being distorted. She refuses to let the racialization die. It's part of her strategy like I've been saying.

she wins!

She's naive and inexperienced. 8 years of work under the Obama administration will do wonders for her judgement.

no action.

We need action. Not pretty words.

:rofl:

Thanks, Hillary, for your (lack of) judgement!

They vote out of political expediency... cowards running for cover.

Kool-aid drinkers.

-
On many levels.

If she just came out and admitted that she supported the war, or felt that since Bush had the votes there wasn't any choice but to bargain for the best resolution possible or simply that it was a mistake, she'd be on more credible ground.

It's amazing to me how something like this gets all-but-ignored in the political arena, as I am confident it will be, while arguments of FAR less merit that are useful to some agendas are used against Obama persistently and relentlessly. For example, the completely distorted presentation of his "present" votes in the Illinois legislature, even where this was part of a pro-choice strategy determined largely by others. (I recognize that the strategy might be flawed, but when you are working with a CO-ORDINATED political team, you go with the coordinated strategy).

Other examples of the readiness to jump on the so-called "audacity of hype" abound.

My god, did you not listen to anything she said? Good god, how do you put your pants on in the morning without help?

Whatever. Now we should all listen to what she said...while you say "pretty words" don't mean shit above. Ok...

on October 10, 2002. She didn't feel it was important enough to fully inform herself by reading the NIE before she cast that egregious odious vote with a straight face. Clinton went on so far as to tell smart people who thought she should apologize to find another candidate. Look how many found a candidate that had good sound judgment from the beginning not to trust the worst president ever and a known liar who would steal an election. Poor Hillary, the dupe on war. Hillary also had every opportunity to listen to the most experienced senator on the planet, Senator Robert Byrd. She was derelict in her duty and now trying to justify that she was with George Bush on matters of war and gave him a blank check to create the worst foreign policy debacle in the history of the United States of America. Hillary Clinton's judgment was suspect then, confirmed by her own lack of a sense of urgency to engage by being fully prepared before committing the moral authority, blood of our volunteer military or bankrupting the treasury because of her complete failure of leadership or cogent analysis of what a Commander in Chief should be in modern times.

Hillary trying to mitigate the size of that blunder by triangulating five years later the meaning of her utterly stupid war vote and FP precludes her from having the nuclear football because she has shown when its really important to the nation, trust the Liars. She should have voted no if she believed that and she did not have the courage or the leadership to vote for what she meant, but she did vote for what George W. Bush meant. :eyes:

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton say they are for change however they support many policies of the Bush administration. There Platforms are overwhelmingly similar, and include many issues most politically educated people would understand to be a more conservative stance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt0iTWQxykQ

Kucinich has been blocked out of the media and excluded from many debates, it is up to us to educate our selfs on the candidates and not allow the media to foce feed us lies

Hillary was brave to go on after the way Russert tried to trip her up before. I didn't see a single error on her part. She came across very well.

The name of the resolution was “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.”

Now, how can that not be interpreted as anything less than a vote for war? The plain meaning of the Resolution is that it is an authorization to Invade and bomb Iraq. It is not the "Give the Inspectors a Chance Resolution of 2002".

It's defending the indefensible.

They needed a war authorization to use as a stick to force Saddam to comply with inspections.

Do you really want somebody that gullible as President? Anybody that would take Bush at his word is not fit to be president. Period.

she talked to lots of people.

That's what I would call wilfully negligent and lazy in the face of what was being decided.
There is no excuse for that. And she did take Bush at his word. Talked to lots of people? That's the weakest counter I've ever heard. Try something else, that excuse is laughable at a minimum.
No excuse.

Any candidate who has to spend time justifying her vote for the war cannot speak with authority about getting out of Iraq nor will she be able to criticize any Republican who took the same vote. We'll see flip flops at the GOP convention all over again. Voters want a candidate with conviction that stands by her/his principles and that isn't Clinton.

not someone that backed them up with their vote.

And that goes for her supporters too.

Has he voted against all of Bush's requests to go to war and against funding them? Just wondering.

I'm really beginning to dislike this guy more and more.

Slick Obama. He makes Bill Clinton look absolutely forthright and blunt.

I guess you can't discount the fact that he's been groomed in Chicago style Dem politics.

He was not a U.S. Senator at the time of the vote.

I'll count that as "Yes I would have voted for it". Obama's record in the senate isn't exactly stellar in the area of standing up on controversial issues.

The more I learn about him, the less I like him.

What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made

You keep leaving that part off. Are you purposely attempting to mislead?

or a better way to put it...clinton is lying and some of you suckers believe it...shame on you

and, I have to say, I think she handled it very well. Oh and I am an Obama supporter.

He could of used that to pressure Saddam into letting inspectors back in. He needed the IWR for a full-on invasion, which he went ahead with despite inspectors doing their jobs, he also bypassed the UN as well. Even if her vote was to get inspectors back in, Bush cut them off and Hillary supported the war anyway.