It was clear to most of us at DU that it was wrong, right?

So my simple question is: When is Hillary Clinton's first recorded statement in opposition to the war? Can someone post it?

Or will you try to pretend like my request is "partisan politics at its dirtiest."

For me, the war is perhaps the most evil aspect to the last 7 years. Hillary APPEARS to have been willing to go along for the ride for most of it.

So someone please disavow me of this notion and post her EARLIEST statement in opposition.

isn't that just as important?????????????????

It matters far more how she's voted in the years since that initial vote:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x331580

:eyes:

but the truth is there for you to find if you are really looking for it. I think you may need to take your biased-goggles off (similar to beer goggles in that they prohibit you from seeing reality).

supporters like you what the Truth is. But... You can lead a horse to water but, well you know the rest.

nm

read more.....http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4802

terrible judgement for her to vote for the Kyle/Lieberman amendment

That does not imply that I am endorsing any other candidate who didn't bother to be there to vote.

Among Democrats who are against what we have done in Iraq, that vote in my view presents a major problem for her

It conflicts directly when she indicates she wants to get us out of Iraq, but at the same time calls for our remaining in Iraq as long as Iran is perceived a threat

I am not personally attacking her, but am attacking her position which is inconsistent at best

and at worst, does not believe we should leave Iraq

yeah...that's some dissent. :eyes:

to CYA her cowardly 'aye' vote.

If she were truly against a war of aggression, a war of pre-emption aagainst a sovereign nation that posed no imminent threat, she would NEVER have voted for an Iraq War Resolution. The fucking title says it all.

Sheesh

it was what she was voting for.

She has said that she takes responsibility for it, and if she knew then what she knows now, she would never have voted for it. She did not apologize for it--can you imagine the outcry of how weak of a woman she was if she did that? She will be damned no matter what she does.

I don't know what more you want from her? Groveling on her knees?

excuse. WE KNEW is was Bushit. We knew about PNAC. We knew the misadministration was full of liars, cheaters and thieves...

Hell, they fucking stole the WH in 2000. And many of us right here on the DU predicted the bastards would take us to war in Iraq.

HRC failed the test of political courage and leadership in October of 2000. Past is prologue. So she can tear up all she wants about the direction this country has taken but she needs only look in the mirror to see where part of the blame lies. Aiding and abetting a crime is a crime and she's culpable.

is not the same as sitting in the Senate with all the knowledge that comes with it--the briefings, the personal assurances by Bush, and ABOVE all the responsiblity.

Monday afternoon quarterbacking is so easy from your vantage point. But, if, instead of just jumping on the bandwagon, step back and look at the whole picutre of what was going on back then

You may have a different opinion.

Just look at all she said this morning. And research what happened at that time.

UNITED STATES SENATE

* Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii)
* Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico)
* Barbara Boxer (D-California)
* Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia)
* Lincoln Chaffee (R-Rhode Island)
* Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota)
* Jon Corzine (D-New Jersey)
* Mark Dayton (D-Minnesota)
* Dick Durbin (D-Illinois)
* Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin)
* Bob Graham (D-Florida)
* Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
* Jim Jeffords (I-Vermont)
* Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)
* Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
* Carl Levin (D-Michigan)
* Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland)
* Patty Murray (D-Washington)
* Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island)
* Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland)
* Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan)
* The late Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota)
* Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) Tom Allen (D-Maine) Joe Baca (D-California) Brian Baird (D-Washington) John Baldacci (D-Maine, now governor of Maine) Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin) Gresham Barrett (R-South Carolina) Xavier Becerra (D-California) Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon) David Bonior (D-Michigan, retired from office) Robert Brady (D-Pennsylvania) Corinne Brown (D-Florida) Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)

Lois Capps (D-California) Michael Capuano (D-Massachusetts) Benjamin Cardin (D-Maryland) Julia Carson (D-Indiana) William Clay, Jr. (D-Missouri) Eva Clayton (D-North Carolina, retired from office) James Clyburn (D-South Carolina) Gary Condit (D-California, retired from office) John Conyers, Jr. (D-Michigan) Jerry Costello (D-Illinois) William Coyne (D-Pennsylvania, retired from office) Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland)

Susan Davis (D-California) Danny Davis (D-Illinois) Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon) Diana DeGette (D-Colorado) Bill Delahunt (D-Massachusetts) Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut) John Dingell (D-Michigan) Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) Mike Doyle (D-Pennsylvania) John Duncan, Jr. (R-Tennessee)

Anna Eshoo (D-California) Lane Evans (D-Illinois) Sam Farr (D-California) Chaka Fattah (D-Pennsylvania) Bob Filner (D-California) Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas) Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois)

Alice Hastings (D-Florida) Earl Hilliard (D-Alabama, retired from office) Maurice Hinchey (D-New York) Ruben Hinojosa (D-Texas) Rush Holt (D-New Jersey) Mike Honda (D-California) Darlene Hooley (D-Oregon) John Hostettler (R-Indiana) Amo Houghton (R-New York, retired from office) Jay Inslee (D-Washington)

esse Jackson, Jr. (D-Illinois) Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas) Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas) Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Ohio) Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) Dale Kildee (D-Michigan) Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (D-Michigan) Jerry Kleczka (D-Wisconsin, retired from office) Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio)

John LaFalce (D-New York) James Langevin (D-Rhode Island) Rick Larsen (D-Washington) John Larson (D-Connecticut) Jim Leach (R-Iowa) Barbara Lee (D-California) Sandy Levin (D-Michigan) John Lewis (D-Georgia) Bill Lipinski (D-Illinois,retired from office) Zoe Lofgren (D-California)

James Maloney (D-Connecticut, retired from office) The late Robert Matsui (D-California) Karen McCarthy (D-Missouri, retired from office) Betty McCollum (D-Minnesota) Jim McDermott-D-Washington) Jim McGovern (D-Massachusetts) Cynthia McKinney (D-Georgia) Carrie Meek (D-Florida, retired from office) Gregory Meeks (D-New York) Robert Menendez (D-New Jersey) Juanita Millender-McDonald (D-California) George Miller (D-California) Alan Mollohan (D-West Virginia) Jim Moran (D-Virginia) Connie Morella (D-Maryland)

Jerrold Nadler (D-New York) Grace Napolitano (D-California) Richard Neal (D-Massachusetts) Jim Oberstar (D-Minnesota) David Obey (D-Wisconsin) John Olver (D-Massachusetts) Major Owens (D-New York)

Frank Pallone, Jr.
(D-New Jersey) Ed Pastor (D-Arizona) Ron Paul (R-Texas) Donald Payne (D-New Jersey) Nancy Pelosi (D-California) David Price (D-North Carolina) Nick Rahall (D-West Virginia) Charles Rangel (D-New York) Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas) Lynn Rivers (D-Michigan, retired from office) Ciro Rodriguez (D-Texas, retired from office) Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-California) Bobby Rush (D-Illinois)

Martin Olav Sabo (D-Minnesota) Loretta Sanchez (D-California) Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) Thomas Sawyer (D-Ohio) Jan Schakowsky (D-Illinois) Bobby Scott (D-Virginia) Jose Serrano (D-New York) Louise Slaughter (D-New York) Vic Snyder (D-Arkansas) Hilda Solis (D-California) Pete Stark (D-California) Ted Strickland (D-Ohio) Burt Stupak (Michigan)

Mike Thompson (D-California) Bennie Thompson (D-Mississippi) John Tierney (D-Massachusetts) Edolphus Towns (D-New York) Mark Udall (D-Colorado) Tom Udall (D-New Mexico)

Nydia Velaquez (D-New York) Pete Visclosky (D-Indiana) Maxine Waters (D-California) Diane Watson (D-California) Melvin Watt (D-North Carolina) Lynn Woolsey (D-California) David Wu (D-Oregon)

your post beautifully demostrates the true patriotic Dems versus the moral cowards (with D beside their names) who were hedging their bets for future political advantage.

:hi:

I was there in October 2002, calling and emailing Congress about the Bushit being foisted on US, the American people, by IWR and those who were going along to get along and get ahead politically (so they thought)through their cowardly votes.

And you must be characterizing yourself when you say "sitting behind your computer in your mother's basement," since such snarky remarks are the obvious last resort of fools with weak arguments!

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?

She gave that piece of shit speech to have it both ways, to CYA her cowardly 'aye' vote.

If she were truly against a war of aggression, a war of pre-emption aagainst a sovereign nation that posed no imminent threat, she would NEVER have voted for an Iraq War Resolution. The fucking title said it all.

After all, that other member of the axis of evil -- North Korea -- had nukes (i.e. WMDs) and the Bush bastards didn't dare go there. Moreover the lie of IWR was betrayed by the fact that those selling it said in one breath that Iraq posed an imminent threat (mushroom cloud and all) and in another breath that the war would be a cake walk. Think about the ridiculous paradox (what a euphemism) of those two statements.

Parsing, tiangulation, doublespeak, bullshit. HRC is full of it. And no matter what anyone says by way of excuse, how she could swallow (hook, line and sinker) such bait put forth by the Bushes poor judgment and poor leadership.

eom

Too bad she didn't listen to colleagues in the Senate who are her superior in every imaginable way who told her and others repeatedly not to sign a blank check. Stupidity or overweaning ambition. Take your choice. She was either stupid or put her political ambitions over the lives of hundreds of thousands. She has blood on her hands.

I am by no means an strong supporter of either obama or clinton, but the fact remains that Obama (although speaking against the war in 2002) has voted almost entirely the same way as Clinton has since then. Despite "missing" the Kyl-Lieberman vote in the senate which was a convenient move, in regards to funding the war Obama has voted the same as everyone else.

So, without making this a gruesome clinton v obama thread, I think it is important to point that fact out. It isnt a cop-out for Clinton, but the simple fact of the matter is that Obama really hasnt been different since 2002.

he spelled out the lies and he predicted the mess such a war would lead to and HE WAS RIGHT!

No matter what Senator Obama has SAID about the war against Iraq, he has done little or nothing to put a stop to it, and most telling, has used his authority as a U.S. Senator explicitly to continue the war-- and his words not withstanding, that is ALL his actions have amounted to on this issue. Both Senators Clinton and Obama are equally culpable for the Iraq war today, IMO.

Which do you prefer?

...at every opportunity. I will not be trapped by the "lessor of two evils" dichotomy.

...Clinton nor Obama are clean WRT the war against Iraq.

HRC voted for the war from the get-go and continued to do so

Obama spoke against the war but once in the Senate voted like the others (though he could parse that he was voting to support the troops since the die had already been cast).

JE voted for the war from the get-go

against Iraq. Even if, in her mind, her vote wasn't one for "rushing to war," what in the hell did she think Bush was going to do with that authority? Did she REALLY trust that bastard to do the right thing? If so, she is one sorry judge of character.

Actions speak louder than words, and regardless of the caveats she made before the vote, she still voted to authorize it. In this case, she out Liebermans Lieberman.

How anyone with a functioning neuron could trust the Bushes after they stole the WH is beyond me. But especially HRC! Remember how the Bushbots trashed the Clintons, saying they had vandalized the WH when leaving?

Just who the fuck did HRC think she was entrusting such awesome power to?! Robert Byrd warned his colleagues, but no, HRC showed poor judgment, poor leadership and political cowardice.

Then and now, she and her loyalists are trying to triangulate, spin and otherwise bullshit the rest of us.

yeah, that's pretty placatory. Notwithstanding that Iraq had already been disarmed for nearly a decade by that point.

Senator Clinton has been a consistent supporter of the war against Iraq since at least late October 2002 when she voted in favor of using military force against Iraq, without any justification whatsoever. Since that time she has either defended her support or triangulated around the issue, i.e. claiming to oppose the war but refusing to do anything tangible-- and within her authority-- to stop it. She's become like the coy maiden whose lips say "No" but whose actions say "Yes."

"She's become like the coy maiden whose lips say "No" but whose actions say "Yes.""

:hi::hi::hi::hi::hi:

"President Huckabee".

When she signed the Levin amendment.

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=257561


Now, I'm sure you will take issue with the fact that she opposed a "date certain" at that time --but her reasonings are, to me, quite sound.

you can notice from her floor speeches her increasing attitudes on bringing troops home back in 2004
http://clinton.senate.gov/issues/nationalsecurity/iraq/

and of course she states quite clearly her objections to a pre-emptive war in Iraq in 2002.

On edit, you are the only one even brave enough to answer. Bravo!

So the question that I was asked most frequently when I returned was, well, are you optimistic or pessimistic, and I have to confess that my answer is neither. I am both a little optimistic and a little pessimistic, but what I'm trying to do is be realistic about where we are and what we need to be successful. We have no option but to stay involved and committed.
To that end, I applauded both Secretaries Powell and Rumsfeld for their recent trip to NATO to persuade NATO to become involved in Iraq. This may be somewhat tardy, but it is very welcome. Unfortunately, there has not been a very positive response from NATO as of yet. At this point, I think, NATO -- and indeed, non-NATO allies -- have as much of a stake in the success of Iraq as we do. And therefore, they should be looking to work with the administration to create the opportunities that they can then pursue to become more involved in Iraq. It would be extremely important and it would remove the taint of this being an American occupation.
Secondly, I would strongly recommend we create some kind of organization -- call it what you will; the Iraq Reconstruction and Stabilization Authority, or whatever name is chosen. It could include a proper role for NATO and for the U.N., which would replace the Coalition Provisional Authority, which would add both military and civilian resources so that this was not just an American occupation, and would provide more flexibility for us in achieving the timetable at whatever speed is appropriate to transfer sovereignty to the Iraqis.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/6600/remarks_by_senator_hillary_rodham_clinton_transcript.html

She says it in the speech --she says we made a mistake by diverting attention from Afghanistan

...and making it more of a NATO operation-- something most of the other NATO members were never too keen on, BTW. It is most assuredly NOT a repudiation of the war against Iraq. It mirrors the sorts of things John Kerry was saying at more-or-less the same time, e.g. that he/we could do a better job of conducting the war than the Bush administration.

not just the snippet.

...that you think makes the point? I've read it-- I still can't find any unequivocal statement of opposition to the war, and the fact remains that Senator Clinton has repeatedly worked to prolong the war every time an opportunity to vote for it arose. As has Senator Obama and former Senator Edwards. Is this really the best the democratic party has to offer? That speech does repeat an awful lot of Bush administration talking points, though. Must. Win. The War. On. Terror.

people don't really wish to be informed by anything more than soundbites.

sad.

I read the speech you posted. It repeats a number of Bush administration talking points about Sept. 11, winning the war on terror, and our courageous young military men and women. Where do you see any real opposition to the war against Iraq, or to the larger foreign policy that spawned it? Perhaps we're simply interpreting HRC's words differently. I'm listening....

several times

in this same thread.

I've tried to be receptive but you're apparently not interested in making your point clearly, even when given a direct invitation, so I'll make mine instead.

The speech you linked calls for MORE involvement in Iraq, not less. In it Senator Clinton unequivocally expresses her support for Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq, for the so-called war on terror, and she moves through the whole litany of neocon talking points, linking the war to Sept 11 and so on. she advocates expanding the war, not stopping it. She effusively praises the capture of Saddam Hussein, who events turned out to exonerate WRT all of the trumped up reasons for invading Iraq. She is an utter cheerleader FOR the war.

She does advocate including more non-American troops in the occupation-- hardly a call for ending it. The Bush administration was making the same call. Remember the "coalition of the willing?"

I cannot find a single statement any reasonable person would construe as opposition to the war or to the larger objectives of the Bush foreign policy. I've tried. I've asked for your assistance. I don't know what else to conclude other than that your post was a smokescreen meant to obfuscate this discussion.

She is calling for a transition to a more international presence at this point as a means to have the Iraqi Government begin to stand on it's own. She is arguing for this to occur in July of '04

She is criticizing Bush for his hamhanded approach to the War --and calling for a whole new direction to the conflict, she's even warning about our continued presence in what is becoming a Civil-War in Iraq.

and this is back in Dec '03

Bush was not keeping the commitments made. Hillary didn't. Kerry was labeled anti-war in 2002 and the first half of 2003 because of his many statements.

Also, Kerry's comments on This Week showed a willingness to admit that it in view of how Bush used it, it was the wrong vote - something he has been saying since October 2005. He sad it was the wrong war at least a million times in 2004 and by 2006, referred to the war as immoral.

HRC is using JK's 2004 explanation - but the fact that he did speak up - as he said he would - before the war makes me believe him more. The Clintons had the loudest voices in the Democratic party - if they had made it an issue in early 2003, people might look at the decision to go to war as having been made in March 2003 - over Democratic protests.

after so much death and destruction. Too little, too late.

...and it's evident in her votes.

She gives Bush the power to go to war, voting "yes" on the Iraq war resolution. Then, she
recently gave Bush a marketing plank for his propaganda campaign against Iran, by voting
"yes" on Kyl/Lieberman, which formally declares an arm of the Iranian government--a "terrorist
organization".

Now, Clinton says that her initial Iraq-war vote was not a vote for war. She's also spun her
Kyl/Lieberman vote as a vote to help "foster diplomacy" between Iran and the US.

Oh please. Is this the biggest pile of bullshit ever?

It's right out of the Bush playbook. Let's pollute the skies and call it the "Clean Skies Initiative". Let's
tear down the forests and call it the "Healthy Forest" act.

She's not only voting along the neocon lines, she's spinning her votes in ridiculous ways--just as
they do.

Look at the results of those votes. The spin is bullshit.

she was wrong?

I don't mean to de-rail your Post Bonobo, but I've been searching for concrete quotes and can't find what I'd wished I could.

thanks-
(And I agree with you about the IWR, I was really distressed when JK voted in favor- and believe he truly regrets his dicision, not only by his own words, but through his many actions since then)

1. If Hillary fans cannot answer this question, it is troubling for a variety of reasons:
a. They don't know about her position vis a vis the war and they don't care.
b. Hil didn't oppose the war until it was obviously in her political interest to do so. This shows her true stripes.
c. In the GE, they will flog us, claiming that she is a political panderer and nothing more, on the most important issue to Democratic voters.

Someone posted a 2003 video of a Q & A she did with Code Pink; in it, she talked about the need to disarm Saddam Hussein and said "I am confident in my vote after carefully reviewing intelligence information and talking to people I trust". She was so wrong, so way off - and to this day still defends her vote.

With so many Americans AGAINST this war, why are so many Democrats in denial over Hillary's pro-war stance? Why is it OK she has not addressed her vote as John Edwards has? Why isn't the media questioning her on her poor judgement and inability to admit she made a mistake?

If Hillary Clinton is elected president, she will continue Bush's war and keep our troops in Iraq. I am not OK with that.

and inability to admit she made a mistake?"

Timmy Russert did this AM on Meet the Press. It was interesting to see her twisted triangulation.

Bottom line: NO SALE.

Despite the 39% in NH, she's a loser in the GE because repukes hate her, independents won't stomach her and many Dems (as this board demonstrates) run the gamut from lukewarm to visceral opposition.

Touche!
Exactly!

Since we all know she was for it before she was against it! When did the shifting winds lead to her finding her change of voice?!

her voting record (and defense of it to this day) don't seem to indicate that.

when I've been so used to her saying we were going to be there for a while, and her votes. So I don't know what to believe from her now. I would EXPECT our nominee to pull over 100,000 troops out within 12 months as I believe she said in the NH debate in agreement with John. If she didn't say that, someone please let me know. Richardson was wrong when he said he was the only one who was going to immediately pull the troops, because Edwards would pull them as quick as feasible without risking their lives (the ones left behind waiting).

She said she was against a preemptive war the day she voted for the IWR. The Bush Administration gave her assurances they would give the inspectors time to do their work.

The problem with the rush to war with Iraq is that it is such a major fuck-up that it defies traditional concepts of responsibility. The only people with easy answers then or now were and are those with little responsibility. All the others were on the world stage when Bush decided to take a crap in the middle of it.

Bush and his fellow geniuses victimized the whole world.

This is what she voted for. How can one be "against preemptive war" and simultaneously authorize a blank check for preemptive war? It's her ACTIONS that had meaningful consequences that day, not her words. And besides, as has been amply documented in this thread and others, she has continued to cheerlead for the war ever since and has never missed an opportunity to vote to prolong it. Actions count.

She voted for what she voted for--not for Bush to do with it what he did. Basically she handed a loaded gun to a child. But the child was officially the President of the United States. Normally it would have been a reasonable thing to do. A Dem president would want the loaded gun too. And the people wanted the president to have a loaded gun. So there's the Democracy nuance.

Or anything suggesting the sort of leadership America needs to get out of this mess? I don't think there is.

Clearly, lots of people disagree with my assessment, just as you point out that lots of people were swept up in the war fervor trumpeted before the invasion of Iraq. I'll be frank-- I was not one of them then and I'm not one of them now.

We can argue all day long about what Senator Clinton was thinking, what she said at the time, who she believed, and when she believed it. Lots of other democratic legislators followed the same path, so this isn't just about Sen. Clinton. Ultimately, it was their actions that had the consequences we face today, not their delusions or their justifications. Sen. Clinton voted to give George Bush personal, unconditional, unequivocal authority to preemptively attack another country, to engage in a naked war of aggression, the supreme international crime. No one who voted for that simple piece of legislation can dodge their responsibility for the consequences.

And what about the dem legislators who voted AGAINST the IWR? If the vote for it was so rational, was their act of courage irrational? If Sen. Clinton believed America needed to show strength against a despotic dictator, did they believe that weakness was a better course?

I don't think so. I think they acted in America's best interests, and in the worlds best interest, while Sen. Clinton and others played political games with the lives of hundreds of thousands in order to further their own career prospects. They rolled the dice and the dice came up turds all around. They've been trying to polish them ever since. That's ambition, not leadership.

The IWR vote was a gamble either way. I respect only the Dems, whichever way they voted. I don't assume they made their decision for any particular political reason. I think they had the best interest of the country in mind for the most part. I don't think the pro-IWR voters thought they were giving Bush a blank check to go unilaterally (in effect) against Iraq, and I think the statements they gave (including Hillary's IWR vote speech) clearly bear that out. Those who voted against the IWR vote had their reasons but they weren't "right." They merely voted in a way that would have prevented Bush's crime, like a parole board who votes to keep a prisoner in prison when the prisoner is eligible for parole. The consensus on Bush was wrong at the time.

Everyone who thought Bush and his allies were doing something stupid, reckless, nakedly political, destructive, immoral, or illegal deserves a pat on the back. Like you, I assumed it was a political crime by Bush. But neither of us actually had to make the decision. So anything we said, regardless of how true it ended up being is not significant. The clout of the speaker has to be factored in. The relatively powerless who spoke out against the war don't have anything to crow about. They were right, but few care.

Most of the Dems who voted pro-IWR clearly suspected Bush's motives if not his competence. Hillary's worst mistake was not reading the NIE and just relying on what she was told by the Bush Administration and her contacts regarding the WMD. This is a case where she could have saved the day, not by making an impassioned speech against Bush's hidden motives and unproven (at that time) incompetence, but by finding out that CIA analysts differed on the existence of WMDs.

The Republicans who voted for the IWR share in Bush's eternal blame, because they empowered Bush to bring the issue to a head during an election. The war is a Republican War, born of a Republican President and a now thoroughly disgraced Republicanism itself. If there were no Republicans in the government at the time, there would have been no war.

b/c I thought she said she would start bringing home the troops within the 1st year, in the NH debate. Someone who remembers her answer (a Clinton supporter) a bit more clear than me wanna weigh in? I know Edwards and Richardson said they would, but I thought she said she would start bringing them home immediately also.