Here's what Obama should say to Clinton tonight about her IWR vote:

Senator in October of 2002 Senator Leahy said that this would be the most important vote anyone in that body would cast. He went on to say:

"This resolution, like others before it, does not declare anything. It tells the President: Why don't you decide; we are not going to.

This resolution, when you get through the pages of whereas clauses, is nothing more than a blank check. The President can decide when to use military force, how to use it, and for how long."

Why did you cast a vote to give President Bush a blank check to go to war?

Or were you really as gullible as you claim?

She and most of the Dems in Congress voted for the IWR.

It was not a bad idea to topple Saddam.
Our soldiers did everything that was asked of them. Saddam was toppled, the Iraqi people voted for their government. We won the war. We have lost and continue to lose the OCCUPATION. It is tragic that so many lives were lost during this occupation. We should have come out when the loss of our troops was in the hundreds, not thousands.

It wasn't Iraqi war that was the big mistake. It was and is the OCCUPATION.

Most Americans were misled by Bush and most were in favor of going after Saddam...thanks to the job the media did on Bush's behalf.

Hillary can stand toe to toe with any Republican on the issues of national security, defense, and concern for our veterns. Obama would not be able to do this.

who have no intention of voting for a Dem anyway.

and judgment. The Iraq war may not be the most important issue, but it hasn't faded away completely by any means.

Just associate those two words:

BLANK CHECK = HILLARY CLINTON

because Senator Obama has voted to fund the war at every turn.

and therefore, war, less likely". Taken from Hillary's senate speech a the time of the IWR. No crystal ball telling her that Chimpy would jump the gun.

He was completely right and she was flat wrong, and he lays it out simply enough for anyone to understand. It was a blank check. And he used JUDGMENT and the CONSTITUTION not a frickin' crystal ball.

National defense, as most senators saw it, trumped Leahy's judgement.

and then stand back and watch him stutter and stammer.

Come on Cali..you are FULL of opinions..what has he done?
Or do you prefer to simply attack?

she cast a vote for a blank check to chimpy. simple and to the point. And it was said by the Chair of the JC contemperaneously.

it astounds me that you have no answer...
You can't answer, because he hasn't done shit...
pure and simple.
and when the Iran issue came up..he ran away rether thsn take a stand.

and he's voted for every piece of legislation mandating that. And missing the K/L vote isn't the same as voting FOR it. The real point though is JUDGMENT. She had the deplorable judgment to vote for it, instead of heeding the words of people far more experienced and wiser than she is.

cowardly and troubling...

Get out and read Obama's postion and record before throwing blanket generalities. It does not make you look as smart as you think.

but it's not. American Idiot would be a better name.
mustn't offend your opposition with cruel facts of life and death - just slights and innuedoes and bad 'manners' counts. Mentioning charred bodies, ripped up families, countries screaming out in suffering and agony is 'not playing fair'.

Hillary = vote for war
Obama = vote against war

Aren't we being disingenuous if we don't admit that it just isn't that simple? This reductionist debate IMHO obscures the real questions about each candidate's judgment:

Re: Clinton's Judgment:

PRO: Can't we agree that Hillary Clinton was not advocating war when she voted for the 2002 resolution? That it is quite possible that she believed the resolution would buy enough time for non-military solutions (sanctions, monitoring etc...) to work?

CON: In justifying her vote, Clinton stated: "it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President"

Does not a vote by ANY democrat in late 2002 to give GWB "awesome responsibility" represent a great error in judgment? Does Clinton still believe that it was "in the best interests of the nation" to give Bush carte blanche to attack preemptively? Does Clinton indeed support the Bush administration's national security strategy report (announced in September 2002 and still in effect) that explicitly rejects "traditional concepts of deterrence" (and 50 years of international law against aggressive warfare) in favor of preemptive actions to combat "imminent threats" as determined solely by the Administration? Would she immediately revoke this strategy if elected President?

Re: Obama's Judgment:

PRO: Can't we agree that Barack Obama spoke out against the resolution and the war from the outset and that this stance was a courageous one in the recent aftermath of 9/11?

CON: Was it not much easier to take a principled stance against the resolution and the war from safely outside the Beltway? Isn't Obama being disingenuous when he contrasts his stance with Clinton's as if they both faced the same responsibility and potential consequences? Had the international sanctions and monitoring proved ineffective and had Al Qaeda succeeded in infiltrating Iraq's collapsing political economy, at what point -- if any -- would Obama have supported military intervention? What is his position on the 2002 Security Strategy?

These are important questions that I for one want answers to.

AFTER SUCH A FUCKUP?

It would be totally sweet if that happened.

"I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made." July 26, 2004

We know he has a tendency to vote "present" and he has a lackadaisical slacker~ish attendance record for votes, so HE HIMSELF SAID HE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE WOULD HAVE DONE. THE REPUBS WILL BRING IT UP AND THROW IT IN HIS FACE IF HE WERE TO BECOME THE NOMINEE.

that Kerry, who had voted for the IWR, was our nominee at the time, and thus likely to paint Kerry's actions in as good a light as possible.

He can try and dance around it all he likes but he said it. He owns it...the repubs will make him eat those words letter by letter. Either his a big fat flip~flopper or he was just playing politics and saying whatever sounded right at the time...either way it doesn't play well.

who works for Syrian slum~lords and is connected to Iraqi Nahdmi Auchi. So, no I don't trust Obama.

And refuses to apologize for it. That is the LAST person we need in the White House dealing with fixing US foreign policy.

"We need a politics where our leaders are thinking about what is best for the people, not what is best for the next election."

other than to say he was against the war....he wasn't in a position to have to make that decision. To do so is akin to being an armchair quarterback. But I don't think if he were, it would have been a 98-2 vote either. Besides, Bush was going in with or without congress.

It's just something for you Obama people to keep poking a stick at her for.

criticizing accomplishes nothing, especially when you haven't walked in someone's shoes...

Obama's lack of experience is being sold as a "positive"...Rovian handbook at it's best.