U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-04-2008, 07:49 AM
 
403 posts, read 702,793 times
Reputation: 65

Advertisements

=============Post-Iraq War=======================

The problem wasn't the war resolution itself, Clinton argued, but how President Bush interpreted it. "He abused that authority; he misused that authority," Clinton said.

"I warned at the time it was not authority for a preemptive war. Nevertheless, he went ahead and waged one, which has led to the position we find ourselves in today."
Clinton's answer was a deft attempt at revisionist history. But even top Clinton supporters believe it was painfully clear what that war vote represented at the time. Here's what James Carville and Paul Begala wrote in their 2006 book, Take It Back:
Quote:
As opposition to the war has grown, some of the Democrats who supported it began to claim their vote was to put pressure on Iraq - that they voted merely to give the president the option to go to war. Bunk. The war resolution was a blank check. Senator Robert Byrd told his colleagues during debate on the resolution that they were "handing the president unchecked authority." The language of the resolution could not have been clearer: "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" against Iraq.












======================POST-IRAN VOTE======================

[CENTER]Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment
[/CENTER]
[LEFT]


“I voted for this resolution in order to apply greater diplomatic pressure on Iran. This resolution in no way authorizes or sanctions military action against Iran and instead seeks to end the Bush Administration's diplomatic inaction in the region...........

“In February, after troubling reports about the possibility of military action against Iran, I took to the Senate Floor to warn that President Bush needs Congressional Authorization before attacking Iran. Specifically, I said it would be a mistake of historical proportion if the Administration thought that the 2002 resolution authorizing force against Iraq was a blank check for the use of force against Iran without further and explicit Congressional authorization. Nor should the President think that the 2001 resolution authorizing force after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, in any way, authorizes force against Iran. If the Administration believes that any use of force against Iran is necessary, the President must come to Congress to seek that authority.

“Nothing in this resolution changes that.”



[/LEFT]
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-04-2008, 12:02 PM
 
Location: Boise
2,684 posts, read 6,406,629 times
Reputation: 1007
At the time the war was a popular idea so she supported it, now its not so popular so she is against. Now she's backpeddling trying to gain back her neo-hippy baby boomer, woodstock crowd. Sounds a little like Kerry. "I voted for it before I voted against it." give me a break...
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2008, 12:26 PM
 
Location: Texas
8,062 posts, read 16,753,808 times
Reputation: 3709
Can we all rewind and flash back to Fall 2001 and Spring 2002? Our country had just been attacked and we ALL had to put aside partisanship and be behind our president. As much as many Americans and people around the world had some serious misgivings about the ability of our newly inaugurated president to lead, we HAD to give him the chance and the support he needed. The choice was to be a united country in the face of terrible tragedy or to fragment, argue, and look disjointed to the terrorists.

Politicians had to give the president the powers he needed to make decisions and present a strong front to the world. That's simply the way it was. And I have very little doubt that if Obama had actually been in that Congress, he would have voted the same way. How easy is it now to claim the opposite, now that we HAVEN'T been attacked and when you WEREN'T THERE?! I'm not saying that all of the decisions Bush made were right and good and prevented further attacks but I AM saying that America had to be united and had to be squarely behind the president at that devastating time. Bush abused that trust and good will, of the Congress and of the world. But that couldn't be known AT THAT TIME.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2008, 01:36 PM
 
Location: Boise
2,684 posts, read 6,406,629 times
Reputation: 1007
Quote:
Originally Posted by teatime View Post
Can we all rewind and flash back to Fall 2001 and Spring 2002? Our country had just been attacked and we ALL had to put aside partisanship and be behind our president. As much as many Americans and people around the world had some serious misgivings about the ability of our newly inaugurated president to lead, we HAD to give him the chance and the support he needed. The choice was to be a united country in the face of terrible tragedy or to fragment, argue, and look disjointed to the terrorists.

Politicians had to give the president the powers he needed to make decisions and present a strong front to the world. That's simply the way it was. And I have very little doubt that if Obama had actually been in that Congress, he would have voted the same way. How easy is it now to claim the opposite, now that we HAVEN'T been attacked and when you WEREN'T THERE?! I'm not saying that all of the decisions Bush made were right and good and prevented further attacks but I AM saying that America had to be united and had to be squarely behind the president at that devastating time. Bush abused that trust and good will, of the Congress and of the world. But that couldn't be known AT THAT TIME.
There is a distinct difference between fighting terrorists in Afghanistan (just) and invading one of the few stable nations in the region (unjust). I'm not defending Hussein's human rights record because he was a cruel tyrant. But... he was a secularist tyrant at least with no really beef with the US. The WMD he didn't have but was undeniably trying to build were not for us, they were for Iran, a terrorist sponsoring nation. We would have been better off had we let him build up his weapons and invade Iran, then they would be his problem not ours. Or maybe we should have invaded our friends in Saudi Arabia, as there was definately more terrorists in thaat country than in Iraq.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2008, 02:30 PM
 
Location: Texas
8,062 posts, read 16,753,808 times
Reputation: 3709
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustinFromBoise View Post
There is a distinct difference between fighting terrorists in Afghanistan (just) and invading one of the few stable nations in the region (unjust). I'm not defending Hussein's human rights record because he was a cruel tyrant. But... he was a secularist tyrant at least with no really beef with the US. The WMD he didn't have but was undeniably trying to build were not for us, they were for Iran, a terrorist sponsoring nation. We would have been better off had we let him build up his weapons and invade Iran, then they would be his problem not ours. Or maybe we should have invaded our friends in Saudi Arabia, as there was definately more terrorists in thaat country than in Iraq.
Shoulda-woulda-coulda in 2008 isn't the point. The point is the national climate in late 2001-early 2002. Beyond what the Bush administration and U.S. intelligence were presenting, Tony Blair flew over here to tell Congress that British intelligence found the same thing. He even declared that Saddam could attack Western Europe in 45 minutes.

So, coupled with these sorts of reports and the fact that we had just been brutally attacked by terrorists and the American people were demanding that something be done, is it absolutely certain that Barack Obama would have voted against the resolutions? I don't think it is. Obama was honest enough at one point to admit that he doesn't know what he would have done if he was in the Senate at the time.

In all honesty, the candidates can only speak on what they will do if they win the presidency. The rest is history which, in hindsight, will judge itself and does us no good now. Hillary is right about the Democrats' need to prevent Bush from pushing through a permanent base in Iraq and doing anything else in that regard that will tie the next president's hands.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2008, 04:09 PM
 
403 posts, read 702,793 times
Reputation: 65
I seriously believe that Hillary vote for Iraq was because she wanted to run for President in 2008. Everyone who wanted to run for president in 2005 voted for iraq(edwards and kerry) or were in extreme red states voted for the war. She again voted to give Bush 'her trust' in Iran vote and within days went back crying that 'this is not the authority to attack the iranian guard'. In bob shrum book, he said edward didn't wanted to but voted because of political reason. Democrats who voted for this war knew what they were voting for and to say anything else is just a pure fantasy. Not everyone was under '9/11 shock'. A lot of democrats voted aganist the resolution.

She can't be trusted.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2008, 04:10 PM
 
48,508 posts, read 88,422,285 times
Reputation: 18187
I seem to remember that after the gulkf war Kerry made a speech in which he named Saddam as the most dangerous person to world peace and called for regime change. I also think that most people thought that saddam had WMD and the generals and politicans on TV were saying that we would lose 20,000 in the invasion itself. Politicans voted why they did becausethey believe it although their leaders in both parties had the same intelligence has bush had. There is no doubt that they and bush thought exactly that.The saddam interviews just released say that saddam did this to prevent a invasion by Iran.Obama was completely out of the intelligence loop so his opinion was no better than ours.Blair saw the intelligence and believed it. So I agree that it is only the fact that the president has to do more than hear the intelligence but act on it.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:42 PM.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top