Hill Bill all the way

[Tony]

Dar wrote:

Read Barbara's claim carefully. It is regarding what those who voted for the resolution understood it to mean, not what a bunch of cherry picked headlines and pundits thought it might mean. Of course people are going to differ on this but it's easy to go hunting and after the fact find people who turned out to be right. These people made the mistake of taking Bush at his word, trusting him. He lied. Every time he said war would be used only as "last resort," and he said that a lot, he lied.

What I wanted to point out, and I think I can with many, many more citations, is that everyone should have expected what was coming. There was no secret over it. I remember when the vote happened that if it passed in its vague form, we would likely invade Iraq. That's why when Hillary, Edwards, Kerry, et al. voted for it, I was soooo angry. Like I said, 156 other members of Congress voted against it. Why? Because they argued, it was a blank check. How did they know it, and the others who voted for the war did not??

It does not matter what those who voted for it said they thought it meant other than they were stupid and wrong.
Look at my quote from Leahy again:
"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"
How did he know this? Because everyone was saying it. It was common knowledge.
Remember Dems tried to pass the Platt Amendment to the bill that would require Bush to come back to Congress after the UN votes to get final authorization for using force. It failed. Then Hillary et al. voted for it anyway. That is sooo inexcusable. Bush wanted vague wording, the world had a good idea what was in store, and half the Dems including Hillary handed him just what he wanted and needed.
Much of that debate centered on the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and the danger in handing Bush a blank check. How can you excuse them now? They are simply covering thier asses now, for covering their asses back then.
Again, the crucial question is: If Bush duped poor Hillary and poor Kerry, how do you explain to me, and Wellstone, Pelosi, Kennedy, Kuckinich, Leahy etc. etc. who knew then that we were giving Bush a blank check, what went wrong? How do you explain that discrpency. Those of us who opposed the war resolution turned out to be 100% correct, acting on histoy and what we knew at the time. It was no surprise to us. It was, you argue, for Hillary.
Two possibilities:
1. She did what she thought she had to do to win the Presidency later, sacrificed principles for war, and knew exactly what everyone else seemed to, and is only covering her ass now saying she didn't think it meant what it did.
OR
2. She really was oblivious to all the conversation around her, AND the debate going on in Congress, and was simply shockingly naive and ignorant.
Either way, she does not deserve to be President.

I also want to point out that unlike Kerry and Edwards, she has not come out point blank and said that her vote was a huge mistake. Why not?

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Those MSM articles are precisely what convinced Americans that W was authorized to attack, and why they were written.

Hillary Clinton said in her Senate floor speech at the time that it was NOT an authorization for "pre-emptive war" and Kerry's comments tell what WAS authorized - to "disarm Saddam by force" if necessary - they were authorizing military strike teams to go in and blow up the weapons depots. Those who voted against it were right in the fact that you can't trust W with a loaded slingshot, but those who voted for it were right because they authorized something a president SHOULD be (able to be) trusted to do. The latter were providing W with a "stick" to make Saddam let the inspectors in (it worked, too, that's why Hillary won't apologize). Bush broke the law they passed. Meanwhile, as long as people believe that the authorization of military force = authorization of war, there will be no court cases, no justice done for America from this criminal act.

[Tony]

Barb wrote:

Those MSM articles are precisely what convinced Americans that W was authorized to attack, and why they were written.

Hillary Clinton said in her Senate floor speech at the time that it was NOT an authorization for "pre-emptive war" and Kerry's comments tell what WAS authorized - to "disarm Saddam by force" if necessary - they were authorizing military strike teams to go in and blow up the weapons depots. Those who voted against it were right in the fact that you can't trust W with a loaded slingshot, but those who voted for it were right because they authorized something a president SHOULD be (able to be) trusted to do. The latter were providing W with a "stick" to make Saddam let the inspectors in (it worked, too, that's why Hillary won't apologize). Bush broke the law they passed. Meanwhile, as long as people believe that the authorization of military force = authorization of war, there will be no court cases, no justice done for America from this criminal act.

Barb, I remember the debate. I remember being disgusted that so many Dems were going to support the war resolution, because I knew, and the debate revolved around, the fact that the wording was so vague that it could support a pre-emptive war against Iraq, and that's just what was expected. None of this can be denied. And if you are a politician, and you do not know the history of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, and how that vaguely worded document was used to justify the longest war in American History in Vietnam, then you are appalingly ignorant, and negligent. This too was part of that debate. And there were many, many, many people who said over and over again, that if you vote for such a vague war resolution it would justify almost anything even a pre-emptive invasion. And thats just what we got.
It was very well known that the resolution could justify what we got.....so why did they vote for it? Incompitence or cowardice? It's one or the other. You say, they just voted for one thing, and said it didn't justify what everyone who voted against it said it would, and what Bush and the GOP wanted it to justify. HOW STUPID! This was just conservative dems, or cowardly dems voting in a time when it looked very dangerous politically to be seen as being unpatriotic. THAT is whey all the major candidates with a shot at the White House (Kerry, Edwards, Hillary) voted for it. They thought it would kill their chances at being elected, or even re-elected, if they voted no. Those Dems who voted against it showed genuine courage. The others gave Bush what he wanted, and they all knew, or were much dumber than I think they are, and everyone knows it.......EXCEPT for amazingly naive people, or true believers looking to rationalize the inexcusable. I don't think you are naive Barb, I think you are trying to defend an act of political cowardice by saying, "How on earth could she have known what so many others did." I'm not buying. I don't think you really do either.
There should not be court cases on Bush for THIS. It's bogus. Americans got just what their polticians gave them. Don't like it, vote for people who had the courage to vote against the war.
Of all the valid things we could nail Bush on, you guys want to invent a no brainer like this...it amazes me.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Hindsight has always been 20-20, and I, actually was with you on that. I didn't trust W with a loaded slingshot. However, putting that "they didn't think they could get elected" rather than a "disagreed on how this would work" on the Dems who voted for it is a "hindsight" accusation. Hillary wasn't up for re-election until 2006. Kerry and Edwards may or may not have decided to run for president that early, but Kerry at least was not up for re-election as a Senator. Edwards later decided not to run for re-election to the Senate, because he was running for president (and is a whole lot more honest than Joe Lieberman). The Dems who voted for the resolution were trying to give Saddam a serious incentive to let the inspectors in. It worked. Since it worked, what W did (throw out the inspectors and invade Iraq) was NOT authorized by that legislation.