Clinton, Obama criticized over war vote

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Should we factor in the fact that they don't actually have to pass anything to not fund it?

See my Post # 19 above.

[DinoDoc]

Well it's a little hard to stomach cries of "Bush's war!", "War is lost!", etc. from people that decide to fund said enterprise when they arrive at a position of responsibilty supposedly (or so they claim) on a platform of ending it.

[SlowwHand]

Reasons for Iraq.

Reason 1. 1441
Reason 2. All we needed was reason 1.

[Berzerker]

"It is not easy to vote for cutting off funding, because the fact is there are troops on the ground," Obama said.

The point of cutting off funding is to end the situation where there are troops on the ground. Thats an argument for funding in perpetuity, Obama.

Slow, what in 1441 says the US can invade Iraq and remove the gov't? The UN was never given the power for regime change, it deals with international affairs. Kicking Iraq out of Kuwait falls under the UN Charter, kicking Saddam out of Bagdhad does not.

Should we factor in the fact that they don't actually have to pass anything to not fund it?

"This war belongs to the Democratic Party because the Democrats were put in charge by the people in the last election with the thought that they were going to end the war," said Kucinich.

It would take nearly a party vote to end the funding, if most of the Repubs vote to continue funding all it takes are a relative handful of Dems to join them.

Gravel said: "It's the Democrats' war also" and argued that anyone who had originally voted to authorize the conflict ought to get out of the race.

Yup

[SlowwHand]

1441 revoked the cease fire.

[SlowwHand]

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

United Nations Security Council
7 November 2002

If you read this and understand it, you have no argument.

[Ramo]

Well it's a little hard to stomach cries of "Bush's war!", "War is lost!", etc. from people that decide to fund said enterprise when they arrive at a position of responsibilty supposedly (or so they claim) on a platform of ending it.

You realize that Clinton (and everyone else on the stage in Congress and not named Joseph Biden) voted against funding it, right? Edwards' criticism of Clinton and Obama was about their hesitancy in casting that vote.

[Berzerker]

the cease fire was between the UN and Iraq, not the US and Iraq. We were "empowered" to remove Iraq from Kuwait by the UN, and the US negotiated certain terms of the cease fire, but only the UN "can" (and I doubt that) authorize an invasion. So rather than have me read all that, I read alot already, where does it say the UN is authorizing the US to invade and remove Saddam? If you can find such an authorization in 1441 then I'll agree with your argument. I eventually went to the end of 1441, perhaps you can explain what this ending means:

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

To me that means the UN will decide later what to do, i.e., more sanctions, more resolutions. more blah blah blah. The member states of the UN did not give it the power to interfere within states, just between states. Thats my understanding of its charter... But to remain seized of the matter is not an authorization to invade.

Btw, according to Scott Ritter the CIA had corrupted the inspections by using them to set up coups and assassination attempts. The Iraqis figured this out and started restricting access to areas necessary for Saddam's security. Clinton then told the inspectors to get out in '98 prior to a large bombing campaign. So the accusation in 1441 that Saddam was refusing to let the inspectors do their job is hypocritical and dishonest, as it turns out the inspectors did an amazing job and Saddam didn't have much of anything left.

Now, this raises an interesting question: if the inspectors did such a good job - and western intel agencies were privy to what Saddam had and what the inspectors destroyed - why did certain western countries continue to beat a dead horse? I know regime change was our stated policy since '98, so did the west maintain the bugaboo of WMD just to keep its nose in the Middle East? Saddam was our buffer to the Iranians but he was no longer "desired" as that buffer, now the US is that buffer. I wonder how much outcry from Europe is feigned, for public consumption, while in private western leaders tell us they're glad the US went in.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Grandpa Troll
At least Hillary stated this was GWB's war because he started it.

Interesting that she and Bill were saying the exact same things that Bush was about Iraqi capabilities before the war. Everybody was so gung-ho back then, but it shows who the cowards are when they run from their positions like they d. Calling it Bush's war is ludicrous. It is, sadly, America's war

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
You realize that Clinton (and everyone else on the stage in Congress and not named Joseph Biden) voted against funding it, right?

I don't recal mentioning any specific people Ramo. The post was pointed at the Democratic party in general.

[Patroklos]

"I don't think it's useful to be talking in these kind of abstract, hypothetical terms," she said.

Really, like you becoming POTUS maybe? What a dumbass.

Clinton got mauled in this one, horribly, because once again she refused to take responsibility for her vote to start the war. This is not "Bush's" war because Congress approved it, and we know now what Congress knew when they made their vote. Unless they want us to believe they are all complete retards (which may not be a stretch), they did not vote blindly or under the influence of some "lie."

Clinton

Obama

Kucinich

Gravel

[Arrian]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Well it's a little hard to stomach cries of "Bush's war!", "War is lost!", etc. from people that decide to fund said enterprise when they arrive at a position of responsibilty supposedly (or so they claim) on a platform of ending it.

It's pretty pathetic that this is the best you've got.

Bush tooks us there and ****ed it up (with the help of Congress, of course, which was then Republican controlled. Though don't think I've forgotten the Dems who voted to authorize the use of force). Now, unfortunately, the responsible action seems to be to stick it out a while longer, even if we now recognize the whole thing was a bad idea. So the Dems find themselves funding it.

Clearly it follows that it's their fault.

-Arrian

[Patroklos]

Clearly it follows that it's their fault

If you don't want to level responsibility in the "Dems," fine. But all the front runners up there themselves have an official voting record.

[Arrian]

Of course, as do all members of Congress. Actually knowing something about the votes (context) helps.

Clinton shoulders some blame for her vote authorizing force several years ago. As do the other Dems who voted yes (Lieberman, for instance, the ****er I tried to fire). Obama wasn't in Congress at that point, so he gets a N/A. Which, of course, will be used to claim "empty suit!"

-Arrian

[Ramo]

I don't recal mentioning any specific people Ramo. The post was pointed at the Democratic party in general.

That's nice, but you were originally responding to a quote about Hillary Clinton.

Obama

Why? He publicly opposed the war back in 2002.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech