Just more political positioning, more of the same crap. What is the direction of the wind today?

If she would say something like the President screw us, lied to us, and continues to screw America and needs to be impeached for his criminal activities and removed from office immediately then and only then can she get my vote in a primary. Maybe.

Just trying to stakeout a new position is not good enough.

Enough is Enough of this type of political positioning.
It sucks.

Demand the Truth for America

Good lord. We have 19 more months of this kind of excuse-making to listen to.

Does anybody else notice how eerily similar this kind of half-hearted distancing is to the desperate posturing of Lieberman last fall after it dawned on him that the public hated this war? Oh, he was soooo critical of George W. Bush! He had been all along, honest! You just weren't listening! And then he got reelected and everything went back to situation normal, to hell with the voters.

With Lieberman gone from the party, Hillary is the most pro-war Democrat in the Senate. These disingenuous attempts to distance herself from the war without denouncing it are just par for the course. Even the Republicans are "critical" of the process without criticizing the war.

She is damaged goods with a whole lot of campaign money and advisors.

Mrs. Clinton's response is much too lawyerly. In the political realm being technical accurate is patently insufficient. It's reminiscent of the type of parsing of words that got her husband into trouble.

I would expect that her explanations will evolve over time, but will never adequately express what she really needs to say: I was wrong; I regret it; and I have learned from my mistake.

I'm not the biggest fan of stridency, but it would seem that she's glossing over something big when she says, "it was based on the best assessment that I could make at the time."

She KNEW (more than most because of her 'close' relationship with the previous commander-in-chief) what PNAC had been planning for decades, she KNEW exactly what the vote meant, else she could be justifibly seen as xxxx!

Remember those who DIDN'T vote for war~! - They knew that Saddam was NOT an imminent threat. Compare their floor speeches e.g.

Senator Bob Graham (D) Senate Intelligence Committee

"...I voted against the resolution - not because our nation has nothing to fear from Hussein but because I am convinced that the resolution misstates our national priorities in a dangerous way. Right now the most urgent threats to our security are posed by the shadowy networks of international terrorist organizations that have the capabilities to repeat the tragedy of Sept. 11 - not Saddam Hussein."

Also, Kerry is not running for President with another war on the horizon.

"Sen. Clinton: "...Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it. This too has great appeal for different reasons. The UN deserves our support. Whenever possible we should work through it and strengthen it, for it enables the world to share the risks and burdens of global security and when it acts, it confers a legitimacy that increases the likelihood of long-term success. The UN can help lead the world into a new era of global cooperation and the United States should support that goal.

But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto, on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act..."
Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize
the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

SeeDee
And just why did Hillary not provide this alibi in her 'command performance' before AIPAC last week?

The more I witness Hillary's antics in trying to be all things to all people, the shallower her depth of character appears.

I am a previous staunch supporter of Hillary who moved to 'I have problems with SOME of her positions' but still support her, to mildly supportive to 'wouldn't support her under any conditions'.

When one adds in her opponents from her 'First Lady' (or is it 'betrayed Lady') days with her current crawfishing, I don't think she is electable even when a Democratic tide is running.

Hillary can redeem herself by doing as Edwards has done, admitting in direct language that her vote was a mistake and pushing for a quick end to the war.

And both Hillary Clinton and John Edwards need to stop pandering to AIPAC on the Iran issue. The Iranian regime is a problem, but military confrontation (either by the US or by Israel) is not a solution to that problem.

As I recall, at that time there was a belief that Bush needed the resolution giving him the power to go to war behind him to have "leverage" over Saddam. The hope (which maybe was stupid then, and is certainly demonstrated to be stupid now) was that Bush wouldn't just go to war but would let the inspectors finish their work. So, maybe Hillary was in the frame of mind; maybe she wasn't. Senator Byrd, that wily old codger who brought more Congressional money into his state that most other Senators, certainly wasn't buying Bush's promises. See the following web site to get an idea of what he said:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

So if Hillary heard him, she wasn't listening. Most ignored what Byrd said; he actually was very astute and, despite his past, has won my admiration. Jury's still out on Hillary.

Hillary and Edwards had the same information as those in Congress who voted against the war resolution. They can't say they didn't know. That would be admitting they didn't do their homework or that they were stupid or that they were pandering to some special interest, or....

No one who voted to give Bush this power will get my vote without one hell of a mea culpa to me, to the dead and damaged Americans, and to Iraqis.

As I recall, at that time there was a belief that Bush needed the resolution giving him the power to go to war behind him to have "leverage" over Saddam.

People are forgetting that at the time Bush was saying war was the last thing he wanted. He kept saying that the resolution would strenghten his hand with the UN and would force Saddam to allow full inspections.

From Hillary's speech;

Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation.

As Hillary and John Kerry said at the time, it was NOT a war resolution. Bush took advantage of the situation, claimed Saddam was not letting the inspectors do their job, and slickly launched the war.

SeeDee
When one tries to defend those Senators who were taken in by the 'promises' of 'W' not wanting to go to war, when you realize that here was a guy who'd made a mockery of the term 'compassionate conservative' after using it as another 'lie' to help get elected, after resorting to outright skull-duggery to attain the office in the first place, HOW could ANY astute Democratic Senator have believed his case for pre-emptive war???

I surely agreed with Senator Byrd's position, and I'm a dumb little private citizen in the mid-section of the country. Is someone goint to try to excuse Hillary's bad judgement (and Kerry's, and Edward's...)?? Surely they should have been as smart some insignificant citizen was in that matter.

The ALL need to express regret at having failed their duty as the 'loyal opposition'.

Hillary wants it both ways and she wants to blame someone besides herself. Why did she vote for it and yet, there were other senators who saw the same evidence and saw it was not good. Why did they vote no.
Now she wants to dance around the issue without having to say she was wrong and got fooled. This is not leadership. At least Edwards wrote and op ed saying he was clearly wrong.
If Hillary gets elected she will have to have her mulitudes of consultants advise her before she does anything. And then, if wrong will not admit it. Do we really want to put someone like that in office.
No thanks.
I'll stick with my candidate who has been against this war from the start.

Hil, you really want to redeem yourself? Follow up your pledge to end THIS war by taking the lead to stop the NEXT one. And pledge to bury the Bush Doctrine while you are at it.

UA

Hillary is not my first (or second) choice, Edwards is, but don't you think that if she gets elected that her primary consultant will be Bill? IMO, that's the most redeeming quality about her presidential prospects.

On Thursday, October 10, 2002, CNN reported, “Iraq has denied having weapons of mass destruction and has offered to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to return for the first time since 1998. Deputy Prime Minister Abdul Tawab Al-Mulah Huwaish called the allegations "lies" Thursday and offered to let U.S. officials inspect plants they say are developing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. "If the American administration is interested in inspecting these sites, then they're welcome to come over and have a look for themselves," he said. The White House immediately rejected the offer, saying the matter is up to the United Nations, not Iraq.”

Also on Thursday, October 10, 2002, Senator Clinton gave a speech in the Senate supporting the resolution. Some exerpts are presented in this thread.

On Friday, October 11, 2002, the Senate passed the resolution and as CNN reported, “The resolution requires Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed. Bush also must certify that action against Iraq would not hinder efforts to pursue the al Qaeda terrorist network that attacked New York and Washington last year. And it requires the administration to report to Congress on the progress of any war with Iraq every 60 days.”

This was a resolution to go to war without any requirement for Bush to notify Congress beforehand. It transferred considerable power to the executive branch.

At the time of this vote I was torn between Senator Byrd's comments and Senator Clinton's comments. After Powell's speech at the UN, I tepidly supported a war. I made a mistake which I realized shortly after the fall of Baghdad and every part of me hurts when I think about it.

Now it comes down, quite simply, to a candidate whose judgment I trust. I no longer trust Senator Clinton's judgment and will not support her candidacy. Senator Clinton may not have voted for a pre-emptive war but she certainly voted to transfer the responsibility for that determination to the executive branch. We all know the result of that power transfer.

So now we are into voting statements as well as signing statements? So, the senators vote to declare war, but each of them issue a voting statement saying they are not voting to start a war, just declare one. Then the president signs the bill, but issues a signing statement saying he is not giving up his God given right to do what God commands, even if that means ordering American troops to die to uphold his right. So, when I vote for Obama for President, I will issue a voting statement that my vote is not intended to mean that I want Obama for President, just that I want to encourage him to run again. Obama then takes the oath of office, while issuing a oath taking statement the he will not defend the Constitution unless he spent the night at a Holiday Express hotel.

Hoppy in Sacramento

I'm guessing you are referencing the LIEBERMAN amendment... which basically gave THE BLANK CHECK to Bush, which Levin voted AGAINST, Clinton FOR...

Final Passage of Lieberman Amendment

Sen. Levins: "I would like to briefly explain why I voted against final passage of the Lieberman amendment. I have already explained much of my reasoning at different times during the debate on earlier amendments.

Section 4 of the Lieberman amendment authorizes the President to use the Armed Forces of the United States (1) "against the continuing threat posed by Iraq;" and (2) to "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

This grant of authority under (1) above, with its threshold of "continuing threat," is virtually the issuance of a blank check to the President to use U.S. military force, since the Findings section of the amendment already contains the statement that "Iraq poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States."

The only limitation on the President's authority is found in section 4 of the amendment which requires that the President submit his determination to the Congress, within 48 hours after he exercises such authority, that further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone will not protect our national security or is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant Security Council Resolutions and that exercising such authority is consistent with the continuation of the United States and other countries actions against international terrorism.

This grant of authority is also unacceptable since it empowers the President to initiate the use of U.S. military force although the threat against which it is used is not imminent....

LIEBERMAN, (THE 'Gang of 14' STOP any Democratic Amendments, or filibuster NO BRAINERS going through). The Lieberman that Bill Clinton stumped for against Lamont, that Hillary has been hand in hand with at the DLC and legislation...!

Hillary must be really out of touch to fail to realize how transparent this positioning is. No one buys it -- not elites, not ordinary voters, not the press, no one.

What Dems like Hillary fail to realize is that Kerry's primary disadvantage was NOT that he was too liberal; it was that he was a flip-flopper. No one knew where he stood. When you attempt to triangulate in this manner on such an obvious issue, you look (and in fact are) simply wishy-washy.

Then Wolf Blitzer would cast them in an unfavorable light, every chance he could. Isn't that what Duke said?

Hillary has the same insurmountable credibility problem as anyone who supported the invasion in 2003 or voted for the Iraq resolution --including Edwards, Kerry, etc.

Dozens of elected leaders, weapons inspectors, diplomats, military experts and heads of state looked at the same facts as Hillary at the same time. These include the likes of Gen. Zinni, Gen. Clark, Gen. Hoar, Gen. McPeak, Jim Webb, Brent Scowcroft, Sen. Inouye, Sen. Byrd, Sen. Graham, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the Pope, Mohammed El Baradei, Pat Buchanan, Nelson Mandela, Jim Cirincione, and the overwhelming majority of world governments.

Unlike her, they correctly judged the facts to be insufficient justification for invasion & occupation of Iraq or for granting Bush a "war voucher" he could redeem at his pleasure.

Thus, there are only two kinds of people when it comes to Iraq: those who were right and those who were wrong.

So why would anyone vote for Hillary when they can vote for one of the other trustworthy candidates who demonstrated correct judgment on Iraq?

It is clearly a "war resolution", because it is the authorization of military force which authorized the war in Iraq. While it didn't _require_ war with Iraq, it did allow it.

So why would anyone vote for Hillary when they can vote for one of the other trustworthy candidates who demonstrated correct judgment on Iraq?

Because most people don't see it that way. Most of my family and friends supported the war. They are opposed to the war now. They are all saying the same thing. "If I knew then", "Bush used bogus intel"......etc. So politicians holding different views now is not a big deal for them. This is reflected in the polls. People opposed to Hillary (or Edwards) are not opposed to them because of their Iraq vote. The blog commenters are not representative of the general population.

And another thing; Kerry's Iraq vote had nothing to do with the election results. If he had voted against the war he woud have lost  by a much wider margin.

No wartime president has been defeated. Even when the war is unpopular. I bet Bush and Rove took this into account they launched the war.

If we could all take a time machine back to that wonderful time in 2002-2003, better known as the Iraq War buildup, we would find a lot of saber rattling and not much appeasement. Either you backed Bush's war or you were a commie (or something else unsavory).

That said, whether Hillary voted for all out balls-our war or not, I could care less. I don't recall anyone, oh yes, that includes everyone posting here (Josh included), anyone who stood up to oppose the war. Seems to me like you all have a great case of history-reconstructionism going on here.

So much of the anti-Hillary rhetoric displayed here is disguised as disliking her pre-war stance, when, in fact, it is just plain old Hillary-bashing. (Yeah, yeah, she's a girl, she's married to Bubba, okay, I get your anxiety.)

The wingnut blogosphere truly must be overjoyed when they read how you are so willing to destroy one of your most viable presidential candidates for such pettiness.

Get out of Iraq now. That is all that matters.

Politicians like Hillary Clinton are so cynical you have to think like that: you don't know what you're voting for.

Here is Hillary's floor speech from the 2002 AUMF:

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.

And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them.

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.

So take that how you will.

Personally, I think even then she knew he wasn't going to worry with the inspectors. She's no dummy.

I'd be very disappointed if I supported Clinton, but do hope statements like this work to lose the campaign for her.

Facts:

1. Voting for the authorization to use force is Oct 02 was a vote to go to war. It is just not honest to say you only wanted to give the power to the president and let him decide. Bush's intentions were clear to anyone paying attention. I wrote as much to my Congressional representatives at the time. The vote at the time was to go to war or not.

2. Iraq was not attacking the U.S. It was not a retaliatory war. It was a preemptive, or preventative, war. (A distinction that I don't think makes a difference.)

3. To lack the judgment and integrity to admit her mistakes separates Clinton from Edwards and others on the Dem side. She is like Bush in that respect.

4. At this late date, to continue to be so wrong about Iraq simply makes her unfit to the Dem nominee or the next president.

I don't recall anyone, oh yes, that includes everyone posting here (Josh included), anyone who stood up to oppose the war. Seems to me like you all have a great case of history-reconstructionism going on here.

Hoppy in Sacramento

"There "you" go again! In 2004 there was no war."

Overwhelming majority of Americans would disagree with you. They determine election outcomes.

Then Wolf Blitzer would cast them in an unfavorable light, every chance he could. Isn't that what Duke said?

Yes! That was an awesome interview.

Duke, skewered Blitzer and totally revealed his blatant biases and framing of questions from prejudicial predetermined positions.

Senator Byrd, that wily old codger ...if Hillary heard him, she wasn't listening. Most ignored what Byrd said; he actually was very astute and, despite his past, has won my admiration. Jury's still out on Hillary.

Nope! Senator Byrd might be a wily old codger but Mrs. Slick Willy Hilliary knew a low down manipulating deceitful lie of omission when she heard it. She knew the gotcha 'listening' game, well. If anyone thinks that was the first time she has had to discern the meaning of ' is', they have the wrong jury.. What Hillary did was weigh the personal cost to her in terms of  her own personal goals and  ambitions and that is how she cast her vote.

SeeDee

I am another one of those who OPPOSED the Bush/Cheney/Neocon build-up and invasion of Iraq in 2002-03.

As a matter of fact, I knew several who were not in favor for the same main reason that I was...and that was... it was an obvious ploy on the part of major AMERICAN and MULTI-NATIONAL oil companies to enable them to acquire control of the 2nd or 3rd largest known petroleum reserves of any country in the world. And this was following their moves (Cheney's 'energy' conference...secret, remember?) beginning in the early weeks of the Bush administration to rape consumers the world over

krj47, with due respect, you are flat VERY wrong to imply that none (or very few) opposed Bush's war in 2002.

Of course it is important to disengage from Iraq and leave, but it is also important to remember who did not have the foresight to oppose going there in the first place.

Duke Who? I saw Blitzer interview David Duke, the former KKK leader, recently and he said that Blitzer had previously worked for AIPAC and Blitzer did not correct him.

That's the Duke..and that is correct what he said about Blitzer.

Senator Clinton at a campaign stop on Saturday:

“We are trying in the Senate to set forth a strategy that has the best hope of getting the president’s attention. It would be the first time that Congress had stood up to this president.”

Which brings us back to 2002 and the resolution. Sigh.

 he says this is a battle between Democrats' Washington consultant class and the rest of the country - and he specifically targets the D.C. elites from the Clinton administration, who he accurately notes largely supported the war from the get-go.

OK, so what does this mean?

Where does the battle need to be fought?  Who are the consultants and what is it that they do that hog-ties and stiffles debate on the issue?  I am not understanding why the political consultants, who are UNELECTED are able to wage power significant enough to bear pressure on ELECTED representatives.