none of it matters because Guliani supports abortion and I'm pro life
and guliani was protecting new york
on that god awfull day.
god is for rudy as are all responsible
idealistic christians

Nice piece Greg. It really unpacks the arguments of both campaigns nicely. _This_ is what electoral news coverage should be--taking what the campaigns are saying, un-spinning that, breaking it down to its core assumptions and propositions, and then evaluating those against the historic record.

Well done. Now if only all coverage was like this...

Greg, excellent article and analysis. Don't let bullies like [b]hadenough[/b] tell you otherwise.

thanks all. appreciate it, 'specially after the beating us poor ECers have been taking of late

Greg wrote on November 28, 2007 2:00 PM:

thanks all. appreciate it, 'specially after the beating us poor ECers have been taking of late

Yeah--but DCShungu hasn't weighed in yet . . .

Great job.

Greg:

Nice analysis. The 2002 AUMF authorized President Bush to use force to defend US interest if he determined diplomacy would not adequately protect those interest. The Clintons' are arguing that he didn't exhaust diplomatic efforts. But that's just confusing the issue, since she'd already voted to give him the authority to not only use force, but to decide when that force was used.

The barn doors were opened when the votes where cast. Expressing shock that the horse ran out afterwards is just plain silly.

Hadenough

It is suprising because he did not opose the war. He may have thought it was wrong. He may have though that George jumped the gun. But he did not opose the war. If you want to see what oposing the war looks and sounds like view the speaches that Obama and Gore gave on the war before it started. President Clinton made no such statement. If he had it would have been front page news all over the world, and Sen Clinton would have the nomination locked. They misread the political implications of supporting an unjust war.

In the midst of all the Clintonian double talk, do not lose sight of the REAL danger here - Democrats have better things to do in 2008 than parsing and spinning their way out of Clintonian bullsh*t

Exhibit A - why the GOP is dying to run against Mrs. Bill

Compare Bill's "opposition" to the war, with Gore's (from September 2002). It also gives more context to the point Greg notes is at issue here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/gore_text092302.html

Anonymous: In don't agree that it's poor strategy to go after Bill. He is well liked and respected (I like the man) but he's not a god. And I don't think he's got teflon skin either. The pre-war revisionism is an important parry to Obama's attack of Hillary's vote. This can't go unanswered. There was never any real vigorous debate during the 2002 run up to Iraq - in fact it can be pointed out that there was a rush to war and it was enabled in part by Bill's op ed supporting Blair, and by Hillary's unquestioning vote. I remember being shocked and deeply saddened by the Democrats in the Senate rolling over on Iraq.

Obama will succeed if he can make the case that the candidate of change and that a vote for Clinton is going backwards.

And now for a different perspective:

If Bill Clinton is the political genius that he's cracked up to be (and I believe he is,) then this bomb could very well have been a well planted distraction. The question is, what is he trying to distract from? Is this just a means of controlling the content of conversation, or a pulling away from a discussion that was about to happen? What should people be concentrating on while they're concentrating on whether Bill was for or against the war from 2001-2003 when it started?

I think it's utterly ludicrous that so many people are chasing their tails on this. I would bet that Bill and Hill are sitting around watching and giggling and snorting about how easy it is to control the conversation, the campaign, the entire political scenario.

Sen. Clinton's reams of research are a blizzard of bullsh!t.

From the BBC timeline of the Iraq War:
2003 17 March - UK's ambassador to the UN says the diplomatic process on Iraq has ended; arms inspectors evacuate; US President George W Bush gives Saddam Hussein and his sons 48 hours to leave Iraq or face war.

2003 20 March - American missiles hit targets in Baghdad, marking the start of a US-led campaign to topple Saddam Hussein. In the following days US and British ground troops enter Iraq from the south.

On March 18th Bill Clinton publishes his op-ed in The Guardian supporting Blair - AFTER the arms inspectors evacuated! The March 15th comments are irrelevant. Bill Clinton supported Bush/Blair policy AFTER the inspectors were ordered out of Iraq.

It's just lying by obfuscation to suggest otherwise. What happened the week of March 17, 2002 before and after the inspectors were ordered out of Iraq? President Clinton supported invasion -- full stop.

She doesn't believe her vote was a mistake; she believes that Bush rushed to war (shocking).

Shocking, indeed. How is it that 22 other Senators had enough incredulity to realize that Bush was going to precipitously use force, but Senator Clinton somehow managed to not get that?

And Bill Clinton has been all over the place on this issue. He's not running. Why is he part of the picture? I can't wait for the David Broder column about this issue.

Do we really want more of this in the next Administration?

Dear President Clinton: This is how you oppose a war. (You may want to share this with your wife, as the issue may be coming up again soon).

Barack Obama’s remarks delivered on 26 October 2002 in Chicago at Federal Plaza at an anti Iraq war rally organized by the ANSWER coalition:

"Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.
The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.
I don’t oppose all wars.
My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.
I don’t oppose all wars.
After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.
I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.
That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.
He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.
So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.
Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.
The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain."

I think since BILL isn't Running for President - this story is mute. Accept to prove bill Lies.

I think the BIGGER STORY is what Karl Rove said about CONGRESS PUSHING BUSH INTO WAR WITH IRAQ (HUFFINGTONPOST.COM).

Coonsey's View
Political Blog
http://www.freewebs.com/coonsey/

Give me the keys, hadenough.

kjoe wrote on November 28, 2007 2:30 PM:

so---they are worried that somebody might ask "Hillary--is it possible that under your healthcare proposal a citizen could have his wages garnished to fulfill the mandate and that some of the money collected would go into the pockets of the insurance industry? Yes or no?"

but Bill cleverly prevented this by talking about his carefully parsed words about iraq?

By Jove, I think you've got it!

damn, you Hillary robots (cough, hadeneough, cough) are really something. come on! EVERYONE knows that Bill Clinton wasn't "opposed to the war from the beginning", pure fantasy and fiction on Bill's part. would have been very, very helpful if he had come out and, you know, actually opposed it. but he didn't, and he'll have to live with it. and not only that, but Hillary actively supported and believed in it, despite what she's trying to pedal about the matter now.

it used to be I thought only the Repugs didn't understand that the internet exists now, youtube exists now, we can look up everything politicians say and do. now I see the Clintons have ignominiously attached themselves to that list of sad, thwarted would-be revisionists.

Exactly. He went out of his way to back bogus WMD claims that were critical -- especially in the UK -- for going ahead with the war. So this is not somebody who had private doubts but kept them to himself out of respect for the current President.

Claiming that he opposed it is too Clintonian for words, and this kerfuffle can only hurt HRC's efforts -- her campaign gains no ground with voters arguing this.

Yes, she's running not him, but her campaign is happy to use their association when it helps them. These are statements he's making while campaigning for her.

My theory is that the Clintons want power more than anything. Not the least of the symbols of power which they seek is the power to control the political atmosphere. The ability to "lead" a constituency down whatever avenues are to their best advantage. Right now, they're making this all about him. I think instead of being reactive, people should be more contemplative. People need to ask why. And people would be wise to keep in mind that this is the area of the Clinton's expertise. If the other candidates stand a chance of beating the Clintons, it won't be by letting them lead them down the garden path.

I think that's a very valid point Ann in AZ. This very well is an attempt to divert attention away from something going on in Iowa, or change the narrative in such a way to distract the other campaigns (read Obama) from some other issue.

We'll see if anyone notices when the shoe drops.

David Fox: He seems to have said that Blix should have been given more time before the invasion, not that Blix' conclusions should have been the basis of the decision to invade.

This is idiotic.

There would have been no purpose to giving Blix more time if invasion was inevitable regardless of Blix's findings.

The Hillary Haters are out in full force and now attacking Bill to get to her.

Truly pathetic.

All these comments on war are so short-sighted. Bush may turn out to be right although he wrongly took the people into the war. It is a dangerous strategy to root for failure! Now that the soldiers are there, you have to look forward and decide who can do a better job!

A democratic Iraq will be in the best interest of everybody. Making a speech without any repercussion did not form the basis of launching a presidential campaign. Some people are agaisnt any war that will be waged, even against the Afganistan invasion.

You need to grow up!

Good analysis Greg. However the cynic in me wants to add one more possibility to your list.

I have always believed that the Clintons (and many others) did indeed figure out that Bush and Blair were going to war no matter what, and did not protest very loudly because they thought the war would be a success, or at least not a 6+ year debacle. It was purely a political decision about not wanting to be on the wrong side of what looked at the time like a popular war.

The part of their judgement that failed was that Bush could handle what he was about to start. And Hillary has fessed up to that all along.

The point Obama should be making is that she was willing to make a life and death decision based on her political gain, and stop harping onhow she had bad judgement about WMD.

There would have been no purpose to giving Blix more time if invasion was inevitable regardless of Blix's findings.

Of course there's a reason to give Blix more time: to be able to say "See, we waited as long as we could, and now we need to take action". Invasion was inevitable, regardless. Or are you actually suggesting that Bush/Cheney would have not invaded?

Slick Willie strikes again. Point is, that SHE VOTED FOR THE WAR and never backed off. HE was noticeably silent at the key points and as Greg points out, punted to Toady Blair. They are BOTH slimeballs.

OK here is a Hillary Hater (but not an Obama supporter):
Hillary = Bush + Boobs
This is to the point and would make a great bumpersticker.

A couple of people writing comments have this right: This page is parsing Bill's words to death. Did he support Blair in support of Blix or did he support Blair in support of Bush? Was a vote to authorize military force not really a vote to authorize military force or was it really a veiled vote not to use military force? Nice way to rally people to enthusiastic support for the party of peace. Just what I want to vote for: a vote for war that was really a vote against war. Get over it, folks. Voting for Hillary is voting for the same old BS. If you love your country, demand something better for it. Withhold all support from the Clintons and from the Bushes.No more triangulations, no more obfuscations. Let's find someone who speaks plain truth. no more Clinton BS.

Let's find someone who speaks plain truth.

Sorry, everybody says he can't win.

Ni Daye: A democratic Iraq will be in the best interest of everybody.

A democratic North Korea, or China for that matter, would be in the best interest of everybody, but that doesn't mean it is doable and certainly doesn't mean it is doable through force and US-imposed terrorism.

Wanting something to happen and actually getting it to happen are two different things and refusing to agree to continue to pursue something that is impossible using the resources being employed is not rooting for failure it is recognizing the inevitability and unavoidability of failure.

But if you think everything is possible, then root for the invasion of China, since it is more than clear that a democratic China is in everybody's best interests.

Talk about needing to grow up . . .

CT Voter: Or are you actually suggesting that Bush/Cheney would have not invaded?

No, you idiot, since I just wrote that Bush would have invaded even absent the AUMF.

Try paying attention.

I was clearly suggesting that CLINTON (Bill or Hillary) would not have supported invasion if Blix had finished his inspections and reported no WMDs.

And arguments that these two were in favor of inevitable invasion no matter what Blix reported is intellectually dishonest, exactly what I've come to expect from Obama supporters.

"Hilary voted to let Bush attack Iraq [if certain conditions occurred that never did occur]."

There, I fixed your lie, Liam, and made it truthful.

Good post. While it may say something about bill and hillary it still doesn't say anything about Obamas position. He may be and may always have been against the war but he wasn't in the senate and he didn't cast the vote so we will never know how he really would have voted. It is not that I don't believe Obama and his claims, I do. But I also believe that John Kerry (and others) honestly thought that the best thing was to give Bush leverage. Obama didn't have to cast a public vote in the senate of the United States shortly after 9/11. Based on all his rhetoric about bipartisanship it is quite possible he too would have caved/calculated/really believed.

bornagaindem

Look, I don't think anyone would be surprised that Bill and Hill may have privately thought that war in Iraq would not be a great idea. But they DID NOT oppose the drive to war publicly and to assert they did is stupid.

Look, immediately after the war started, virtually NO American politician, including, I'd certainly expect, Obama himself, spoke against the war, for fear of being criticized as unpatriotic. And I wouldn't exactly expect Clinton to criticize Blair openly for a long time after the war (if he's willing to do so even now), because it would be perceived quite badly. (Has Obama himself criticized Blair directly? Maybe, but I doubt it.)

I'd expect that Obama came out against the war again some time before Hillary did, but I wonder at what stage Obama himself felt comfortable criticizing the war again after we had already gone in.

Of course, it's always pretty important to remember that Obama himself, when he was criticizing the war before it commenced, was NOT a US Senator, and was NOT directly pursuing national ambitions. It's a lot easier to criticize a war like this when you are a State Senator from one of the most liberal districts in Illinois and running for the Democratic nomination to US Senate than it is when you are already a US Senator and pursuing a national role.

If you want a Profile in Courage and Wisdom in the run up to the Iraq war, you'd do a lot better to look at Bob Graham from Florida than at Obama.

Good post. While it may say something about bill and hillary it still doesn't say anything about Obamas position. He may be and may always have been against the war but he wasn't in the senate and he didn't cast the vote so we will never know how he really would have voted. It is not that I don't believe Obama and his claims, I do. But I also believe that John Kerry (and others) honestly thought that the best thing was to give Bush leverage. Obama didn't have to cast a public vote in the senate of the United States shortly after 9/11. Based on all his rhetoric about bipartisanship it is quite possible he too would have caved/calculated/really believed.

Very well said 'bornagaindem.'

CT Voter: " . . . do you just enjoy insulting people while hiding behind a shield?"

Yeah, right, "CT Voter" is a "name" and not an anonymous pseudonym you are hiding behind.

I didn't see your real name and address on your posts; how did I miss that.

That type of intellectual dishonesty, accusing someone else of the very thing that you are also doing, pretty much sums up my low opinion of your reading skills which seemed to miss:

"Anyone who believes Bush would not have sent troops to Iraq absent the AUMF is a fool and a liar."

How the prededing was ambiguous or required better writing to make it clear to idiots like you is very hard to see.

The thing to ask yourself is, which stance took more courage? Authorizing Bush to go to war, or opposing him? The Clintons took the politically more defensible stance, as they always do - in other words, they made their decision based on what was best for themselves, not what was best for the country.

The fact that we have only one major candidate for president who had the courage to take a politically disadvantageous stance when it came to life and death says volumes about what passes for "leadership." Having been against the war should have been the minimum requirement for a candidate for president in 2008. All these politicians who tried to preserve their "viability" by voting for authorization should be automatically disqualified in the eyes of the public.

Sorry if that seems like a heavy price for a bunch of basically nice people who simply want to have nice careers to pay. Triangulation is not leadership. It should haunt Bill and Hillary that they guessed wrong - and bet against their own values when it came down to crunch time.

Amateurs like me, with no consultants and no inside info, saw through Bush from 3,000 miles away. Why couldn't supposedly smart "leaders" like Kerry and Clinton be at least as smart as me?

Ni Daye: A democratic Iraq will be in the best interest of everybody.

A democratic United States would be in the best interests of everybody, but it won't happen anytime soon, if one is to take the discussion on this page as indicative of the state of American politics. Obfuscations accepted, triangulations praised. Let's worry about the state of our nation (it's miserable, believe me) before trying to bring democracy to others at the point of a bayonet.

Loki wrote that it's BS that Kerry lost because of his resolution vote. He's right. Kerry lost because his answer to the war in Iraq was to add more troops. He lost because he was against it before he was for it (or was he for it before he was against it?). Obfuscator. Triangulator. Another Clintonian Democrat. Just like he stood by while the police Tasered an obnoxious student and then said he didn't see a thing. I can't support anymore Democrats of this Clinton-Kerry-Clinton ilk. No more. We should demand something better.

Bochner: The Clintons took the politically more defensible stance, as they always do - in other words, they made their decision based on what was best for themselves, not what was best for the country.

Could only be written by someone clueless about the American political landscape.

Getting thrown out of office and leaving Democrats with a higher hurdle to take over the Senate and House is hardly thinking only of oneself.

Sometimes what is best for the candidate is what is best for the country in the long term, especially when the AUMF HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER BUSH INVADED IRAQ OR NOT.

Voting for it did, however, keep Democrats within striking distance of recapturing the Senate and House, which they did.

Keith: Section 3 of the 2002 AUMF gave President Bush the authority to use force against Iraq to the extent he determined it was necessary to protect US interest and that diplomatic efforts would not adequately protect those interest. Nothing about a concurrence from Congress that diplomatic efforts were inadequate--just President Bush. Didn't need to be satisfied to HRC's or WJC's standards, just President Bush.

Conditions are conditions, whether they are subject to congressional review or not.

Get your own facts straight.

BTW, a federal judge disagrees with you.

Keith: Anyone who claims that Bush was doing anything more than paying lip service on the diplomatic efforts is kidding themselves.

No one has claimed that.

But I know you will lie and say they have anyway.

If the Dems had any sense the slogan for the Clintons should also be "Had Enough"it will be in all our interests to have them back in their pre-campaign places.

Anon @3:41:

Apparently you aren't in the legal field, otherwise you'd understand what Judge Lynch said. Nothing in the 2002 AUMF constitutes a shifting of Congress' authority to declare/authorize the use of force. It is an AUTHORIZATION for President Bush to USE FORCE. See Section 3(c) (War Powers Resolution), then look up the War Powers Resolution (Sections 5(b) and 8(a)(1)).

onceler: . . . there was NO WAY to invade Iraq without the AUMF . . .

I guess you've never heard of the Unitary Executive Theory or the Bush administration's own claims that Bush didn't require the AUMF to take action in Iraq.

You truly are stupid and uninformed.

But do tell us how anyone could have stopped Bush from ordering the invasion if the AUMF had not been passed or even asked for.

Bush has repeatedly claimed that he can send troops to any country he considers a threat without congressional pre-authorization, just as other presidents before him have.

The fact he, and other presidents, have chosen to bully or beg Congress into giving them some political cover when doing so doesn't change that.

Bochner, your name sounds suspiciously mendacious.

So, how was Bush gonna get his war on without AUMF, monsieur?

Are you truly that stupid?

(Rhetorical question.)

Keith: Apparently you aren't in the legal field, otherwise you'd understand what Judge Lynch said.

Apparently you are not in the legal field; otherwise you would use correct punctuation and would actually comprehend what Lynch wrote.

Anonymous @ 3:44PM,

As a brilliant commenter stated quite eloquently before...you don't matter.

Get it?

anonymous, you fool, there was NO WAY to invade Iraq without the AUMF. no way in the world to do so without Congressional authorization. how little do you know about the US government???

Except that Bush's people were themselves arguing that the AUMF was not, in fact, legally necessary.

Any honest reading of the AUMF will see it as trying to impose SOME real conditions on Bush's invading Iraq. Of course, since the Republicans effectively controlled the language of the resolution, those conditions were not as stringent as Democrats sought.

But anyone capable of a distinction can see that AUMF might rightly be construed as a measure to require Saddam, at the threat of military force, to allow inspections and to disarm his supposed "WMDs". Indeed, while no one seems to acknowledge it, it actually achieved precisely that desirable effect. Of course, Bush used it to pursue a reckless war. But why Democrats who voted for the resolution should be blamed fully for Bush's recklessness here is beyond me. Democrats had to ask themselves the question, do we want to require Saddam to admit inspectors and disarm, under the threat of military force? The resolution on its face made exactly that proposal. It's just dishonest to pretend that they were voting for war, unconditionally.

Again, it's not hard to see that point if you have any kind of objectivity. But I think we can assume that it's impossible to get a person to see a point if supporting his favored candidate requires that he fail to do so.

How many of us want to spend the next campaign, like we did the last one, parsing the AUMF? Maybe if Hillary hadn't voted against efforts to force more diplomacy, like the 02 Levin amendment, she and her supporters would have some ground to stand on. However, she voted against the 02 Levin amendment and for the blank check authorization. Do we really think she'll have the credibility to attack the failures of judgment of the last 8 years? We need to nominate a candidate with credibility. Here is what Obama said in 02:

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president.
Obama was right. Being right gives you credibility. We need a candidate with credibility, not one that's going to try to convince voters that a blank check authorization was a vote for diplomacy notwithstanding other votes against diplomacy.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capabilities, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members."

Of course, Hillary didn't read those intelligence reports. If she had, she might have known that the phoney Bush intel she was uncritically parroting was undersupported. LINK

[John Yoo wrote that] the AUMF is "an express affirmation of the President's constitutional authorities by Congress." Not an authorization to use force, then, but an affirmation. An affirmation of what? That the power to use military force exists independent of this (or any other) act of Congress.

I repeat for the dimwitted here (and the liars): Bush, as demonstrated by his administration's own legal opinions, did not believe that the AUMF was required to invade Iraq.

Therefore, there was nothing to stop him, since you dimwits have opined time and again that Congress is feckless when it comes to circumscribing Bush's conduct and the courts are unwilling to intervene on such questions.

So, now YOU must explain what would have kept Bush from invading Iraq, given his opinion he didn't need the AUMF, if HRC had voted against it AND that vote had resulted in its defeat (and clearly HRC's vote against it would not have defeated the AUMF, despite your idiotic suggestion that her vote and her vote alone gave Bush his alleged authority to invade).

To view Judge Lynch's ruling as a defense of HRC is absurd. More obscuring of the truth by playing games with words. "The judge ruled implicitly... " This is tantamount to Bill arguing about what the word "is" means. Hillary's supporters won't win anyone else's support with such silliness. The obvious fact (and it was obvious to anyone reasonable at the time) is that her vote was to support Bush's war. She did so because she was afraid to do otherwise. As a woman (and a Clinton) she had to prove she had the balls to kill innocent people. Her career was more valuable that other people's lives. Her career was more valuable that our country's integrity. Pathetic, as is your attempt to obfuscate matters by reference to what was "implicit" in some judge's ruling. Pathetic, and indicative of the pathetic state of the Clinton wing of the Democratic party. Pathetic.

Of course, since the Republicans effectively controlled the language of the resolution, those conditions were not as stringent as Democrats sought.

Right. The typical Democratic whine about the big, bad Republicans and how (sigh) the Democrats can't get what they want, even though they are, and were, in the majority so there's no point in standing up for anything...so let's just triangulate our way down the yellow brick road...

I echo the others here who say good job Greg.

Nothing stops anyone from arguing anything; that fact doesn't make it so. For a good example, read Anon's posts throughout this thread.

"Triangulate" - the new (and overused) curse word for Hillary Haters.

If you try real hard, I bet you can get some version of "triangulate" into each sentence you post without much effort at all.

"DTM wrote on November 28, 2007 1:49 PM:
The basic fact that I can never get around is that the 2002 AUMF looks just like the 2001 AUMF, which authorized the Afghanistan War, and the 1991 AUMF, which authorized the Gulf War."

No it doesn't. The 2002 and 2001 AUMFs are a complete travesty of giving away all war powers to the executive branch. Under the 2001 AUMF for example Bush, and Bush alone, can wage war on anyone, anytime, anywhere on the planet, be it Saudi Arabia, or San Francisco (Posse Comitatus be damned) for as long as he wants without any say so of Congress.

Have you even READ the 2001 AUMF?

It sure doesn't seem like it given the absurd assertion you made.

anonymous at 4:28,

I never claimed that "CT Voter" was a real name--my comment about getting a name is that having to respond to the correct "anonymous" is just a pain in the butt. Besides, a name (fake or otherwise) helps to provide some context. Instead of "anonymous at 4:28 sure seems to favor invective and insults" I could say, for instance, "Gee, Clinton campaign staffer seems to like calling people idiots..."

And I don't have a problem with working "triangulation" into a sentence with Hillary Clinton. As a suggestion for a campaign slogan, I'd say it's perfect: Nothing says triangulation like Hillary Clinton!

Still waiting for the definition of "prededing", by the way...

Some contemporary analysis of the 2002 AUMF from the NY TIMES.

The resolution authorizes Mr. Bush to use the armed forces ''as he determines to be necessary and appropriate'' to defend the nation against ''the continuing threat posed by Iraq,'' and to enforce ''all relevant'' United Nations Security Council resolutions on Iraq. It requires him to report to Congress within 48 hours of any military action.

The resolution was far less broad than the initial resolution put forward by the White House, which members of both parties said was too open-ended and could conceivably allow military action throughout the Middle East. In a concession to Democrats, the resolution encourages the president to try to work through the United Nations before acting alone. Still, it leaves him with broad latitude.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9402EFD6143AF932A25753C1A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

MBunge: . . . and now that she was always opposed to going to war in Iraq . . .

Uh, wasn't it BILL Clinton who said this, not Hillary?

Are you really that desperate that you must attribute to HRC statements made by Bill?

lestatdelc,

I probably should have added an "in relevant part" there. I agree the 2001 AUMF in particular is distinct in that unlike the 1991 and 2002 AUMFs, it doesn't limit its authorization to use force to a single country (Iraq in the cases of both the 1991 and 2002 AUMF).

My point, though, was that the 2002 AUMF was not somehow less of a final step to war with Iraq than the 1991 AUMF was a final step to war with Iraq or the 2001 AUMF was a final step to war with Afghanistan.

In fact, it may be useful to focus on the 1991 AUMF in particular (since the 2001 AUMF is indeed different in important, in not directly relevant, respects). As I have noted before, just like the 2002 AUMF, the 1991 AUMF requires the President to determine that the United States has exhausted its diplomatic options before he is authorized to use force. But also like the 2002 AUMF, that determination is left up to him, and he just has to notify Congress he has made it.

So again, my point is just that for the purposes of this discussion, there is no relevant distinction between the 2002 AUMF and its predecessors, both of which led to war. And that is why it is absurd for people to now claim that they did not realize at the time that the 2002 AUMF was likely to lead to war.

anonymous wrote on November 28, 2007 4:30 PM:
"Triangulate" - the new (and overused) curse word for Hillary Haters. If you try real hard, I bet you can get some version of "triangulate" into each sentence you post without much effort at all.

OK, let's skip that word for a post. It doesn't change the fact that Bill and his Missus have made an art form out of reinventing reality, standing for nothing other than for their own careers, and selling out others. Poor people in America be damned. All people in Iraq be damned. Stand on all sides of all issues and ultimately stand for nothing. Big money talks and has bought them out. We all walk straight to hell. See, no curse words at all. But the result is the same. We shouldn't support people who have not scruples and who would sell us all out if they thought it would advance their self interest. Bush, Cheney, Bill, Hillary. Peas in a pod, my friends. We can do better and we must.

"Uh, wasn't it BILL Clinton who said this, not Hillary?

Are you really that desperate that you must attribute to HRC statements made by Bill?"

Have you missed Hillary justifying her vote for the AUMF by saying that giving Bush more leverage against Saddam was a way to make war less likely?

Mike

Remus:

Here's where you lose me with your analysis:

Bush started the war before those conditions had a chance to be met.

Bush was the only person authorized to determine when and if those conditions were met. So it's disingenous to say that he started the war before the conditions were met. He started the war when he determined the conditions were met.

Barak Obama spoke at an anti Iraq Invasion Rally in Chicago, before Bush launched the attack. He came out against Bush's Iraq folly before it began.

A number of the candidates voted the same way as Hillary did on giving Bush the go ahead. All of them, except Hillary, have since declared that they made a mistake in casting their votes for the Iraq War resolution.

It looks like Hillary wants to keep her position on being for the Iraq War, but also get to now try being also against it, by proxy, since Bill is now claiming that he was against it from the start.

So much for her eight years of experience claims. She voted for the Iraq War powers authorization even thought the guy who was actually the President for eight years, and that she was First Lady too, now says that he was against the War.

What the hell good is her claims of those eight years of experience in the White House if she votes against the position of the President that she is married to.

Looks like she is actually claimin that her eight years of experience as First Lady has taught her to ignore the experience of the person who was The Actual President for those eight years.

lestatdelc: What conditions were those as actually specified in the 2002 AUMF which were unmet . . .

Since you've read it, you know exactly what they were.

It is irrelevant that Bush was not required to first demonstrate to Congress that those conditions had been met before getting further authorization to invade.

An interpretation that it's a blank check is just that and no more and no more honest than an interpretation that is was a conditional authorization.

And the AUMF remains irrelevant, since, as has been repeatedly noted, the Bush administration viewed it as irrelevant to the president's authority to order troops to Iraq.

I find it bemusing that the Hillary defenders are almost all anonymous cowards who are spinning bullshit.

Nothing like the bullshit being spun by Hillary Haters where they falsely attribute claims made by Bill as claims made by HRC.

Didn't see you take any time to chastise those commenters, so pardon me while a laugh at your attempt to paint yourself as independent and open-minded about the whole thing.

MBunge wrote, "Have you missed Hillary justifying her vote for the AUMF by saying that giving Bush more leverage against Saddam was a way to make war less likely?"

Rarely does one find such a clear example of someone being damned by their own supporters. Hillary justified her vote by having it both ways. If the war was as wonderful as Cheney et al. predicted (a cake walk), well, she voted for it. If the war turned out as it has, well, she meant well and was trying to leverage Saddam to avoid the war. The astonishing thing is that people like her say things like this with a straight face. So, MBunge, be careful what you say in her support. In fact, it is damning for her.

A vote for war would be a vote in favor of a declaration of war.

An AUMF is less than that, always has been. An AUMF imposes conditions and constraints on a President, especially the AUMF under discussion here. It required the President to continue with the UN process that had been going for years, i.e., the President was required to attempt to get UN inspectors back in Iraq. The AUMF passed and this happened. If Saddam had not complied, war was authorized.

Bush is so treacherous, he invaded anyway, in spite of the fact that inspectors were back in and finding nothing.

The same people who claim that anyone could see that Bush could not be trusted are the same folks who say Bush would have invaded anyway (without the AUMF). That includes me.

However, what I will not do is claim that Senators like Clinton and Kerry had no valid argument. I like the fact that the Democrats negotiated with Bush and got him to go through UN.

Also, I will not try to disingenuously try to say that voting in favor of the AUMF is the same as voting for war or for invasion. That's crap.

The prism that Greg Sargent refers to in this post is a distorting prism. You're asking Senators to know not only that Bush is a totally Rogue President prior to the invasion, but that they know beyond a shadow of a doubt that going the UN/inspector route is less likely to stop war than not going through the UN.

Bush was and is the problem. Not Clinton, not Edwards, not Kerry, et. al.

frankly0,

You are making a good case for the context requiring a different approach than the one that was taken, due to the uncertainty at the time and lack of a truly imminent threat. And some Senators did in fact try to work out a different path, which is why we have been discussing things like the Levin Amendment.

Could Democrats justify voting for something like the Levin Amendment and against the 2002 AUMF? Sure they could, and a lot did.

Anonymous wrote on November 28, 2007 5:17 PM:

lestatdelc: What conditions were those as actually specified in the 2002 AUMF which were unmet . . .

Since you've read it, you know exactly what they were.

Yeah, nowhere. Let's look at what Clinton actually voted to authorize and what conditions must be met:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--

(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) > Reports.--The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

(b) Single Consolidated Report.--To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) Rule of Construction.--To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

Approved October 16, 2002.

No restrictions or conditions were placed on Bush at all and left the entire determination to him and him alone to use military force. If there are any, point them out for us all. The only thing it compelled Bush to do was report to Congress up to 48 hours AFTER the invasion begun that he himself determined that no peacful resolution would not "adequately protect the US" from the "threat" Iraq posed. A threat which in fact did not exist.

it's not just the war that the dems handed to bush et al. it's the funding for the war, it's the votes on habeas corpus and wiretapping and secrete prisons and on and on. hillary's not alone in this. pelosi, reid, hoyer, the whole lot of 'em. pathetic. and then they have the gall to argue that they're doing all they can, etc. all of them. the whole lot of them. abdicators of responsibility. collaborators with the republicans. enablers of the worst sorts of crimes against humanity.

anonymous at 3:51 p.m.,

An anologous law would have to look something like this:

"Whereas Bugs Bunny poses a threat to steal carrots;

(1) Elmer Fudd is authorized to kill Bug Bunny in order to eliminate the continuing carrot-stealing threat;

(2) Within 48 hours of exercising his authority under (1), Elmer Fudd has to notify Pork Pig of his determination that trying to talk Bugs Bunny out of stealing carrots was unlikely to work."

DTM wrote on November 28, 2007 5:35 PM:

...

But when the determination of whether further diplomacy is worth pursuing is left up to the President's judgment, in truth that is not really requiring him to do anything in particular.

Correct. The only thing the 2002 AUMF "required" of Bush was that he report back to Congress within 48 hours AFTER any military force was used against Iraq, that he (Bush) determined that Iraq was a threat and that diplomatic efforts would not "adequately protect the US" from said "threat", which in reality Iraq did not pose at all.

Enough with the "Hillary Haters" claims.

She is running for President, and so are many other people. Supporting another candidate, does not equate to Hillary hate. That is the same as claiming that one has a gender bias if someone supports any one other than Hillary.

Cut out the nonsense. If you consider supporting someone other than Hillary means that a person there fore must hate her, then your support of Hillary must must mean that you are full of hate for the other candidates.

It is an election campaign, not a coronation ceremony.

She has to take the heat an earn peoples votes on the same playing field as all others who would be President. Stop with the "hate" nonsense. If makes her look weak.

Can someone please tell me why there are people still harping on about the Levin amendment? It's not as if it had a prayer of becoming law.

lestadelc: Correct. The only thing the 2002 AUMF "required" of Bush was that he report back to Congress within 48 hours AFTER any military force was used against Iraq, that he (Bush) determined that Iraq was a threat and that diplomatic efforts would not "adequately protect the US" from said "threat", which in reality Iraq did not pose at all.

Incorrect.

The AUMF imposed conditions such that if Bush acted without those conditions being met he was acting outside the scope of any so-called "authority" he was granted and was, therefore, subject to impeachment for failing to faithfully execute the laws of the nation.

Just like hundreds of other laws impose conditions that the actor must determine exist or not and when acting face the consequences of inaccurately or dishonestly determining the existence of said conditions.

Any determination in a self-defense claim is clearly made AFTER the killing has already occurred.

You people are truly pathetic in your raving obsessive compulsive desire to obliterate HRC from the political map and yet you can't explain why Obama hasn't filibustered war funding bills.

Sad really.

anonymous at 5:43,

In a post I assume you did not see, I already explained a bit what such a law would actually have to look like in order to be analogous.

But I wanted to note something in addition.

You mentioned "after the fact review as to whether the conditions were met." This of course is rather crucial: if, for example, you want to use deadly force in self-defense, you must be prepared to be investigated by the police, and possibly may have to defend yourself in a court of law, and the law reserves the right to require that sort of review of what happened when you used deadly force. Where is the similar after the fact review mechanism in this law?

Note that it doesn't actually require that certain conditions be met. Rather, what it actually requires is that the President notify Congress that he has determined that those conditions had been met. So as long as he provides such a notification to Congress, he met the requirements in the law.

So if, for example, Congress didn't agree after the fact that the conditions had been met, that doesn't mean Bush failed to meet the requirements in the law. Again, he just has to notify Congress about his determination, and there is no independent review mechanism for that determination.

So that is why this is not exactly a normal after-the-fact review situation. Rather, the law contemplates no such review of whether the conditions were actually met, but rather simply requires notification that the President made such a determination.

"Whereas Bugs Bunny poses a threat to steal carrots;

(1) Elmer Fudd is authorized to kill Bug Bunny in order to eliminate the continuing carrot-stealing threat;

(2) Within 48 hours of exercising his authority under (1), Elmer Fudd has to notify Pork Pig of his determination that trying to talk Bugs Bunny out of stealing carrots was unlikely to work."

So Hillary, with her eight years of experience as First Lady voted to authorize Elmer Fudd to kill Bugs Bunny, and she still will not admit that was a mistake, even though her Husband, The Actual President for eight years, now tells us that he was against having Bugs Bunny killed.

What a Maroon!

Okay, I see the damage -- thanks for posting the text of the AUMF, lestatdelc.

So Hillary didn't really have any conditions -- she deferred to Bush. And that was poor judgement, as a lot of people back then knew Bush was bug-shit insane about Iraq.

Still, it puts Hillary in a lot of company. Bush duped most (though not all) of the Congress. She could win the argument by admitting she was wrong then. But she won't.

Obama gets a brownie point for not being duped, but this still looks to me like a glancing blow, not a serious hit on the frontrunner.

anonymous at 5:48,

I more or less just covered this point, but to summarize: ordinary self-defense laws do in fact require after the fact review. This law did not.

CalD,

The votes on the various amendments are relevant because they illuminate what approaches people were in fact willing to support, or not, at the time. Having that sort of independent and contemporaneous evidence is useful whenever people may be trying to rewrite history with the benefit of hindsight.

I support Hillary and her lying husband for President because I like liars. I never have to wonder 'are they lying to me?', because they are. I am confident that they will always make important and difficult decisions in a way that is good for their wealthy supporters, their legacy, or the big phallic shaped library.

frankly0,

As an aside, the Levin Amendment specifically contemplated reconsideration of the issue within 60 days by requiring the President to report on his efforts to obtain a UN resolution by that time. However, I won't disagree with your implication that many (but only about half) of the Democratic Senators concluded it would be in their political interests to support the AUMF and vote against the Levin Amendment.

But I also think they miscalculated about what would be best for them politically. And here we are.

Enough discussion of minute details about specific votes and the extent to which one can make one interpretation or another of their meanings. Face facts. As a group, the Democrats enabled every facet of the horrible evil things that were done (and are continuing to be done). No matter the details about which we argue, this is the fact. There have been no heroes, only enablers. Hillary, Bill, Nancy, Harry, Steny. is this the best we can do? pathetic. that's all there is to it. And now we argue about whether it was Bill or Hillary who is re-inventing themselves in now claiming to have been against the war. neither of them did diddely squat against the war either then or now. we collectively and individually ought to be ashamed of them and of ourselves for putting up with them.

little ole jim,

I agree it was commonly understood that Bush would go back to the UN for one more try at a peaceful resolution of the problem, but that wasn't in the law itself, and as you probably know the "whereas" clauses have no legal force.

Still, as I acknowledged at the start, I don't think it would be unreasonable for someone to claim that they had hoped that war could be avoided, even after voting for the AUMF. But what is absurd is people claiming that they thought war at that point wasn't likely, and that the AUMF was not the final legal step towards that war.

It turns out that, after being given authority to shoot rabbits by anonymous, Bugs Bunny did not actually possess the carrots that Elmer Fudd claimed he had.

Oh well. You can't blame anonymous. He was just trying to provide "leverage" to get that wascally wabbit to behave.

The problem was "electing" Elmer Fudd in the first place.

The people who trusted Elmer Fudd when he started waving around that shotgun certainly are having a hard time making a case that their "experience" qualifies them to replace Fudd as president.

Does he have dementia? Heart conditions have a connection with dementia onset. He said it in such strong terms that there may really be some confusion in his own mind (caused by dementia).

DTM: Yes, it can be argued that it was a final legal hurdle, or that the AUMF made it easier for Bush to go to war, etc.. But I do think the Democrats used it to try to slow Bush down and make him prove his case that Saddam was an imminent threat.

I don't think they saw themselves as "caving" at all. There was a process that many people said had worked and that Saddam was likely disarmed to the point of not being a threat. They wanted to continue that process, not invade Iraq.

I don't blame those who have evaluated the evidence and critize those who voted in favor of the AUMF. I don't like AUMFs period, especially now.

But it's an exaggeration to call a vote for the AUMF a vote in favor of war or a vote in favor of invasion. In my opinion.

lestatdelc wrote that the majority of Democratic Senators did not vote for all the nasty things that have been done, e.g., secret prisons, habeas corpus suspension, wire taps, wars, war funding, etc., and that the bulk of the rank and file of Democrats vehemently rejects such actions (hence the dismal Congressional approval ratings). So, lestatdelc implores, "please stop using inaccurate broad brush statements about Democrats enabling the horrific actions and policies of the past 7 years."

But the Democrats have held leadership in both the House and Senate since the last election, and the House and Senate have continued to fund the war, support secret prisons, suspend habeas corpus, and on and on. The Democrats hold the leadership and they continue these things! The Democrats have been in leadership and the Democrats have led congress into abysmal approval ratings because of they have enabled these horrible things. The Democrats in leadership have been culpable in all of this and have done nothing to stand up against it. And not once has a Senator--Democrat or Republican--filibustered. It only takes 41 votes to sustain a filibuster, and the Democrats have 50 votes. I think my accusations are well warranted. The congressional Democrats have abdicated their ethical responsibilities. They instead have calculated about politics. As others have noted in this discussion, they have calculated poorly. But the point is that they should have been standing up for what is right instead of calculating about political gains and losses. And, for those of you who worry about Hillary being singled out: She has been a leader in making such cynical political calculations. She has not earned our respect. She represents the worst in us, not the best. The Democrats have not answered the bell. Now, tell me why I'm wrong about that. Our country has faced its greatest challenge and threat, and the Democrats did not answer the bell. They wimped away the chance to do the right thing. They failed to be heroic. They worried about their careers. Pathetic. Tell me why I'm wrong about this.

is it possible that the HRC-trolls we keep running into on these blogs are Republican mischief-makers? All the HRC supporters I know are polite and thoughtful.

DTM wrote:

The votes on the various amendments are relevant because they illuminate what approaches people were in fact willing to support, or not, at the time. Having that sort of independent and contemporaneous evidence is useful whenever people may be trying to rewrite history with the benefit of hindsight.

OK, now I understand your reasoning. Clinton was supposed to vote yea on the Levin amendment, a toothless resolution lacking even a long shot chance of becoming law just so that at some future date, someone might think that voting for it made her a good person -- as opposed to not voting for it, which of course would make her a bad person, even given that it was in fact a toothless resolution lacking even a long shot chance of becoming law.

Makes perfect sense.

little ole jim,

A vote for an AUMF is a vote to authorize a war (we don't call it a war, but that is what it is authorizing). I don't see how that isn't a vote "in favor" of a war, even if you were still hoping it could be avoided. And in any event, we know it is political poison to try to explain to voters that you voted to authorize a war in order to prevent that war from happening, even though it in fact did happen.

CalD,

No, I think she should have voted for the Levin Amendment because it was the better approach.

As previously noted, I also think the fact that she did not vote for the Levin Amendment casts serious doubt on her retrospective account of what she was trying to achieve at the time. But again, that isn't why she should have voted for the Amendment.

In fact, I really don't get your logic here. Are you saying that once you hear the vote count is going against you, you might as well just switch your vote over to the winning side, even if you believe they are wrong on the issue?

Yikes. And if you think about it, it isn't politically smart to tell voters that how people vote does not really matter whenever their individual vote is unlikely to change the final outcome.

DTM: Now you're just being silly.

DTM wrote on November 28, 2007 6:31 PM:

dcshungu,

I have not denied your claim that you understand statistics either. Again, though, that still doesn't address the issue that you have never said anything that indicates you understand the basic
methodology of this poll, up to and including now.

You have called me ignorant all day long. However, It seems to me that you are getting more confused than ever, so I am here to deliver le coup de grâce.

That I had understood the basic methodology of this "poll" from the git-go should have been clear in the fact that I was among the first to state (casually to Michael) that it wasseriously flawed. That is the archives. Are you challenging the fact that this poll is bogus? If you are, then say so publicly and then go hide under a rock because 24 hr after I'd already pointed out the problem with this poll, even dKos and another diarist [no Hillary-lovers] have just echoed, here and here, exactly what I had stated . Follow the links and then come to dissemble some more, but in end I will accept even an oblique apology. But just shutting up would be good enough for me.

DTM:

I've got an idea. Rather continue chasing your tail around and around in endless, contorted reiterations of circular reasoning. Why don't you tell us what you think would have happened if by some wildly improbable miracle, the congress had passed the Levin amendment and the president had signed it into law -- say a boatload of Extacy went down in a river feeding the DC water supply during the night, the entire congress and the white house got a double dose in their morning coffee, the bill was passed and signed before it wore off, but the rest of the world was still the same.

It's the UN, 2002: The oil for food program in Iraq has been thoroughly corrupted by tens of millions of dollars in bribes handed out to dozens of UN personnel by agents of the Hussein regime. Several countries, including a couple of security council members want to see the sanctions against Iraq dropped with regime still in place for business reasons. Many other countries are disinclined to mess with Iraq at all just because it's messy.

You're Colin Powell, Secretary of State. You show up with the Levin Amendment -- a resolution to have a conversation and if that doesn't work to come back and have another conversation -- now public law of the USA as your mandate.

Hit it.

Taking on the multiples of the snarky and the silly and the less than well reasoned, but still standing in clarity, intelligence and unwavering centered graciousness, that is you I am noticing, DTM. Kudos.

{Insert vomit soundtrack here}

little ole jim,

As we discussed before, the only real condition in this AUMF is that the President has to notify Congress that he has made a certain determination.

dcshungu,

Once again you are off topic, but as I've already noted elsewhere, I found Charles Franklin's commentary over at pollster.com persuasive. Notably, Franklin actually understands these polls, which helps Franklin be persuasive.

CalD,

I don't know what would have happened. How could I? You are talking about the possible outcomes of an incredibly complex process, one that was never tried.

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll

http://www.votenic.com

The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.

Posted from a Palm Treo somewhere in Eastside Manhattan:

The one who calls itself DTM is a psycho. A panel of experts has just studied its posts and concluded that something was amiss. Beware...

Oops typo. (I sure miss that edit function on the old board.) Last sentence of my previous comment should have read:

Let's hear it how that should have gone down.

If the Clintons are claiming that they supported the Iraq War Resolution because they trusted both Bush and Blair, then I would say they are guilty of naivete. But I don't believe it. They knew as well as those of us who were deeply disappointed in Hillary's vote that it was political expediency. Also, I don't believe they wanted more diplomacy because she voted againt the Levin admendment that called for exactly that.

Late to the party, but:

the AUMF passed Congress on Oct 10/11, and the war began March 20, so almost 6 months later. So it was in fact unlike the AUMF in 1991 and in 2001 in that it did not lead to immediate war. The UN Security Council passed resolution 1441 two months after the AUMF. It was also before inspectors were allowed back in. If you go to Wikipedia on resolution 1441 you'll be reminded that Hans Blix was less than impressed with Iraq's cooperation handing over evidence of destruction of its real and actual stockpiles of weapons such as anthrax, VX and missiles, last seen in 1998. Now Blix wanted more time, but I remember my own feeling with one of his presentations - "shit, we're going to war, too much non-cooperation".

I personally feel Bush wanted to go to war all along, whatever the facts, but that doesn't wash away Hussein's own part in the story. What we see here is not the opposite of Tenet's claim, that "Hussein not having WMD's is a slam dunk". It is only continuing confusion as to what happened with the stockpiles. And to get back to the point of this piece, Clinton had dealt with Hussein non-cooperation for 8 years, including military responses, so it is not surprising that he would support serious measures against Hussein and be even sympathetic with going to war, even if he was unhappy with not continuing inspections when they were finally showing results and the actual decision. You see, Hussein was complicated.

Donna G,

You have not been paying attention.

DTM has been equally snarkey and insulting through much of these threads. Go back and take a serious look for yourself. He/she gives as good as he/she gets. Not that there's anything wrong with that. We all have our moments of frustration and moments of sublime calm and even our moments of playful snarkiness. It's human nature. Just like having to puke when reading gross palaver like yours above. (See, now that was playful snarkiness.)

Opps sorry. I didn't mean to say Max Cleeland in my last post, I meant Zell Miller. Profuse apologies to Max Cleeland.

HIS WIFE HE DID NOT IMPORTUNE (BILL)

Bill says, during the rush to war
(It surely was a rush)
The haste of it he did deplore,
The frantic forward push,

Which I believe is true; however,
Not ever did he speak it,
If now, post facto, seeming clever
He slyly tries to "tweak it."

Now he says, "I opposed the war,"
But had he clearly done so,
As stridently as--say, Al Gore--
None need to play the dunce so.

His words were clear--from Maine to Aukland
Recall them in my rhyme:
Quoth he, "it's possible to walk and
Chew gum at one same time,"

By which he meant, to bomb Iraq
While chasing old Osama--
Tacit approval of attack
He gave, no Dalai Lama.

Today Bill changes all the tune,
How he opposed it so;
His wife he did not importune
To vote against it, though.

CalD,

I am not sure why you think it is important that I cannot guarantee with absolute certainty that taking another path would have prevented war. Such certainty just is not obtainable in this complex world of ours.

And as I have pointed out many times now, the fact that we are uncertain about whether war could have been avoided, even with the benefit of hindsight, is caused in large part by the fact that prominent leaders like Senator Clinton and former President Clinton went along with the rush to war, and even encouraged it at times.

So, it seems quite odd to me to use the very uncertainty that was caused in part by their own failure to try to stop the rush to war to absolve them of responsibility for not trying to stop the rush to war. But again, if absolute certainty about alternative paths is what you want, you are right you will never get that sort of thing from me.

DTM wrote:

I am not sure why you think it is important that I cannot guarantee with absolute certainty that taking another path would have prevented war. Such certainty just is not obtainable in this complex world of ours.

For the third time, DTM no one asked you to guarantee anything "guarantee with absolute certainty."* I just asked you to lay out the basics of any reasonably credible scenario for October of 2002 wherein things would have turned out better if only congress had done whatever it is you think they should have done. I was even willing to spot you passage of your preferred Iraq resolution (which in fact went down in flames by 75-24) and you still couldn't do it.

Since you are apparently unable to make a credible case that your idea was better, then you obviously can't make the case that what people actually did in that situation was worse. So basically, you're just talking out your ass, as usual.