Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   "Clinton Concedes Role in Authorizing War." Finally, the mystery is solved. If only there were some record of who voted to authorize the war   (news.yahoo.com) divider line
39
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

413 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Jan 2007 at 10:20 PM (16 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



39 Comments     (+0 »)
 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2007-01-27 6:03:56 PM  
Hmmm. From TFA:

1. "I have said clearly and consistently for quite some time that I regret the way the president misused the authority," said Clinton. "He misled Congress and the country on what he was seeking and what he intended to do."

2. "I take responsibility for having voted to give him that authority," she said. "My focus is on what we do now. That is the proper debate."

Which is it, Hillary? Do we keep biatching about Bush getting us into this war, or do we focus on what to do now?
 
farkncorey
2007-01-27 6:07:20 PM  
MyNameIsNotMervGriffin: Do we keep biatching about Bush getting us into this war, or do we focus on what to do now?


Yes.


/just sayin'
 
KaponoFor3
2007-01-27 6:09:05 PM  
MyNameIsNotMervGriffin: 2. "I take responsibility for having voted to give him that authority," she said. "My focus is on what we do now. That is the proper debate."

Tell your supporters to STFU about getting us into the war then. We can't do anything about that decision now, and Bush is gone in two years anyways. The American public doesn't want to hear "we shouldn't have gone in" -- they want to hear what to do about it now.
 
Alacritous
2007-01-27 6:12:18 PM  
He should be investigated and punished for what he and his cohorts have done and caused, so that those who follow will not be tempted to tread the same path.
 
flaEsq
2007-01-27 6:16:08 PM  
MyNameIsNotMervGriffin: Which is it, Hillary? Do we keep biatching about Bush getting us into this war, or do we focus on what to do now?

1 & 2 are not mutually exclusive. What would Santayana say?
 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2007-01-27 6:29:13 PM  
flaEsq: 1 & 2 are not mutually exclusive. What would Santayana say?

Oh, I get it. We talk about BUSH'S role in getting us into Iraq, but not Hillary's.
 
Action Replay Nick
2007-01-27 6:34:55 PM  
No one voted to authorize the war submitter. The spineless weasels basically gave up and washed their hands of their duty to authorize war, leaving the choice up to the executive branch.
 
flaEsq
2007-01-27 7:00:28 PM  
MyNameIsNotMervGriffin: Oh, I get it.

Doesn't look that way :(

We talk about BUSH'S role in getting us into Iraq, but not Hillary's.

It's like fortune(6) where you push {add comment} and you get a different strawman
 
tandkquinn
2007-01-27 7:31:32 PM  
It remains Bush's war, but we would not have gone to war if it hadn't been for Congress' support of Bush's idea. Hilary was part of that support, and I suspect that she will not be able to run away from that, no matter how much she attempts to distance herself from it.

At the time, it was a coldly calculated political decision - she must have remembered the fates of Sam Nunn and other Dems who voted against the first Gulf War in the early 1990s. They disappeared from the political landscape. She was appealing to a centrist bloc to help her "electability" (much the same way that she panders to the "moral outrage at movies and video games" crowd), not to mention the pro-Israel lobby that is an important part of her base. She miscalculated.

This is why she worked so hard to destroy Lieberman, as he occupies some of the same political space (yes, she DID try to bone him), and it would help her to exocise that demon. She may have miscalculated on that one, too.
 
tandkquinn
2007-01-27 7:32:17 PM  
exorcise
 
get real
2007-01-27 7:48:36 PM  
He misled Congress miz hillary said, so Congress is not able to read the news, are sheltered in a basement with no ability to research what the fark is going on in the world?

Do these people even live close to the real world we all live in? Having a total fark account should be mandatory for anyone in government since they can't seem to find the news on their own.
 
Bayouguy
2007-01-27 8:05:00 PM  
get real: He misled Congress miz hillary said, so Congress is not able to read the news, are sheltered in a basement with no ability to research what the fark is going on in the world?

While you have a point, and remembering that a significant part of the US were able to smell a rat in 2002, put yourself in Hillary's shoes. If you have collective memory saying one thing, but the entire DOD, CIA, your Presidential husband, etc, telling you that they have the "real" intel, who would you listen to? Hindsight's 20/20.

This debate boils down to two facts:

1. The administration lied to get us into an unnecessary war with no plan to keep the peace.

2. Congress, including/especially Hillary, lost a major opportunity to do the right thing for America. Anyone who voted for the Authorization for the Use of Military Force without doing at least a *modicum* of digging does not deserve to occupy the Oval Office.
 
Litterbox
2007-01-27 9:21:29 PM  
Unreal. You critics need to read her comments from the floor of the Senate regarding all this. Her vote, and the votes of everyone else were to give Bush the authority to go to war as a last resort. His misuse of that authority in no way reflects poorly on those who voted to give him that power. They trusted him, had faith that he would make the right decisions etc. Blame them all you want, but the POS still lied to everyone, used BS intelligence and twisted what actual intelligence was used. Yeah, its everyone elses fault.
 
Philbb
2007-01-27 10:20:40 PM  
Litterbox: His misuse of that authority in no way reflects poorly on those who voted to give him that power. They trusted him, had faith that he would make the right decisions etc.

You seem to contradict yourself a bit there. The fact that they chose to trust someone with this authority and that someone misused it does reflect badly on their ability to determine who should and who should not be trusted.

I remember what the climate was like at the time and I fully understand that to vote against the president at that time would have likely been political suicide. But I still have a hard time forgiving anyone who voted for giving this power to the president.
 
spucky
2007-01-27 10:29:46 PM  
MyNameIsNotMervGriffin: Oh, I get it. We talk about BUSH'S role in getting us into Iraq, but not Hillary's.

Oh, I get it. Let's never try to figure out how we got here so we can never figure out how to prevent it from happening again.
 
Desterion
2007-01-27 10:34:27 PM  
yes, because bush authorized the troop deployment to iraq for 3 years. it wasn't congress and the democrats that did it, oh no. it was ALL bush.

it's pretty amazing how liberals can con each other into believing that it didn't really matter that they voted for it, or it didn't count. We are there today ONLY because the democrats also voted to approve it. anyone that claims it's bush's war, is just an idiot. It's america's war.
 
NeedleGuy
2007-01-27 10:44:56 PM  
Feingold was the only senator to vote against the patriot act. is he running?
 
IlGreven
2007-01-27 10:46:10 PM  
...no one voted for authorizing this war. They merely voted to give the president the power to authorize this war. It's the difference between giving Charlie Manson the axe and swinging it yourself...
 
spucky
2007-01-27 10:46:21 PM  
Desterion: yes, because bush authorized the troop deployment to iraq for 3 years. it wasn't congress and the democrats that did it, oh no. it was ALL bush.

Those damned dirty Democrats controlling both the House and Senate cherry picking information to pull the wool over Bush's eyes and make him do things he didn't want to.
 
Lord_Baull
2007-01-27 10:50:33 PM  

Tell your supporters to STFU about getting us into the war then. We can't do anything about that decision now, and Bush is gone in two years anyways. The American public doesn't want to hear "we shouldn't have gone in" -- they want to hear what to do about it now.

Absolutely! Bush deserves a free pass!

Here in the real world, what we want to hear now is, What is Bush going to do differently that hasn't been a miserable failure for the past 3 years?"
 
Lord_Baull
2007-01-27 10:53:49 PM  
We are there today ONLY because the democrats also voted to approve it. anyone that claims it's bush's war, is just an idiot. It's america's war.

Do you understand what it means to have a republican majority? Or more specifically, how a majority can approve resolutions with or without minority consent?
How anyone can think this war is anything BUT Bush's and the republican congress baffles me?
 
DisneyOnIce
2007-01-27 10:55:32 PM  
Desterion: it's pretty amazing how liberals can con each other into believing that it didn't really matter that they voted for it,

Not anywhere near as amazing as watching a rabid member of the so-called "party of personal responsibility" tap-dance around and avoid placing blame where it squarely belongs.
 
the_gospel_of_thomas
2007-01-27 11:10:35 PM  
He dare anyone claim that the plan to deal with Saddam had anything whatsoever to do with democrats, much less support - I mean really.
 
Mad Tea Party
2007-01-27 11:24:07 PM  
Litterbox: They trusted him, had faith that he would make the right decisions etc.

Bollocks. They voted for the war because public opinion was solidly in Bush's favor.
 
FlashLV
2007-01-27 11:51:58 PM  
So voting for her means you support the war I guess.
 
DisneyOnIce
2007-01-28 12:22:50 AM  
the_gospel_of_thomas: He dare anyone claim that the plan to deal with Saddam had anything whatsoever to do with democrats, much less support - I mean really.

How utterly ridiculous to suggest that the Bush administration or PNAC had anything to do with the Iraq debacle. We all know it was a filthy liberal plot to discredit Bush.
 
Resin33
2007-01-28 12:24:56 AM  
Philbb: to vote against the president at that time would have likely been political suicide

It would because the constituency at the time wanted war. To vote against it would be going against the people who voted you in... your job is to represent THEM.

So no, if your people wanted war you are supposed to vote war.
 
lohphat
2007-01-28 1:08:45 AM  
Action Replay Nick: No one voted to authorize the war submitter. The spineless weasels basically gave up and washed their hands of their duty to authorize war, leaving the choice up to the executive branch.

+1

Someone actually understands the War Powers Act of 1973 -- basically a spine-ectomy for Congress.
 
jso2897
2007-01-28 1:43:17 AM  
"Someone actually understands the War Powers Act of 1973 -- basically a spine-ectomy for Congress."

Started with the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. That dear, great liberal JFK.
Lesson here, kiddies: Don't compromise your principles. Comes back to bite you, eventually.
 
Bayouguy
2007-01-28 2:01:02 AM  
jso2897: Started with the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. That dear, great liberal JFK.

Uhhh...wrong initials, at least concerning Tonkin.
 
Snowflake Tubbybottom
2007-01-28 3:30:23 AM  
lohphat: Someone actually understands the War Powers Act of 1973 -- basically a spine-ectomy for Congress.

True enough but when congress voted twice to authorize the use of force in Iraq they knew full well Bush was going to invade. They took it a step further than the WPA as it was already in effect.

However Bush should have used the popular support for war against the populists in the congress. He should have said clearly that US forces will not go after terrorists without a declaration of war. It would have nipped the years of useless debate and put the focus on winning rather than what we have today.
 
eraser8
2007-01-28 3:57:32 AM  
jso2897: Started with the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. That dear, great liberal JFK.

Did JFK come back from the grave? Or was a Ouija board involved?

John F. Kennedy died November 22, 1963.

Gulf of Tonkin Resolution passed August 7, 1964.
 
eraser8
2007-01-28 4:02:26 AM  
Snowflake Tubbybottom writes: True enough but when congress voted twice to authorize the use of force in Iraq they knew full well Bush was going to invade.

Twice?

In any case, are you admitting that Mr. Bush lied when he called the Iraq War Resolution "the best way to ensure compliance and avoid conflict."
 
Unreconconfederate
2007-01-28 6:50:02 AM  
I'm sick of Bushes and Clintons, enough of the professional politicians and their "My turn" games and quests for power.

This crap has been going on since 1988. (1980 if you count 41 as VP)

For God's sake, let's get some fresh faces and new thinking in Washington. Faqrk their cries for "Shotgun!"
 
Snowflake Tubbybottom
2007-01-28 12:13:14 PM  
eraser8: In any case, are you admitting that Mr. Bush lied when he called the Iraq War Resolution "the best way to ensure compliance and avoid conflict."

Excuse me... they voted for use of force in Iraq and use of force against terrorists at roughly the same time period.

And how do you extrapolate that I admit Bush lied out of that? Bush did offer exile to Hussein but he refused. Telling Hussein he must either comply or face invasion was the best way to ensure compliance as he hadn't fully complied in the prior 11 years.
 
eraser8
2007-01-28 12:54:45 PM  
Snowflake Tubbybottom writes: And how do you extrapolate that I admit Bush lied out of that?

When Mr. Bush urged the Congress to vote to authorize force, he argued basically that a vote in favor was a vote for peace. He repeated the claim in the Rose Garden once the vote had taken place. Bush called the authorization "the best way to ensure compliance and avoid conflict."

By saying the Congress "knew full well" Mr. Bush intended to invade once given the authority, you are saying that the Congress knew full well that Mr. Bush was lying to them about his intentions.
 
Snowflake Tubbybottom
2007-01-28 2:00:54 PM  
eraser8: By saying the Congress "knew full well" Mr. Bush intended to invade once given the authority, you are saying that the Congress knew full well that Mr. Bush was lying to them about his intentions.

As I said Hussein was offered exile without penalty before we invaded. Do you think Bush was going to fight a war if he took the deal? If that happened we would likely have moved into Iraq to secure it and allow a full search and then possibly stay as an occupying force to prevent whats happened.

Had it gone down that way it certainly would have been "the best way to ensure compliance and avoid conflict". The use of force authorization allowed the ultimatum to be given as the UN had no compunction to enforce Iraq to its agreements.

Congress did know that their resolution meant that force would be used, and not just the possibility of force. One way or the other we were going into Iraq. Any politician that voted for it that says otherwise is the one lying to you.
 
eraser8
2007-01-28 2:57:46 PM  
Snowflake Tubbybottom writes: Congress did know that their resolution meant that force would be used, and not just the possibility of force.

Then you admit Bush lied. In October of 2002 Mr. Bush claimed the authorization DID NOT mean war. It meant a chance for peace. The smokescreen about the 2003 ultimatum has no bearing whatever on the claims Mr. Bush made several months earlier when the authorization was being debated -- especially considering you yourself have made the claim that the authorization was one for actual conflict.

Why can't you simply admit that Bush is a liar?
 
Snowflake Tubbybottom
2007-01-28 3:38:06 PM  
eraser8: Then you admit Bush lied. In October of 2002 Mr. Bush claimed the authorization DID NOT mean war. It meant a chance for peace. The smokescreen about the 2003 ultimatum has no bearing whatever on the claims Mr. Bush made several months earlier when the authorization was being debated -- especially considering you yourself have made the claim that the authorization was one for actual conflict.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Resolution_to_Authorize_the_Use_of_United_S tates_Armed_Forces_Against_Iraq (pops)

Your making far too much from a single phrase, let alone a single speech.

Congress knew that Bush would use force, in some manner, in Iraq if Hussein didn't comply. That does not make him a liar or let congress off the hook for approving it. Do I really need to prove umpteen quotes prior to invasion where Bush said it was necessary to invade? The threat and use of force was the best option left to ensure compliance, the resulting conflict was attempted to be avoided by going to the UN first, and then the Saddam exile offer second.
 
Displayed 39 of 39 comments


Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

Want more stories with less ads? Try

TotalFark

It's what the cool kids are doing.
It also helps us pay the bills.

learn more | sign up
On Twitter

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.