Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has fully changed her stance on the Iraq war. Five years ago, she voted for granting President Bush the authority to go to war. Now she wants to revoke that authority. “It is time to reverse the failed policies of President Bush and to end this war as soon as possible,” Clinton said.
But can Congress rescind its prior authorization?
Posted by Ross Stewart
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- Regular on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- politicalmama on Open thread 11/24
- politicalmama on Open thread 11/24
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
44 Comments
It’s never too late to correct a mistake.
Oh gees..what the HELL is this? I guess while we are at it, let’s go back and undo slavery, the civil war and maybe rethink doing the Bay of Pigs invasion. In fact, I think I will call up Mrs Clinton and ask her how I can go back and undo some the things in my life I messed up and am sorry for.
You know, 5 years ago we were told by this administration what a bugger bear Saddam Hussein and his administration in Iraq was. The big push was for war on all fronts.
If you were a congress person you were told these lies in great detail, and a large majority of them agreed that a short war was the answer.
Now it seems that anyone who can remember what was happening and says we were lied to, and went about confronting this supposed threat the wrong way is to be branded a flip flopper and discredited.
What is it that you call a person who tries the same tactics to solve a problem today that failed yesterday, and the week before, and the week before that? Most people call them a fool! The Bush administration would wrongly call them a PATRIOT!
On this issue, Clinton is right. Hindsight is always 20/20. It is time to rethink this issue and make some changes.
Face it, the “facts” have changed. Clinton did what a good politician does, she represented the wishes of her constituents at that time. If you’ll recall, the neocons and the administration were whipping up a blood frenzy with talk of 9/11, WMD aimed right at us, mushroom clouds, and bio weapons delivered by model airplanes.
The “facts” have changed (along with the excuses) and so has support for the war. Clinton’s constituents no longer support this war.
Is Clinton wrong to represent the will of the people who put her in office?
In answer to the question at the end of the paragraph: Yes, they can.
If Congress has been given the power to authorize something, it goes without saying that they are also given the right to rescind that authorization. If it is not done by outright rescission it can be done by failure to authorize money.
She is admitting it was a mistake for her to vote for it? Well that is a beginning, so far she is about the only on in that side of the isle that has not admitted she was mistaken. I do not fault anyone for voting for it, nor for not seeing 9-11 happening short of a clear idea as to how and when it would happen.
But hindsight is generally 20/20, if someone told me that my child was killed and it was Paul who killed them. I might go out and hunt him down and hang him from the closest tree! But if afterwards it came out that it was really Capt. America I could not say I am sorry and I made a mistake hard enough, fast enough or meaningful enough to charge such a horrible mistaken idea. But I would at least try to…. I would not be standing there saying “Well with the information I had at the time and given that at the time it was the right thing to do. It then was not a mistake on my part to have done it!”.
Hindsight is 20/20? A child could see that the invasion was a morass on wheels. Yes, Saddam was a nuisance, but he was boxed in by world pressure and Clinton should have been able to see that. The Senator is plainly paying the price for casting a vote for political reasons. “Everyone else was doing it, so how could I dissent?” Well, when you’re a U.S. Senator, it helps to have guts. I refuse to make excuses for Clinton or any other Senator who voted for this fiasco.
And it’s not at all clear that swift withdrawal is the answer, either. We made the mess.
“If Congress has been given the power to authorize something, it goes without saying that they are also given the right to rescind that authorization. If it is not done by outright rescission it can be done by failure to authorize money.”
You cannot take away something that has already happened! They authorized the war despite very good evidence at the time that the Bush administration was making up stuff. Both Joe Wilson and the UN inspection team on the ground in Iraq said at the time that there was no evidence to support Bush’s claims of WMD or claims that Saddam had anything to do with 9-11-01 or Osama Ben Laden. People seem to forget these facts and they seem to forget that most of them were out there yelling “we want WAR” to the Congress. Now that we have to pay the cost of our own stupidity in lifes and money, we want to bail and run out on the mess we made of somebody else’s country which would put the USA’s moral standing so low you would have scrape whale shit off of us. It is like we are saying to the Iraqi people “yeah, we know we made a mess of your country with no justification and no evidence and now we are gonna leave it for you to clean up”. How disgusting. Maybe you folks will think twice before you go on anymore military joy rides into other people’s nations. Didn’t Americans learn anything from Veitnam? Nope!
Yeah, and what’s even more pathetic is that most of the clowns who voted for this shindig were old enough to remember Vietnam. It’s not like it happened in 1392. It happened when Bush and Clinton were in their 20’s. The guys who survived that crap have paid a huge price for it emotionally. And our politicians turned right around and got us into another jam. Pitiful.
We should not forget the lessons of the Vietnam War. Vietnam was nothing but a political war. The prisoners of war could tell each time it appeared that DC was going to come in and get tough to end it all because they would be treated better and received better food. As soon as the DC pressure was off our POW’s were once again treated poorly and given very little food.
What congress is doing right now is feeding a positive to our enemies. They need to shut their mouths and let our soldiers do what they need to do. It is politicians that are causing problems for our men and women. Congress is not experienced military. Our military leaders are. Let them do their job so that our men and women do come home and so that we will not have another 9-11 in the United States.
“Didn’t Americans learn anything from Veitnam? Nope!”
Excellent question. And right back at you. Have you forgotten what happened to George McGovern during that “unpopular” war? He ran on an anti-war platform and got his ass handed to him. How many electoral votes did he get?I think, more correctly, the Dems haven’t learned anything.
Fleettwood: Go ahead and finish your coffee, smoke a Camel if you have one, stop and think it all the way through for a minute, and tell me, with all your heart, that you truly believe there isn’t plenty of blame to go around. Bush and Cheney, the two geniuses in the White House, along with their little buddy Rumsfeld and the rest of the neocons, ramrodded this little sojourn. The Dems lacked the cojones to shut it down. And here we are.
If the Bush regime was honest about the war she would have voted differently. If Bush had been honest and said there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11, there were no WMD, he was planning to be in Iraq for 10 years or more, that he would spend a trillion dollars for the effort without raising taxes placing us further into debt, and that this would be a great way to ignore Osama Bin Laden I think Clinton would have voted differently.
Doug, none of this makes a dime’s worth of difference. The problem with the invasion was the aftermath. We went head first into a hornet’s nest. It’s up to a Senator to have foresight, to look at history and weigh the odds of a place like Iraq having the proper dynamics for Democratic thought. It looks easy enough to us, but we were fortunate to be born into an exceptionally well-designed system. People in Iraq, by contrast, can only remember tyrants and brutality.
Let’s look at this from a different point of view. Most of us have jobs, I assume.When we work together we make decisions based on the information we have at that time. If the plan fails because of unforeseen informationa and/or performance, we get back together and change the plan. Sometimes depending on the cost involved and whether or not a person(s) failed to do their part, someone might lose their job.Hillary voted based on the information that was given to her. She voted to authorize Bush to carry out his plan. Bush failed almost immediately with his plan.If Hillary, or any other leader does not regret their vote then I am really concerned about their personal values.
Art, do I understand you correctly? You’re letting them off the hook for voting for this invasion?
In a way I am letting them off the hook. They voted because America wanted to kill the Iraqi’s. THe mood was supportive then. Our leaders were doing what we wanted. Now we want the crap out of there and our leaders should get us out.Off the hook, not really, but she does have a job to do. Hanging onto mistakes as proof of political falsehood is defeating. She could act like Bush and never admit to being wrong. Is that what you want?
The blood lust was extremely high after 9/11, Bush used it to his advantage (or so he thought), but I think the lust has been satiated now, and common sense is starting to rule again.
I agree. So what is devestating about a Senator changing their position? We all want Bush to change his position, don’t we?
wow, expected this to be a rhonda thread..
how about this little flip flop?
Running for president five years ago, George W. Bush (search) pledged to jawbone energy-exporting nations to keep oil prices low and to win passage of legislation to spur more domestic energy production.
this when gas was $1:46 a gallon
MORE FLIP FLOP FROm our flipper leader…
Bush’s Energy Secretary BackS OFF BUSH SOTU Pledge. Just one day after Bush said he would reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil imports 75% by 2025, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, “said Bush didn’t mean it literally.” Knight-Ridder notes, “In his State of the Union address, Bush pledged to ‘move beyond a petroleum-based economy and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past.’ Not exactly, though, it turns out.” [Knight Ridder, 2/2/06]
FLASHBACK: Bush Pledged to “Jawbone OPEC” in 2000. Talking about how to handle OPEC during a GOP primary debate in 2000, Bush said: “What I think the president ought to do is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots. One reason why the price is so high is because the price of crude oil has been driven up. OPEC has gotten its supply act together, and it’s driving the price, like it did in the past. And the president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price.” [George Bush, Republican Primary Debate, Manchester, NH, 1/26/00]
But Bush HAS REPEATEDLY Reneged on HIS OPEC Pledge: In March 2001, after another cut in production by OPEC, Bush only offered a “muted response” and stated that OPEC was “’responding to decreasing (world) demand’ and no more.” In April 2004, Bush said he would not personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds after OPEC cut oil production as U.S. gas prices skyrocketed. In July 2004, Rep. John Dingell said, “I asked the Bush administration some months ago to aggressively jawbone OPEC to open the spigots, but it seems that the administration has chosen to ignore that advice.” [New York Daily News, 4/1/04; AP, 3/1/01; Hearing Of the Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, 7/15/04]
Many Americans were “for the war, before they were against it”, but they have since changed their minds, and become enlightened. So what’s the big deal Rhonda?
“Many Americans were “for the war, before they were against it”, but they have since changed their minds, and become enlightened. So what’s the big deal ”
Some things you get to change your mind about. You can change your mind about what to wear today and change. You can change your mind about what movie to go see and walk into a different theatre. You cannot start a war and then change your mind. Too late.
After six years of George W. Bush declaring he has never made a mistake, it is refreshing to hear Hillary Clinton (among many prominent Republicans) admit that she was wrong when she voted to give Bush the power to go to war.
But I remember that vote and it was strongly stated – the authority to go to war as the last resort. To the best of my recollection, George W. did not do very much diplomacy before the run-up to his war. I remember the drums being beat daily as to the big bad boogeyman called Saddam Hussein. By several confirmed reports, the Bush Administration was planning the Iraq War on the first day of his presidency – so was the decision to go to war really as the last resort? many Americans – 70% – do not believe that George W. Bush is honest.
George W. Bush made the mess we are in today and, sadly, it will take the next president (whoever he or she will be) to clean up the mess.
One point about the authorization vote. It was NOT a vote to go to war; it was a mistaken vote to TRUST Bush to exercise judgment. The idea was to pressre Saddam to allow inspectors in. IT WORKED. But, unknown to the Congress, Bush never had any intention to exercise judgment. As noted above, he was determined to create this war and chaos from the very beginning.
Can you put back the tooth paste inside the tube again?If you can then de-authorize the war.
“As noted above, he was determined to create this war and chaos from the very beginning.”
That’s a pretty serious charge. Even impeachable. It’s either true, and you people won’t do anything about it, or it’s not true, and you are full of crap.
Which is it?
You never let go of that, do you Fleet? There is no legitimate point in impeaching a president unless you have the votes to convict. To do so is to abuse the power of the majority.
The Republicans didn’t have the votes in 1998, and it is not likely that many Republicans besides Smith and Hagel would have the cajones to vote to convict now.
Why bother?
There are too many things that the Republicans failed to get done over the last six years – why waste time impeaching when conviction is not going to happen?
If we didn’t rethink things and change, we’d still be stuck in the days before Christ.
Think about that, conservatives.
Thank GOD we can use reason and logic to change our opinions and progress.
I’m a proud flip flopper. We see how dangerous hard core inflexibility is.
Fleet – “which is it?” Simple; practicality realizing that we need to work to change the direction our country is heading. As you are aware, the Pat Roberts types have enough control in the Senate to render impeachment useless. Unlike you people the Democrats won’t waste time on an ompeachment that they know will go nowhere in the GOP-blocked Senate.
Instead, Democrats will continue to use what limited power they have to expose the massive corruption that permeate you people’s regime. And you people have really been complaining a lot about that.
Perhaps, if enough is brought out, 1/3 of the Republicans in the Senate will come around as they did with Nixon. If they do, THEN it becomes time to impeach.
Any competant prosecutor knows that he should not indict until he has enough lined up to convict.
Ben,
Indeed. And if Shrub keeps on snivelling in the corner and refusing to deal with the Congress, then they may very well impeach his ass.
Bush is at 28% approval. That’s 28% approval. I think the Democratic leadership has played things just right up until now. Bush’s back is against the wall, and his numbers are going to go lower.
Come Fall, it’s going to be a new ball game. The hearings in the House and Senate Judiciary Committees will have dug out the parameters of the Administration’s use of the Justice Department for illegal political purposes, and Bush will be a cornered rat. And by then, Republicans will support his removal from office.
CF2K is not kidding.
That’s a Republican charade, impeach when you know you can’t get the votes.
steve – you have to realize that the main reason serial-divorcer cheater Gingrich impeached Clinton was to divert attention from himself and to avoid doing the work needed to govern the country. They knew full well that they were NOT supported by the American people and that they would not obtain a conviction.
There IS another issue to consider – CHENEY. However, I think he would be so emasculated if his sock puppet were impeached AND CONVICTED that he would be absolutely ineffectual. In fact, THAT would be fun to watch – an immediately dead duck President Cheney.
Ben,
Sorry–CF2K didn’t make himself clear: impeach Bush AND Cheney.
Given that Biggus Diggus is at 25% approval in the latest Harris Poll, I’d say impeaching him and the Dry Drunk in Chief is a win/win.
http://www.pollingreport.com/C.htm
And come September, when the “surge” has been shown to be the time-buying strategy it always was, and Republicans running for re-election begin to get nervous, I’m thinking that even Laura isn’t going to hang around George Bush’s sorry, cadaverous ass.
Barney ran away from home months ago.
The point that if Hillary had not changed her position, after the bush administration blew this whole Iraq war into a deadly joke, is a valid one. Many republicans are doing the same thing. The people of this country want it shut down, and that’s what needs to be done.
I sure as hell would hate to see another kent state over this, but if it’s not shut down, I’m afraid that’s what is in the not to distant future. Then all hell will brake loose, and that’s the last thing this country needs.
If bush doesn’t shut it down in a reasonable time frame, he should be impeached. Hillary’s correct on this; changing her mind was the right thing to do.
Well, go ahead and change your mind, I guess, but there is not one bit of glory in it and the fact remains that the Dems had no spine on this when it mattered.
I’ll continue to vote for Dem candidates because the alternative is far worse, but this thing stinks all the way to Washington and I truly dread listening to these phony Senators proclaim, as they surely will in the next few months, how heroic they were in getting the war stopped.
How about raising a little hell beforehand? Hillary? Biden? Edwards? Next time, please feel free to speak up in advance of the adventure.
What crap. Too many people have suffered already as a result of the initial stupidity, and that winds my watch.
Meanwhile, the politicians retreat to their comfy mansions and have dinner with their trusty little consultants. It’s all about the candidate, you see. Everyone else on the planet can take a hike.
Too bad somebody has to kick on a daily basis to make up for the confusion about weapons.
I hope Obama chews up every one of their sorry asses in debate.
Her celebrity friends believe any problem can be corrected by saying “I’m sorry” and checking into rehad.
Retreating from a combat zone isn’t that simple. I wish Democrats would stop lying and saying that we can retreat while al Qaeda is shooting at our troops. The British disaster at Dunkirk and the loss of our army in the Phillipines in WWII demonstrate what could happen if the U.S. tries to retreat in Iraq before the Iraqis can protect their rear.
Military intelligence in Iraq says that al Qaeda is less than 5% of the participants in the violence.
It is not the Democrats lying – it is George W Bush.
Once we start to leave, the Iraqis will turn their attention to each other, and Al Quida will be the first victim of our having left.
“Once we start to leave, the Iraqis will turn their attention to each other, and Al Quida will be the first victim of our having left“.
I watched a panel of journalists and experts on the middle east yesterday, though they could not agree on the level of violence between Shiites and Sunni they did all agree with the above. Our troops being there only serves to aid Al-Qaeda in Iraq, with us gone the Iraqis will then go solely after Al-Qaeda. The prediction of Al-Qaeda moving their operations to Iraq as a base of operation is nonsense. They may stay to effect operations in Iraq but that would be the extent of it. That the Iraqis no more want Al-Qaeda in their country then we do.
Al-Qaeda’s goal is not a military victory in and of its self in Iraq. They are following the logic that Gen. Sherman did in his march through Georgia. The real intent was not a military fight as much as to show the populist that their government could not protect them. And as such the populist looses faith in their government.
The panel also agreed that the Iraqis themselves will be better at dealing with Al-Qaeda in Iraq then we ever will be. The panel did not advocate a total pullout but rather a marked stepping down of our troops. And allowing the Iraqis deal with Al-Qaeda and there is not a real likelihood that the Iraqis will tolerate much outside interference from Iran, Syria or Saudi-Arabia.
bottom line – Iraqi people are responsible for their own country. We have been there 4 years and counting and the Iraqi government still isn’t stable but yet they plan to take a 2 month vacation?
I wonder if the Iraqi people are really supporting us. Doesn’t it seem strange that these Iraqis cannot seem to get a grip on the violence coming from their own people? And why are our soldiers the ones caught in these roadside bombings? Are some of the so-called Iraqi friends of the US actually fighting against us? That’s a thought I’ve not seen addressed anywhere by any general or George W. Bush.
I’m afraid Al Quida has new training camps in Iraq, hosted by the U.S. It would be interesting if they could track how many of the deserters are actually Al-Quida, or Iraq insurgents.
Actually, what we are fighting for now was never ratified by congress. Does anyone remember the issue as being one of Iraqi democracy, was that a part of the war resolution, I think not.