Skip to main content

View Diary: A question for Hillary supporters (Not a flame, I promise) (28 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Here Is Your Explanation (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tigerdog, sunsquared, neoConned, skohayes

    Public sentiment at the time of the Iraq War vote was so strongly in favor of an invasion, that a lot of hands were tied, including Sen. Clinton's regarding Bush's Iraq plans.

    I think she felt powerless to influence the ultimate decision.

    Anyway, if you read her floor speech on the vote, you can see that she clearly outlines why she is voting for it and what the vote is and what it is not.

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

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

    And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am.

    So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.

    Sen. Clinton is a politician.

    She was put under enormous pressure by her constituents and by popular sentiment to take a more aggressive stand against America's perceived enemies.  She acceded, but with qualifiers, namely that Bush allows the U.N. inspection program to continue ...

    Her vote has never been what it has been spun to be.

    Barack Obama, although he opposed the war in the beginning, has also had a more complicated relationship with the Iraq War while in Senate.  He has not led efforts to stop the war.  He hasn't even participated in them.

    And, finally, his Iraq plan is not all that much different that Sen. Clinton's.

    For that reason, I really don't feel like I'm choosing between candidates on that issue.  It would be great if I could choose, but we are not being offered a choice between the "candidate who enabled the war" and the "candidate who ended it."

    They are both enablers.

    •  You excuse-giving makesSenClinton look worse (0+ / 0-)

      I am much more inclined to vote for a cold, calculating politician who went along with the ride on Iraq, than I am for a 100% pure idiot who does not understand a yes vote is a yes vote regardless of what fancy words you scatter around that one word "yes".

      [A blind egg gathers no grok.]

      by Quicklund on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:17:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site