I have gotten myself into some trouble recently. I actually had two HR's (ouch!) on a comment I made:
[new] Sorry ~ What protest were you at exactly prior to the AUF vote? (1+ / 2-)
by PamelaD on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:52:42 PM PST
I was responding to several people who had represented that Hillary did not listen to the "millions" of protestors prior to voting on the now infamous AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002
My point is this: A vote for the resolution does not automatically equate to a vote for war.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.
The resolution requires Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed.
The measure passed the Senate and House by wider margins than the 1991 resolution that empowered the current president's father to go to war to expel Iraq from Kuwait. That measure passed 250-183 in the House and 52-47 in the Senate.
Link: http://archives.cnn.com/...
Everyone chooses to forget that the purpose of the Iraq War resolution was to get the inspectors back into Iraq ~ to determine what WMD Saddam may have and destroy them ~ This was important as the Inspectors had been kicked out by Saddam in '98. The inspectors did go back in (November '02) and were making progress, destroying weapons (remember those missiles that could travel a couple of miles more than was allowed?) They presented the administration with their reports and Bush & Co blew them off. Bush violated the resolution as it was becoming more and more clear that diplomatic efforts had worked. ~ Saddam let the U.N. Inspectors back in, they were not finding any evidence of WMD's or WMD programs, therefore there were no grounds to invade Iraq ~ and Bush didn't care. Which is no suprise in retrospect, as we've now all seen how he has shredded the constitution, usurped the authority of the legislative branch, compromised the integrity of the judicial branch, etc., etc., etc. But I defy any of you to convince me that you knew in 2001 and 2002 that this man would so subvert our system of government.
The diatribes against Hillary Clinton regarding this vote ~ saying that she wanted war and calling her a murderer, et.al. ~ are hyperbole at best and vitriolic hate speak at worst and I cannot let them stand unchallenged. For me, this is not about supporting Hillary over Obama ~ I will proudly support either one. It's about reminding everyone of why this election is so important.
In the heat of advocacy I'm afraid some have lost perspective. Here's the reminder ~ We currently have a president who at the very least should have been impeached and run out of office ~ but frankly should be incarcerated for the crimes that have been committed in his name and on his watch. Misplaced blame only serves to minimize his culpability and weakens our party by dividing us at a time when we desparately need to be united.