Economic news and politics posting on economic news sites, do you read it?

Clinton won the TX primary (not the smaller caucus afterwards) because she won with female, white, Hispanic, and late-deciding voters. In OH, Clinton won with male, female, white, and late-deciding voters. These were both clean wins and not based on the results from "stupid" people IMO. Really the only surprise for me last Tuesday was her winning in TX.

Voting for Hillary because she is a woman is a completely valid reason IMO. That's one of the reasons that I've voted for her in the past. The only reason you don't see that is because you're a guy I think. Most voters in most states are female. When Hillary wins the female vote, she wins period. It's the key to her winning anywhere I think.

"...Voting for Hillary because she is a woman is a completely valid reason IMO."

So if Hillary had a penis instead of pussy, you could hold her accountable for enabling George Bush to go to war in Iraq. But because she has a pussy, she gets a free ride when it comes to destroying the world. Or something like that.

Sometimes, I wonder if the Middle East has it right when they exclude women from major decision making processes. Jack Nicholson's character once said in a movie, when asked how he writes about women so well: "I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability".

One thing is for certain. This United States of America, under its current form of democracy, deserves EXACTLY what it gets. When someone like Ron Paul, who has studied more about our economic system and global policies than all the other Republican candidates combined, gets laughed off the stage at the GOP debates and relegated to quack status by the masses - yeah, you bet this country deserves everything that's coming. I will feel sad if we land in a depression or WW-III. But I will not feel sorry.

This narrative that Obama is trying to spread around that somehow he is more "anti-war" than Hillary is pure fantasy. He may TALK about the war differently now, but his voting record on it in the Senate is virtually the same as Hillary's. His statements from before he entered the Senate are NOT all uniformly anti-war either. Hillary was wrong to vote for that resolution in 2002, but no one believes that the Dems would have gone to war with Iraq & just completely bypassed the U.N. had they really been calling all the shots.

Good luck with your open misogyny Zerzan. Ron Paul got his hearing on the national stage. What you guys need to realize is that only a small slice of the electorate is purely libertarian, period. Stop whining...

"...This narrative that Obama is trying to spread around that somehow he is more "anti-war" than Hillary is pure fantasy."

Did Bill Clinton plant that seed in your head? Shame on him. Here is a transcript of the speech that Barack Obama gave in Chicago back in 2002, at the exact same time Hillary Clinton was bowing to George Bush and caving in to politcal pressure from AIPAC. Shame on her!

en.wikisource.org

If you read Obama's speech carefully, you'll notice the names of a few certain Washington insiders whom Obama warns against - all of whom have subsequently been shamed and/or resigned from office. You will also notice, quite shockingly, that everything Obama predicted in 2002 regarding the Iraq war has come to pass.

"...I 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."

Barack Obama, October 2, 2002

Well I guess everyone's entitled to their own opinion. I'm of the opinion, I prefer voting for whoever's views most closely match mine regardless if they are male or female, black or white. I still think it's a stupid reason to vote for someone just because of their sex or color. However I believe many Americans don't share that same viewpoint.

I guess if the men of this country let the women decide everything, we'll probably have a female president just because that's what the women decided. Of course she was already in the white house for several years. The former Bush had passed one of the biggest tax increases in a while and we had a peace dividend so the economy was going well.

Hillary does have a lot of experience. Using her cunning skills she was able to turn 1,000 into $100,000 in just a month or so and didn't have to face any Martha Stewart scrutiny. Then there was white water scandals, talk of impeachment, mysterious deaths of government officials. I guess Americans want all those years of experience back again. I guess those deaths weren't mysterious, they were officially suicides and a plane crash in Europe of some other officials. That was just sad, nothing left of them and their bodies were quickly cremated.

I would actually prefer to hear people say they are for a candidate because of where the candidates stand on a certain issue or something similiar to that. I guess you could argue they are all liars and cheats anyway so you're going to vote for one you understand. After all if we're electing people who are most interested in serving their own self interest, that seems to be the new American way.

Ok, sorry for the rant, I guess I'm not feeling too optimistic tonight.

Zerzan, I just saw your last post, it sounds like Obama had some wisdom back then in 2002. I guess many of us back then believed our president when he told us or hinted that Sadam was developing nuclear weapons and was about to become a global menace and threaten us in new ways. Apparently that was a lie of epic proportions. Either that or our intelligence was super super bad.

I was actually convinced at the time that Sadam could build up one of the biggest militaries in the world with all the oil money he was sitting on. Then he could are himself with nuclear weapons and take over the Middle East or possibility parts of Saudi Arabia and the oil fields there. Then our price of gasoline would skyrocket to $8 a gallon or higher and he could threaten nuclear war with Israel and Europe and even send more terrorist cells to the US to try to take out our president again. $8 a gallon would have killed our economy if it lasted too long and put us into a depression. We might go there anyway soon but we're not there yet. Apparently Sadam wasn't the threat he was made out to be. It was probably one of his sons that was the real threat. They would have taken over the Iraqi empire and one son was just plain evil. I heard he enjoyed sending people through shredders feet first because he enjoyed the screams and they would scream longer if they went feet first. He would have been in charge of a new powerful Iraq. Now we won't ever know that world. It would have been a lot cheaper to let Europe or Israel take out any threat if someone wanted to go to war with Israel or Europe. We could have spent 2 trillion dollars to get us off the need to use oil for public transportation and converted to a hydrogen or alternative source of oil. Actually I think algae can be converted to biofuel much more efficiently than ethanol ever will be. I'm not sure why the oil companies aren't pursuing it since it seems like they could use a lot of existing infrastructure. They could gain up to 1/2 a trillion dollars a year that the US sends overseas every year for oil consumption. Somebody must not be seeing the same picture I am.

I was never in favor of either Gulf War, and I am in favor of going after Al-Qaeda where they actually are (not where they aren't). But lets get some facts straight about Obama first:

Senators Obama and Hillary have almost identical voting records on Iraq. Over the two years Obama has been in the Senate, the only Iraq-related vote on which they differed was the confirmation of General George Casey to be Chief of Staff of the Army, which Obama voted for and Clinton voted against. [ABC News, 5/17/07]

As a Senate candidate in November 2003, Sen. Obama said he would have "unequivocally" voted against war funding because it was the only way to oppose Bush on Iraq - "Just this week, when I was asked, would I have voted for the $87 billion dollars, I said 'no.' I said no unequivocally because, at a certain point, we have to say no to George Bush. If we keep on getting steamrolled, we are not going to stand a chance." [Obama remarks, New Trier Democratic Organization forum, 11/16/03; Video]

But until he ran for President, Sen. Obama supported every funding bill for Iraq. [2005 Vote # 117, HR1268, 5/10/05; 2005 Vote # 326, S1042, 11/15/05; 2006 Vote # 112, HR4939, 5/4/06; 2006 Vote # 239; 2006 Vote # 186, S2766, 6/22/06, HR5631, 9/7/06]

Obama campaign advisor Susan Rice falsely claimed that Senators Obama and Hillary have voted differently on Iraq since joining the Senate. Rice claimed these vote differences reflected Sen. Obama's "different position" on the war - "JANSING: Bill Clinton made the point that in the senate Barack Obama voted exactly the same way that senator Hillary Clinton has on Iraq, and is there a vote where they took different positions? RICE: Yes, they have taken different positions from the beginning...Since coming to the Senate, he has been very clear in pushing every year 2005, 2006, and 2007 for a withdrawal of our forces. Senator Clinton took the view for a good part of that period that it would be premature and unwise to signal that the U.S. was prepared to withdraw, to set a timeline or a deadline."

Actually, with the exception of Sen. Obama's vote to promote Gen. Casey, one of the chief architects of the war, his voting record is exactly the same as Hillary. Hillary and Sen. Obama have never voted differently on troop withdrawals, timelines or deadlines.

In 2003, Sen. Obama said that he would support a repeal of the U.S. PATRIOT Act - "Q4. Would you vote to repeal the U.S. Patriot Act? A. Yes, I would vote to repeal the U.S. Patriot Act, although I would consider replacing that shoddy and dangerous law with a new, carefully crafted proposal..." [Illinois NOW questionnaire, 9/10/03]

In 2006, Sen. Obama voted to extend the PATRIOT Act - The Washington Post said of the reauthorization, "[T]he Patriot Act fight started with promises of major changes and ended largely with the status quo." Obama himself said the bill only "modestly" improved the PATRIOT Act and failed to do enough to protect civil liberties. [HR 3199, Vote #29, 3/2/06; Washington Post, 3/7/06; Obama Floor Statement, 2/16/06]

Sen. Obama suggested he made his opposition to Kyl-Lieberman (the Iran terrorism bill) clear "at the time of the vote." From the debate - "Blitzer : This was an important vote you missed the, you weren't present in the Senate when that vote occurred. Obama: This is true and it was a mistake - one of the hazards of running for President. What I have consistently said and what I said at the time of the vote was that we should not take steps that would increase two presences inside Iraq with an eye towards blunting the impact of Iran. I always think that's a mistake."

Sen. Obama missed the vote and said nothing at the time the vote occurred. His campaign didn't release a statement until 9 hours after the vote. The vote occurred at 12:44 PM. Sen. Obama didn't issue a statement until after 10 PM. The issue also came up at a Presidential debate that night, and Sen. Obama didn't even mention it.

Obama argues that he deserves the Democratic nomination and Hillary Clinton doesn't because he possesses superior "judgment," as he calls it, on the key issues we face as a nation. As definitive proof he offers one speech he made in 2002 during a re-election campaign for an Illinois senate seat in the most liberal district in the state, so liberal that no other position would have been viable. When he made that speech, Obama was not privy to the briefings by, among others, Secretary of State Colin Powell, in support of the Authorization of Use of Military Force as a diplomatic tool to push the international community to impose intrusive inspections on Saddam Hussein.

Would Obama have acted differently had he been in Washington or had he had the benefit of the arguments and the intelligence that the administration was offering to the Congress debating that resolution? During the 2002-2003 timeframe, he was a minor local official uninvolved in the national debate on the war so we can only judge from his own statements prior to the 2008 campaign. Obama repeated these points in a whole host of interviews prior to announcing his candidacy. On July 27, 2004, he told the Chicago Tribune on Iraq - "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage."

In his book, "The Audacity of Hope", published in 2006, he wrote, "...on the merits I didn't consider the case against war to be cut-and-dried." And, in 2006, he clearly said, "I'm always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn't have the benefit of U.S. intelligence. And for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices."

The Bush administration lied in order to secure support for it's war of choice, including cooking the intelligence and misleading Congress about the intent of the authorization. Senator Clinton's position, stated in her floor speech, was in favor of allowing the United Nations weapons inspectors to complete their mission and to build a broad international coalition. Bush rejected her path. It was Bush's war of choice, period.

It has been evident for some time that our efforts in Afganistan are going badly and that cooperation and support from our NATO allies would be helpful. As chairman of the subcommittee on Senate Foreign Relations responsible for NATO and Europe, Obama could have used his lofty position actually to engage the issue and pressure the administration to take some action to improve our chance of success in that conflict against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Of course, that would have involved holding hearings, questioning administration witnesses, and taking a position and offering alternatives. That is what we expect that from Senators in a democracy. It is called oversight, and it has never happened.

GWB's father did not balance the budget which caused our economy to do so well in the 1990s...Bill Clinton did. Whitewater ended up being nothing, impeachment was BS, and no one seriously believes that the Clintons killed anyones...please. GWB is a liar, period. There was never any serious threat from Iraq, period. Obama has been spinning flasehoods about his past postions on the War in Iraq for waaaay too long now IMO.

It is important to review Senator Clinton's past and current positions regarding the Iraq War. Indeed, despite her efforts in response to public opinion polls to come across as an opponent of the war, Hillary Clinton has proven to be one of the most hard-line Democratic senators in support of a military response to the challenges posed by Iraq. She has also been less than honest in justifying her militaristic policies, raising concerns that she might support military interventions elsewhere.

Pre-War Militarism

Senator Clinton's militaristic stance on Iraq predated her support for Bush's 2003 invasion. For example, in defending the brutal four-day U.S. bombing campaign against Iraq in December 1998 – known as Operation Desert Fox – she claimed that "The so-called presidential palaces ... in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left." In reality, as became apparent when UN inspectors returned in 2002 as well as in the aftermath of the invasion and occupation, there were no weapons labs, stocks of weapons or missing records in these presidential palaces. In addition, Saddam was still allowing for virtually all inspections to go forward at the time of the 1998 U.S. attacks. The inspectors were withdrawn for their own safety at the encouragement of President Clinton in anticipation of the imminent U.S.-led assault.

Senator Clinton also took credit for strengthening U.S. ties with Ahmad Chalabi, the convicted embezzler who played a major role in convincing key segments of the administration, Congress, the CIA, and the American public that Iraq still had proscribed weapons, weapons systems, and weapons labs. She has expressed pride that her husband's administration changed underlying U.S. policy toward Iraq from "containment" – which had been quite successful in defending Iraq's neighbors and protecting its Kurdish minority – to "regime change," which has resulted in tragic warfare, chaos, dislocation, and instability.

Prior to the 2003 invasion, Clinton insisted that Iraq still had a nuclear program, despite a detailed 1998 report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), subsequent studies that indicated that Iraq's nuclear program appeared to have been completely dismantled a full decade earlier, and a 2002 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate that made no mention of any reconstituted nuclear development effort. Similarly, even though Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs had been dismantled years earlier, she also insisted that Iraq had rebuilt its biological and chemical weapons stockpiles. And, even though the limited shelf life of such chemical and biological agents and the strict embargo against imports of any additional banned materials that had been in place since 1990 made it physically impossible for Iraq to have reconstituted such weapons, she insisted that "It is clear...that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

In the fall of 2002, Senator Clinton sought to discredit those questioning Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Vice-President Dick Cheney, and others who were making hyperbolic statements about Iraq's supposed military prowess by insisting that Iraq's possession of such weapons "are not in doubt" and was "undisputed." Similarly, Clinton insisted that Secretary of State Colin Powell's February 2005 speech at the UN was "compelling" although UN officials and arms control experts roundly denounced its false claims that Iraq had reconstituted these proscribed weapons, weapons programs, and delivery systems. In addition, although top strategic analysts correctly informed her that there were no links between Saddam Hussein's secular nationalist regime and the radical Islamist al-Qaeda, Senator Clinton insisted that Saddam "has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members."

The Lead-Up to War

Though the 2003 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq was inaccurate in a number of respects, it did challenge the notion of any operational ties between the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda and questioned some of the more categorical claims by President Bush about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD). However, Senator Clinton didn't even bother to read it. She now claims that it wasn't necessary for her to have actually read the 92-page document herself because she was briefed on the contents of the report. However, since no one on her staff was authorized to read the report, it's unclear who could have actually briefed her.

During the floor debate over the resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq, Clinton was the only Democratic senator to have categorically accepted the Bush administration's claims regarding Iraq's alleged chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs, Iraq's alleged long-range missile capabilities, and alleged ties to al-Qaeda. (Some Democratic senators accepted some of those claims, but not all of them.)

In the months leading up the war, Senator Clinton chose to ignore the pleas of the hundreds of thousands of people demonstrating in her state and across the country against the war and similarly brushed off calls by religious leaders, scholars, community activists, and others to oppose it. Perhaps most significant was her refusal to consider the antiwar appeals by leaders of the Catholic Church and virtually every mainline Protestant denomination, which noted that it did not meet the traditional criteria in the Christian tradition for a just war. Instead, Senator Clinton embraced the arguments of the right-wing fundamentalist leadership who supported the war. This categorical rejection of the perspective of the mainstream Christian community raises concerns about her theological perspectives on issues of war and peace.

In March 2003, well after UN weapons inspectors had been allowed to return and engage in unfettered inspections and were not finding any WMDs, Senator Clinton made clear that the United States should invade Iraq anyway. Indeed, she asserted that the only way to avoid war would be for Saddam Hussein to abide by President Bush's ultimatum to resign as president and leave the country, in the apparent belief that the United States had the right to unilaterally make such demands of foreign leaders and to invade and occupy their countries if they refused. Said Senator Clinton, "The president gave Saddam Hussein one last chance to avoid war and the world hopes that Saddam Hussein will finally hear this ultimatum, understand the severity of those words, and act accordingly."

When President Bush launched the invasion soon thereafter and spontaneous protests broke out across the country, Senator Clinton voted in favor of a Republican-sponsored resolution that "commends and supports the efforts and leadership of the President . . . in the conflict against Iraq."

Aftermath of Invasion

Even after the U.S. forces invaded and occupied Iraq and confirmed that – contrary to Senator Clinton's initial justification for the war – Iraq did not have WMDs, WMD programs, offensive delivery systems, or ties to al-Qaeda, she defended her vote to authorize the invasion anyway. Speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York that December, she declared, "I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote" and was one that "I stand by."

In the face of growing doubts about American forces involved in a deepening counter-insurgency war, she urged "patience" and expressed her concern about the lack of will "to stay the course" among some Americans. "Failure is not an option" in Iraq, she insisted. "We have no option but to stay involved and committed." Indeed, long before President Bush announced his "surge," Senator Clinton called for the United States to send more troops.

During a trip to Iraq in February 2005, she insisted that the U.S. occupation was "functioning quite well," although the security situation had deteriorated so badly that the four-lane divided highway on flat open terrain connecting the airport with the capital could not be secured at the time of her arrival and a helicopter had to transport her to the Green Zone. Though 55 Iraqis and one American soldier were killed during her brief visit, she insisted – in a manner remarkably similar to Vice President Cheney – that the rise in suicide bombings was evidence that the insurgency was failing.

On NBC's "Meet the Press" that same month, she argued that it "would be a mistake" to immediately withdraw U.S. troops or even simply set a timetable for withdrawal, claiming that "We don't want to send a signal to insurgents, to the terrorists, that we are going to be out of here at some, you know, date certain." Less than two years ago, she declared, "I reject a rigid timetable that the terrorists can exploit." And, just last year, on an appearance on ABC's Nightline, she described how "I've taken a lot of heat from my friends who have said, 'Please, just, you know, throw in the towel and say let's get out by a date certain.' I don't think that's responsible." When Representative John Murtha made his first call for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq in November 2005, she denounced his effort, calling a withdrawal of U.S. forces "a big mistake."

As recently as last year, when Senator John Kerry sponsored an amendment that would have required the redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq in order to advance a political solution to the growing sectarian strife, she voted against it.

Rewriting History

Senator Clinton has never apologized for her vote to authorize the invasion. She insists that her eagerness for the United States to invade Iraq had nothing to do with its vast petroleum reserves. Like President Bush, she claims that she did not lie about her false accusations about Iraq's weapons programs. She says she was misled by faulty intelligence, though she has refused to make public this intelligence that she claims demonstrated that Iraq had somehow reconstituted its WMD.

Senator Clinton has also claimed that Bush – at the time of the resolution authorizing the invasion – had misled her regarding his intention to pursue diplomacy instead of rushing into war. But there was nothing in the war resolution that required him to pursue any negotiations. She has tried to emphasize that she voted in favor of an unsuccessful amendment by Senator Byrd "which would have limited the original authorization to one year." However, this resolution actually meant very little, since it gave President Bush the authority to extend the war authorization "for a period or periods of 12 months each" if he determined that it was "necessary for ongoing or impending military operations against Iraq."

Despite the fact that Iraq had several weeks prior to the October 2002 vote already agreed unconditionally to allow UN inspectors to return, she categorically insisted that her vote "was a necessary step in order to maximize the outcome that did occur in the Security Council with the unanimous vote to send in inspectors."

She has also subsequently claimed that her vote "was clearly intended to demonstrate support for going to the United Nations to put inspectors into Iraq" and was "not a vote for preemptive war." The record shows, however, that Senator Clinton voted against an amendment by Senator Carl Levin that would have allowed for U.S. military action to disarm Iraq of any weapons of mass destruction and weapons systems pursuant to any future UN Security Council resolution authorizing such military actions, which would presumably have taken place had Iraq not allowed the inspectors back in as promised. In other words, she not only was willing to ignore U.S. obligations under the UN Charter that forbids such unilateral military actions by its member states, she tacitly acknowledged that she was unconcerned about supporting UN efforts to bring inspectors back into the country. Indeed, in her floor speech, she warned that this vote "says clearly to Saddam Hussein – this is your last chance – disarm or be disarmed" and the resolution that she did support clearly authorizes President Bush to invade Iraq at the time and circumstances of his own choosing, regardless of whether inspectors were allowed to return to Iraq and regardless of whether the Bush administration received UN support.

Senator Clinton has never criticized the Bush administration for its flagrant violation of the UN Charter or its responsibility for the deaths of the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians. She has limited her criticism to the way the administration handled the invasion, implying that, as president, she would do invasions better. Indeed, she insisted that while not regretting her vote to authorize the invasion, she did regret "the way the president used the authority."

Senator Clinton has criticized the administration for not acting to gain more international support for the invasion, ignoring the fact that they actually had tried very hard to do so but failed. The Bush administration was unable to get authorization for the use of force from the UN or, with the exception of Great Britain, to get any substantial troop support from other countries not because they didn't try, but because the vast majority of the international community recognized that an invasion of Iraq was illegal and unnecessary.

Current Policy

A careful look at her current policy toward Iraq reveals that Senator Clinton is not as antiwar as her supporters depict her.

She would withdraw some troops, just as President Bush has been promising to do eventually, but insists that the United States should maintain its "military as well as political mission" in Iraq for the indefinite future for such purposes as countering Iranian influence, protecting the Kurdish minority, preventing a failed state, and supporting the Iraqi military. On ABC's "This Week" in September, she insisted that "withdrawing is dangerous. It has to be done responsibly, prudently, carefully, but we have said that there will be a likely continuing mission against al-Qaeda in Iraq. We have to protect our civilian employees, our embassy that will be there."

If Senator Clinton were really concerned about the threat that al-Qaeda currently poses in Iraq, however, she would never have voted to authorize the invasion, which led to the predictable rise of al-Qaeda and other militant groups in that country. Similarly, there would not be the huge embassy complex nor would there be tens of thousands of civilian employees she insists that U.S. troops are necessary to defend if the United States had not invaded Iraq in the first place. In addition, only because the United States overthrew the stridently secular anti-Iranian regime of Saddam Hussein has Iran gained such influence. And since the risks of a collapse of Iraq's internal security was one of the main arguments presented to her prior to her vote, Clinton should not have voted to authorize the invasion if a failed state was really a concern of hers.

Since most estimates of the numbers of troops needed to carry out these tasks range between 40,000 and 75,000, the best that can be hoped for under a Hillary Clinton presidency is that she would withdraw only about one-half to two-thirds of American combat forces within a year or so of her assuming office. Indeed, she has explicitly refused to promise, if elected president, to withdraw troops by the end of her term in 2013. As Senator Clinton describes, it, "What we can do is to almost take a line sort of north of, between Baghdad and Kirkuk, and basically put our troops into that region – the ones that are going to remain for our anti-terrorism mission; for our northern support mission; for our ability to respond to the Iranians; and to continue to provide support, if called for, for the Iraqis." This hardly constitutes a withdrawal.

Senator Clinton tries to downplay the risk of keeping U.S. forces bogged down indefinitely by emphasizing that she would put greater emphasis on training the Iraqi armed forces. But much of the Iraqi armed forces are more loyal to their respective sectarian militias than they are to protecting Iraq as a whole. Nor has she expressed much concern that the Iraqi armed forces and police have engaged in gross and systematic human rights abuses. As with her backing of unconditional military assistance and security training to scores of other allied governments that engage in a pattern of gross and systematic human rights violations, she appears unconcerned not only with the immorality of such a policy but the long-term strategic risks from the blowback that would result from the United States becoming identified with repressive regimes.

Little Difference from Bush

As her record indicates, Senator Clinton's position on Iraq differs very little from that of President Bush. For her to receive the nomination for president would in effect be an endorsement by the Democratic Party of the Iraq war.

In 2004, the Democrats selected a nominee who also voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq, falsely claimed that Iraq still had WMDs, and – at that time – insisted on maintaining U.S. troops in that country. As a result, Senator John Kerry failed to mobilize the party's antiwar base and went down to defeat. What timid concerns Kerry did raise about President Bush's handling of the Iraq war during the campaign were used by the Bush campaign to focus attention away from the war itself and highlight the Democratic nominee's changing positions. Had the Democrats instead nominated someone who had opposed the war from the beginning, the debate that fall would have been not about Senator Kerry's supposed "flip-flopping" but the tragic decision to illegally invade a country on the far side of the world that was no threat to us and the squandering of American lives and tax dollars that have resulted.

If the Democrats select another war supporter as their nominee in 2008, the result may well be the same as 2004. Large numbers of people will refuse to vote for the Democratic nominee as part of a principled stance against voting for someone who authorized and subsequently supported the Iraq war. And Republicans will highlight the Democratic nominee's shifting positions on Iraq as evidence that their opponent is simply an opportunistic politician rather than the kind of decisive leader the country needs.

Hillary's role in the invasion of Iraq was unique. She'd been in the Senate for less than two years, but was understandably more famous and more visible than any other member. She was also respected as an intelligent, capable politician who'd won her Senate seat largely on her own merits. She was a star. And she became the most high-profile Democrat leading the march to war.

Had she done the opposite--forcefully opposed the invasion, as a few courageous Senators chose to do--the Bush administration would have had a much bigger hurdle to cross in terms of convincing the press and the public that invasion was the most prudent course of action. Would she have taken heat for it? Of course. Would she have put herself out of the running for the presidency? Possibly. But she wasn't president yet. She was a Senator.

I have no doubt that Clinton, along with a vast majority of Americans, now regards the war as a spectacularly bad idea. History will surely record it as such. But some of us thought it was a bad idea in 2001, and in 2002, and in 2003 (to paraphrase another presidential candidate). And even today, Clinton still won't say she was wrong to vote for the war. She won't join the other major candidates in refusing to vote for funding without a deadline for withdrawal. She may be trying to appear tough for the general election, concerned that as a female candidate, she needs to err on the side of hawkishness. That's a poor excuse, though, if it's true (not to mention a seriously amoral calculation), and if it's not, then we have no choice but to believe her support of the war was genuine. Either way, Democrats can do better when it comes to the person they choose to lead their party.

I am impressed by the guys that have posted on this topic. You have each done your home work.

Now let me throw in my 2cents worth.Chelsea Clinton did her own fact finding mission on a trip to Iraq. She was interviewing a soldier and asked him if he was nervous about being in Iraq. His reply: "Little lady, there are only 3 thing that scare me. Osama, Obama, and yo Mama".

Both Clinton and Obama will be getting us out of Iraq if elected, and Bush & McCain will never get us out of Iraq, period. There's virtually no difference between Clinton and Obama now. The 2013 Russert pledge was a joke a gotcha question that neither Clinton nor Obama has been willing to take. Northern, Kurdish Iraq is the safest place for any U.S troops to remain if they stay in Iraq at all (some will likely stay in the Gulf region or go to Afganistan). Obama just TALKS differently about the War...and that's all he does is talk. The Clintons have actually gotten things done before. I feel that much of what Hillary did early in her Senate career was unfortunately to try and posture herself as being "tough" enough to serve in higher office. The Clintons are great politicans, regardless of how you view them personally.

Saddam (who I was never a fan of) blocked the U.N. inspections in the late 1990s after the U.S. was caught using them to spy on Iraq. The reality about the lead-up to the War in Iraq was that the Bush Regime blatantly lied about Iraq, their supposed weapon stockpiles, and their ability to move forward with building more WMDs. Administration officials knew what the truth was (that Iraq had no WMDs or ability to produce WMDs & that they nothing to do with 9/11), but they lied to both Congress and the American people. The votes that were taken in Congress before the War were uninformed votes at best. Sure, plenty of people, myself included, were opposed to the War before it happened because we knew the truth, but Obama didn't know any more than you or I did then & he's failed to backup his supposed strong oppostition to the War with real action while in the Senate, period. The USA never sent enough troops to totally stabilize Iraq BTW. How is Hillary going to "make public this intelligence that she claims demonstrated that Iraq had somehow reconstituted its WMD" without going to jail for violating national security?? The fact that the Congress didn't bother to declare war with Iraq and be done with it in the first place is cowardly IMO.

"She insisted that while not regretting her vote to authorize the invasion, she did regret 'the way the President used the authority.'"...this is semantics...Bush misused the authority that Congress gave him by totally bypassing all diplomacy and just invading...that's what everyone has been talking about for years. Bush wanted to invade Iraq in the exact opposite way that his daddy did years before...with no international coalition. Back in the early 1990s, the USA didn't continue on to Baghdad because it would just be "us and the British"...somehow, more than 10 years later, those conditions were magically acceptable to the Bush Regime. The "Coalition of the Willing" was a joke from the get-go.

"As her record indicates, Senator Clinton's position on Iraq differs very little from that of President Bush. For her to receive the nomination for president would in effect be an endorsement by the Democratic Party of the Iraq war." This is utter nonsense...which Right-wing think tank did you get this load of baloney from?? I attributed my sources BTW.

Kerry was a horribly weak candidate, and, unfortunately, the nation chose to embrace fear (particularily of gays) and lies & misinformation over real change. The American people have reaped the penalties of that poor choice for over 3 years now unfortunately. The only way to really change things for the better is for a Democrat to get into the White House IMO. Either Hillary or Obama has my vote this fall for sure. My boy Howard Dean would have been a better candidate in 2004.

Don't pretend like you're a Democrat trying to get the Dems to pick the best candidate Zerzan...you already said that you supported that wing-nut Paul. Osama's never been in Iraq BTW.

On the contrary, my statements are taken directly from the anti-war advocate and author Steven Zunes; not some right-wing think tank. In fact, I am finding it hard to locate any serious anti-war advocates who support Hillary over Obama. Even the infamous Michael Moore of Fahrenheit 9/11 fame said, during a Larry King interview, that he would find it morally wrong to vote for Hillary. (minute 3:00)

youtube.com

"...Stephen Zunes is a professor of Politics and chair of the Peace & Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco. He serves as Middle East editor for Foreign Policy in Focus and is the author of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism (Common Courage Press, 2003)."

antiwar.com

Well, I guess I'm "morally wrong", since I already voted for Hillary, but I guess that anyone that's voted for Obama might be just as "morally wrong", since they have virtually the same Senate voting record on the War. I like Moore, but I don't take my cues from him or anyone else. Moore is wrong about some anti-Clinton people that are currently voting for Obama. Once the threat of a Clinton Presidency goes away, a lot of these people will be going over to McCain's side (my Dad is one of them unfortunately). The people that have come down hard on Bill Clinton after the supposedly "controversial" things that he said after Obama won in SC are just being silly. Obama won in SC simply because he got 78% of black voters (which comprised 55% of the total voters down there) & a few mostly white, male voters. Hillary lost because she failed to gain a majority of female voters to her side. The person that actually got a plurality of white voters on his side was Edwards.

The facts to remember about Iraq is that we're there now, and that Hillary has said that if she had known all the real facts in 2002 that she would have never voted the way that she did back then. If the anti-war advocates in this country are smart, they might take Moore's advice and simply vote for the Democratic candidate in November. It's the only way to end the War now.

Nope. I can't understand all that gobble-dy-gook ...

I once had a better opinion of Hillary, Obama, and McCain. Then they spoke.