Hillary Clinton: Use Of Force Vote Was Not A Vote For Use Of Force

[recxjake]

Flip Flop, Flip Flop Round 2

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) Tells New Hampshire Her Use Of Force Vote Was "Cleary Intended" As Support "For Going To The United Nations" And "To Put Inspectors In Iraq":

Sen. Clinton: "I have taken responsibility for that vote. It was based on the best assessment that I could make at the time, and it was clearly intended to demonstrate support for going to the United Nations to put inspectors into Iraq." (John DiStaso, "Hillary: I Didn't Vote For 'Pre-Emptive War,'" The [Manchester] Union Leader, 2/10/07)

Sound Familiar? In Late 2003, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) Said Use Of Force Vote Was Vote "To Go The United Nations" And Noted Importance Of Getting Inspectors Back In Iraq:

Sen. Kerry: "I voted to do the responsible thing for America, which was to have a threat of force to hold Saddam Hussein accountable and to go to the United Nations. We would not have had Hans Blix and the inspectors in Iraq were it not for the pressure that we brought to bear." (CBS's "The Early Show," 9/2/03)

Hillary Campaign Has Used Kerry's Songbook Before; Said Use Of Force Vote Was Vote For Negotiations:

Last Month Clinton Advisor Terry McAuliffe Said Clinton's Vote For Use Of Force Was Vote For Negotiations. Clinton Advisor Terry McAuliffe: "[S]he voted to give the President the authority to negotiate and to have a stick to go over there and negotiate with Saddam Hussein." (NBC's "Today Show," 1/22/07)

Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) Claimed Kerry Believed Use Of Force Vote Was A Use Of Negotiations Vote. "Levin said Kerry believed the resolution would help President Bush negotiate with Iraq but didn't think Bush would use it to go to war." (Dee-Ann Durbin, "Levin, Stabenow Endorsing Kerry," The Associated Press, 2/5/04)

NOTE: In 2002, Hillary Was Singing A Different Tune:

Sen. Clinton: "I can support the President, I can support an action against Saddam Hussein because I think it's in the long-term interests of our national security ..." (NBC's "Meet The Press,' 9/15/02)

NBC's Tim Russert: "Do you believe we could have disarmament without regime change?" Sen. Clinton: "I doubt it." (NBC's "Meet The Press,' 9/15/02)

[Taco John]

Another story about why Hillary will never get the Democratic nomination!

Keep 'em coming Wrecks!

[jAZ]

I'm not a big Hillary fan (most Dems aren't), but she does deserve credit for being very clear about how and why she was voting that day... and how it should be interpreted for history.

Here's her speech from that day.

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.

...

...I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.

...

President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.

This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.

And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them.

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.

...

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.

[recxjake]

Jaz... don't say most Dems are not fans of Hillary... her poll numbers aren't from fake people, her outragous amounts of money sure isn't coming from Repubs...

[jAZ]

Jaz... don't say most Dems are not fans of Hillary... her poll numbers aren't from fake people, her outragous amounts of money sure isn't coming from Repubs...
First of all, 62% of Dems support someone other than Hillary.

Secondly, Rupert Murdoch has held at least one fundraiser for Hillary.

[recxjake]

First of all, 62% of Dems support someone other than Hillary.

Secondly, Rupert Murdoch has held at least one fundraiser for Hillary.

Leading in polls by 20%
15 Million + in the bank

Case closed.

[Taco John]

First of all, 62% of Dems support someone other than Hillary.

Secondly, Rupert Murdoch has held at least one fundraiser for Hillary.


ROFL


BURN!

[recxjake]

Most of all... this is what I like...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

[Logical]

Jaz... don't say most Dems are not fans of Hillary... her poll numbers aren't from fake people, her outragous amounts of money sure isn't coming from Repubs...

Most implies more than 50%, I believe it is quite accurate for jAZ to say most Dems are not her fans, since she does not enjoy close to 50% support.

[recxjake]

Most implies more than 50%, I believe it is quite accurate for jAZ to say most Dems are not her fans, since she does not enjoy close to 50% support.

40% is pretty high... when you can get someone within 15% then what Jaz said could be valid.

[recxjake]

Also note that 10% of the Dem vote is going to Gore... Most of those voters would go for Hillary over Obama

[noa]

Also note that 10% of the Dem vote is going to Gore... Most of those voters would go for Hillary over Obama

I'm not so sure about that.

[Logical]

Leading in polls by 20%
15 Million + in the bank

Case closed.Not according to the latest from Rasmussen

There’s little change this week in the Democratic nomination contest. Senator Hillary Clinton (D) continues to lead with 28% of the vote from Likely Democratic Primary Voters nationwide. The latest Rasmussen Reports Election 2008 poll shows Senator Barack Obama (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Democratic%20Primaries/DemocraticPresidentialPrimary.htm#) (D) still in second place with 24% of the vote. Former Senator John Edwards (D) has support from 11% and former Vice President Al Gore (D) weighs in at 10%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Democratic%20Primaries/DemocraticPresidentialPrimary.htm

[recxjake]

Not according to the latest from Rasmussen

There’s little change this week in the Democratic nomination contest. Senator Hillary Clinton (D) continues to lead with 28% of the vote from Likely Democratic Primary Voters nationwide. The latest Rasmussen Reports Election 2008 poll shows Senator Barack Obama (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Democratic%20Primaries/DemocraticPresidentialPrimary.htm#) (D) still in second place with 24% of the vote. Former Senator John Edwards (D) has support from 11% and former Vice President Al Gore (D) weighs in at 10%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Democratic%20Primaries/DemocraticPresidentialPrimary.htm


Realclearpolitics is much better due to the fact that they average all polls

RCP Average 02/06 - 02/19 - 38.3 19.5 11.2 9.3 Clinton +18.8
Quinnipiac 02/13 - 02/19 684 RV 38 23 6 11 Clinton +15.0
Cook/RT Strategies 02/15 - 02/18 390 RV 42 20 16 -- Clinton +22.0
Marist 02/12 - 02/15 471 RV 37 17 11 11 Clinton +20.0
Rasmussen 02/12 - 02/15 800 LV 28 24 11 10 Clinton +4.0
USA Today/Gallup 02/09 - 02/11 495 A 40 21 13 14 Clinton +19.0
Siena 02/06 - 02/09 RV 45 12 10 10 Clinton +33.0

[recxjake]

I'm not so sure about that.

heck you may be right, Obama has no issues to discuss because he has done nothing, said nothing, but just speaks well.

[noa]

heck you may be right, Obama has no issues to discuss because he has done nothing, said nothing, but just speaks well.

Yeah, he's not exactly a part of the establishment, which I think gives some people hope. He can be seen as an outsider, and if he can do well in the debates, people probably won't care that he hasn't amassed a long political record.

[Logical]

Realclearpolitics is much better due to the fact that they average all polls

RCP Average 02/06 - 02/19 - 38.3 19.5 11.2 9.3 Clinton +18.8
Quinnipiac 02/13 - 02/19 684 RV 38 23 6 11 Clinton +15.0
Cook/RT Strategies 02/15 - 02/18 390 RV 42 20 16 -- Clinton +22.0
Marist 02/12 - 02/15 471 RV 37 17 11 11 Clinton +20.0
Rasmussen 02/12 - 02/15 800 LV 28 24 11 10 Clinton +4.0
USA Today/Gallup 02/09 - 02/11 495 A 40 21 13 14 Clinton +19.0
Siena 02/06 - 02/09 RV 45 12 10 10 Clinton +33.0

I disagree because much of their data is really old as old as the 6th, whereas Rasmussen is from the 19th.

by the way your data is pretty much not readable in that format.

[Nightwish]

Flip Flop, Flip Flop Round 2

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) Tells New Hampshire Her Use Of Force Vote Was "Cleary Intended" As Support "For Going To The United Nations" And "To Put Inspectors In Iraq"
If she was aware of the requirements and prohibitions of the UN Charter, then this isn't a flip flop. The UN Charter prohibits member states from making war on other member states without authorization from the UNSC, unless the state being made war upon posed a direct threat to the security or sovereignty of the warring state. Since Iraq was neither a threat to our security or sovereignty, then a vote to authorize the use of force, put forth with knowledge of our responsibilities under the UN Charter, would automatically recognize that the matter would still have to go to the UNSC for authorization.

[recxjake]

Yeah, he's not exactly a part of the establishment, which I think gives some people hope. He can be seen as an outsider, and if he can do well in the debates, people probably won't care he hasn't amassed a long political record.

Even if he gets the nomination he simply cannont win the electoral college vote.

[recxjake]

I disagree because much of their data is really old as old as the 6th, whereas Rasmussen is from the 19th.

by the way your data is pretty much not readable in that format.

ahh the Rasmussen is 3rd to the bottom!

[recxjake]

If she was aware of the requirements and prohibitions of the UN Charter, then this isn't a flip flop. The UN Charter prohibits member states from making war on other member states without authorization from the UNSC, unless the state being made war upon posed a direct threat to the security or sovereignty of the warring state. Since Iraq was neither a threat to our security or sovereignty, then a vote to authorize the use of force, put forth with knowledge of our responsibilities under the UN Charter, would automatically recognize that the matter would still have to go to the UNSC for authorization.

Spin Spin Spin

[Logical]

Even if he gets the nomination he simply cannont win the electoral college vote.

And why is that, careful, you are treading on racist bias.

[Logical]

ahh the Rasmussen is 3rd to the bottom!

The data is unreadable I never said I could not tell what polls were used. I stand by my statement. How about a link.

[recxjake]

And why is that, careful, you are treading on racist bias.

Florida- Solid for Rudy... huge NY population
New England States--- the moderate states have a chance to go red
The only hope for Obama is if he can pull of Ohio, Penn, and Iowa... I just don't see that happening

[noa]

Even if he gets the nomination he simply cannont win the electoral college vote.

He can win without the southern votes. If the Dems can hold onto the states they won in 2004, all Obama would have to do is win Florida or Ohio. That's not necessarily easy, but it isn't out of the question.

[recxjake]

The data is unreadable I never said I could not tell what polls were used. I stand by my statement. How about a link.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html

[recxjake]

He can win without the southern votes. If the Dems can hold onto the states they won in 2004, all Obama would have to do is win Florida or Ohio. That's not necessarily easy, but it isn't out of the question.

Correct.. Florida is a lock for Rudy... Ohio is going to be huge again... but then you have other states like Minnesota and Wisconsin that could go red and change everything

[noa]

Florida- Solid for Rudy... huge NY population
New England States--- the moderate states have a chance to go red
The only hope for Obama is if he can pull of Ohio, Penn, and Iowa... I just don't see that happening


I don't think NY is in the bag already for Rudy. He'll have to fight to win it, even though its his home state.
I haven't seen any trend indicating New England states are going to flip red.

[noa]

Correct.. Florida is a lock for Rudy... Ohio is going to be huge again... but then you have other states like Minnesota and Wisconsin that could go red and change everything


The loss of MN and WI (which I think is unlikely) could be offset by victories in MO and IN, both of which went Dem in the midterms.

[recxjake]

I don't think NY is in the bag already for Rudy. He'll have to fight to win it, even though its his home state.
I haven't seen any trend indicating New England states are going to flip red.

Oh i agree... im talking New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont... New York would hard.... but its a maybe

I really like using this site:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

[recxjake]

The loss of MN and WI (which I think is unlikely) could be offset by victories in MO and IN, both of which went Dem in the midterms.

Yes, but by tiny margins and moderate candidates

[Nightwish]

Spin Spin SpinHow is it spin? It's right there in the UN Charter, if you care to read it. We signed it. Were you unaware of that? Did you think that Hillary, champion of the UN, was unaware of it?

[noa]

Oh i agree... im talking New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont... New York would hard.... but its a maybe

I really like using this site:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/


Good link. I was just playing around on this one: http://www.270towin.com/

[recxjake]

How is it spin? It's right there in the UN Charter, if you care to read it. We signed it. Were you unaware of that? Did you think that Hillary, champion of the UN, was unaware of it?

You are right... however Hillary was not going that in depth with her vote... her quotes on Iraq before and after the flip flop will destroy her

[recxjake]

I'm going to bed... there is no doubt this election is going to be fun... Rudy has yet to be as public as Hillary and Obama... I can't wait for him to start answering the tough questions that need to be answered.

[jAZ]

Even if he gets the nomination he simply cannont win the electoral college vote.
Obama has a greater shot at wining the hearts and minds of the Christian vote than Rudy.

He's built his entire campaign around reaching out to that population. He's openly and vocally one himself. It's why he is such a fascinating candidate.

He reaches out past the recent borders of the DNC in ways that no one else has since Bill Clinton (he reached out to the fiscal right rarther than the religious right).

[Nightwish]

Yes, but by tiny margins and moderate candidates
Missouri's margin was small (2 1/2 percentage points), but Illinois' was anything but "tiny" (more than 10 percentage points). Of course, Missouri ran a Senatorial race, while Illinois only ran a Gubernatorial race.

[jAZ]

Rudy has yet ... to start answering the tough questions that need to be answered.
Keep that in mind when you look at the current poll numbers.

[Taco John]

Holy cow! Check out the Electorate in 1912...

[Taco John]

Yikes!

[Taco John]

The Republicans Strike Back!

[Taco John]

FOUR MORE YEARS...