Cleverboy
Jan 30, 2008, 06:48 AM
So, how do you read Hillary's argument for her vote?
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html
October 10, 2002
Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
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.
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.She seems to have a number of conflicting assessments. Hindsight 20/20, the vote looks like a gamble that Bush would do the right thing given a blank check. In the end, from my understanding, she still stands by her vote as not being a mistake (although Edwards has admitted his to be so). I can understand her reasoning, but in the end, they say the Road to Hell is just littered with good intentions.
Obama wasn't a Senator at the time, and his public speech
came after the vote for authorization (in a much different context)...
but he gave his own speech:
http://www.lessig.org/blog/2008/01/barack_obamas_2002_speech.html
Delivered on 26 October 2002 at an anti-war rally in Chicago
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 Queda, thru 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.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.
Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.
The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not we will not travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain. In the Senate, would he have been able to speak so freely in the pressence of others who would pressure him to send a more powerful message of support and unanimity in American willpower and resolve? Clearly in the end, none of that worked.
I remember I was in a car once in college, driving to the Cape Cod with some friends. We were cut-off by someone, and the driver got angry and started following them. He felt, that with all of us strapping young men in the car, we'd seem threatening and that he could intimidate the driver for having cut us off. In the rear, we screamed at him to stop it. We had NO interest in what he wanted to do... yet, he used us until the scared driver drove off an exit suddenly, hoping to lose us. Thankfully, no cops were around, and no one got hurt... but when we got out of the car, I swore I'd never drive with that person again... and I never did. I imagine Clinton's vote to draw a complicated and infinitely more serious parallel to that day. Trusting someone enough to ride with them, and feeling betrayed when you realize they're judgement to be fatally flawed. --Then again, I think the Cape Cod trip was AFTER he'd "accidentally" poured a cup of fruit punch on my head some months earlier while in school. He hadn't meant to really get me from the top stairs... he'd planned to splash it on the ground to get my attention.
I guess there's always warning signs on who you let take you for a ride.
~ CB
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html
October 10, 2002
Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
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.
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.She seems to have a number of conflicting assessments. Hindsight 20/20, the vote looks like a gamble that Bush would do the right thing given a blank check. In the end, from my understanding, she still stands by her vote as not being a mistake (although Edwards has admitted his to be so). I can understand her reasoning, but in the end, they say the Road to Hell is just littered with good intentions.
Obama wasn't a Senator at the time, and his public speech
came after the vote for authorization (in a much different context)...
but he gave his own speech:
http://www.lessig.org/blog/2008/01/barack_obamas_2002_speech.html
Delivered on 26 October 2002 at an anti-war rally in Chicago
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 Queda, thru 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.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.
Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.
The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not we will not travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain. In the Senate, would he have been able to speak so freely in the pressence of others who would pressure him to send a more powerful message of support and unanimity in American willpower and resolve? Clearly in the end, none of that worked.
I remember I was in a car once in college, driving to the Cape Cod with some friends. We were cut-off by someone, and the driver got angry and started following them. He felt, that with all of us strapping young men in the car, we'd seem threatening and that he could intimidate the driver for having cut us off. In the rear, we screamed at him to stop it. We had NO interest in what he wanted to do... yet, he used us until the scared driver drove off an exit suddenly, hoping to lose us. Thankfully, no cops were around, and no one got hurt... but when we got out of the car, I swore I'd never drive with that person again... and I never did. I imagine Clinton's vote to draw a complicated and infinitely more serious parallel to that day. Trusting someone enough to ride with them, and feeling betrayed when you realize they're judgement to be fatally flawed. --Then again, I think the Cape Cod trip was AFTER he'd "accidentally" poured a cup of fruit punch on my head some months earlier while in school. He hadn't meant to really get me from the top stairs... he'd planned to splash it on the ground to get my attention.
I guess there's always warning signs on who you let take you for a ride.
~ CB
