Hillary / Obama - IRAQ Vote - How do you read it?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Cleverboy, Jan 30, 2008.

  1. Cleverboy macrumors 65816

    Cleverboy

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Location:
    Pocket Universe, nth Dimensional Complex Manifold
    #1
    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


    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
    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
     
  2. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #2
    You left out an important part of Obama's speech.

     
  3. Cleverboy thread starter macrumors 65816

    Cleverboy

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Location:
    Pocket Universe, nth Dimensional Complex Manifold
    #3
    True.

    ~ CB
     
  4. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #4
    Nice to see the two in black and white. Obama was right on this one, BushCo,Billary,and Edwards were wrong.

    What about the Patriot Act ? All these political morons were for that also.
     
  5. themadchemist macrumors 68030

    themadchemist

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chi Town
    #5
    I think you chalk it up to a few things:

    -A colossal miscalculation about the aggressiveness of the Bush Doctrine.
    -A political fear of being cast as unpatriotic or weak on security.
    -A judgment based on the questionable intelligence provided to Congress.

    You can't expect people to make good decisions based on bad data. And you might be able to forgive them for not yet recognizing the how extreme the drive for reshaping the Middle East was in the hearts of the Bush administration. But you can blame folks for not having the courage to stand up and say--No, I will not be cast as unpatriotic just because I disagree with the President. That was something the Democrats did very poorly prior to 2004.

    Nevertheless, I think it was clear early on from the geopolitics of the region that while Hussein was a very, very bad head of state (though arguably, not the worst in the world, considering some of the atrocities in Africa), he had never shown interest in a direct attack against the United States. His preoccupation was consistently with regional dominance, and as long as he could be played as a foil against the Ayatollah, we didn't mind ascending power for "our son of a bitch."
     

Share This Page