It sounds interesting but I am not sure that I agree with you completely….

Nonsense. Here’s a few excerpts from Hillary’s speech on the floor of the Senate on the day she cast her vote for the resolution, explaining the rationale for her vote.

————————————-

[...]

“Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

“This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980′s when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

“However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

“If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

“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.

[...]

“While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, 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.

“If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.

“If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.

“If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls for Saddam’s compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving some nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose any Security Council action. They will say we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only support the United Nations when it does exactly what we want.

“I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein’s biological and chemical weapons. Today he has maximum incentive not to use them or give them away. If he did either, the world would demand his immediate removal. Once the battle is joined, however, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and to give what he can’t use to terrorists who can torment us with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed by this possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it. And according to recent reports, the CIA agrees with this analysis. A world united in sharing the risk at least would make this occurrence less likely and more bearable and would be far more likely to share with us the considerable burden of rebuilding a secure and peaceful post-Saddam Iraq.

“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.

“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.”

———————————–

Seems clear from this that she did, in fact, at the time the vote was cast, favor the diplomatic route, and saw the authorization as a means to that end.

You know the rest. In fact, it worked. Inspectors were readmitted.

As you also know, Bush chose to renege on his promise to Congress to pursue the diplomatic solution, and this is hardly the fault of Hillary or anyone else in the Congress.

“Supports the president’s efforts”?! What efforts? It was 100% clear by then that the President was doing his best to avoid even a convincing semblance of diplomacy. Are you suggesting that Hillary and the others were so out of touch that they didn’t see that?! And it utterly ignores the fact that it was obviously the President, not Saddam Hussein who was desperate to keep the inspectors out of Iraq.

What part of “SADDAM HAD EXPRESSED HIS WILLINGNESS FOR THE INPECTORS TO RETURN FOR WEEKS BEFORE THAT VOTE TOOK PLACE” is not penetrating your little mind? And are you claiming that you were unaware that Bush was desperate to avoid having the inspectors in Iraq? And are you suggesting that your Hillary and the others were so remiss in doing their jobs that they didn’t know these things?

Hillary’s claim that she was voting to get inspectors, not American bombs and troops, into Iraq is pure politicians bullcrap.

She eagerly ate up every single one of the neocon/Bushistas lies about Iraq, and did so without a shred of skepticism, or question. Even Lieberman showed some skepticism, but not your Hillary!

I’ve got a better idea– How ’bout you just stop posting any old lie you like and asking others to correct you if you’re wrong. If you don’t know that it’s true, don’t say it. Simple.

In fact the resolution carries the language you are absurdly claiming she voted against. The President is required by the resolution to exhaust diplomatic means before pursuing a military solution, and to provide congress with his determination that such diplomatic means were bearing no fruit before invasion, or at the latest within 48 hour of having taken action. Here ya go:

———————————

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to—
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.—In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that—
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist
organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.—
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.—Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.—Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

————————————–

Again, this is not an authorization to invade; it is an authorization to use military force if all other means are exhausted.

Bush violated the authorization when he invaded, because he had not exhausted diplomatic efforts, nor had he shown to congress that such efforts were exhausted.

Further, you’re mistating the contributions of Tony Blair in this. Tony made no rebuffed overture to Bush to readmit inspectors, as you claim. Perhaps you’re confusing this with Tony’s overture to Bush to secure UN Security Council resolution specifically authorization before invading at one point.

Frankly, I don’t know where you’re pulling this crap out of. Not sure I wanna know.

When it was becoming clear that Saddam was, for all practical purposes, disarmed, Bill found a way to keep the Iraqi people under the sanctions that were destroying their country and their lives, and killing their children by the thousands each week by deftly changed his sanctions policy from weapons inspections/disarmament to regime change. Hillary, that great champion of children, found that a good decision. Hillary also encouraged Bill’s continuation of his regular bombing runs in Iraq, and simply LOVED Operation Desert Fox, which included bombing the capital, and killed, among others civilians, one of Iraq’s most revered artists.

So no, I do not think Hillary will be significantly different when it comes to foreign and military policy in general and Iraq in particular in the Oval Office than she has been in the Senate. I do not think so for the simple reason that there is no indication based on her history or her statements as a candicate that anything would change. She has always been a hawk, is a hawk now, and that’s not likely to change.

And aren’t you just the tiniest bit concerned about what she has in mind for that greatly expanded military with the greatly increased budget that she has announced?

A lie.

From the resolution itself:

—————————-

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to—
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

—————————–

Within the umbrella of “all relevant Security Council resolutions” are the terms of the cease file agreement of 1991, obviously, and all subsequent UN resolutions concerning noncompliance with it.

A lie.

In August of 2002, Saddam offered to meet with Hans Blix to discuss unresolved disarmament issues. The UN replied that this was not acceptable and once again requested that Saddam readmit inspectors, as required by the 1991 cease fire resolution, et seq. Saddam did not do so, nor indicate willingness to.

On October 10 of 2002, the AUMF/Iraq was signed into law. Among other things it expressed support for the diplomatic efforts of the UN in the matter of compliance with those resolutions, and authorized miitary force to insure compliance if diplomatic effort failed.

On November 13 of 2002, weapons inspectors were readmitted to Iraq, after a four year absence.

Probably just coincidence.

Given the ability of the Oval Office to express it self in a singular fashion what I’m saying is Hillary Clinton might surprise you in a positive way. I know you’re sayin’ “That’ll be the day!”. AS POTUS the wieght of the world is on your shoulders in contrast to the senate where you are subjected a different calculus and the will (or lack of) of the majority.

None of them – not one. Why would they? speaking up about it will do nothing to further their campaigns, and that is all they care about.

Well, OK, maybe – MAYBE – Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul.

You have a valid point.

My reason for finding race irrelevant addresses a different matter. Powell is clearly a very intelligent, articulate, extremely capable human being who has acheived a great dea in ways and for reasons that are unrelated to race.

Edmonds, a 37-year-old former Turkish language translator, listened into hundreds of sensitive intercepted conversations while based at the agency’s Washington field office.

She says the FBI was investigating a Turkish and Israeli-run network that paid high-ranking American officials to steal nuclear weapons secrets. These were then sold on the international black market to countries such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

One of the documents relating to the case was marked 203A-WF-210023. Last week, however, the FBI responded to a freedom of information request for a file of exactly the same number by claiming that it did not exist. But The Sunday Times has obtained a document signed by an FBI official showing the existence of the file.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3216737.ece

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3216737.ece