Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Regardless of congressional votes, regardless of UN votes, regardless of NATO votes, regardless of anything else, this country has one (1) Commander in Chief at a time, and that one (1) Commander in Chief has the final say about going to war. It is his or her decision.
He or she says "go", we go. He or she says "don't go", we don't go.
Regardless of anything else.
He would have been sending in the military against their vote.Regardless of congressional votes, regardless of UN votes, regardless of NATO votes, regardless of anything else, this country has one (1) Commander in Chief at a time, and that one (1) Commander in Chief has the final say about going to war. It is his or her decision.
He or she says "go", we go. He or she says "don't go", we don't go.
Regardless of anything else.
What if they had voted no?
However the President can only do this in time of National emergency (attack) which did not exist at the time. Thus the President must get approval, which he did and Hillary Clinton was a war approver. Get over it, Hillary is a warmonger, in fact she seems to want war with Putin now as this would take some of the heat off of her racketeering crimes.Regardless of congressional votes, regardless of UN votes, regardless of NATO votes, regardless of anything else, this country has one (1) Commander in Chief at a time, and that one (1) Commander in Chief has the final say about going to war. It is his or her decision.
He or she says "go", we go. He or she says "don't go", we don't go.
Regardless of anything else.
He would have been sending in the military against their vote.Regardless of congressional votes, regardless of UN votes, regardless of NATO votes, regardless of anything else, this country has one (1) Commander in Chief at a time, and that one (1) Commander in Chief has the final say about going to war. It is his or her decision.
He or she says "go", we go. He or she says "don't go", we don't go.
Regardless of anything else.
What if they had voted no?
.
But either way, he chose to go.
.
Warmongers like Hillary never vote no for war.....................Regardless of congressional votes, regardless of UN votes, regardless of NATO votes, regardless of anything else, this country has one (1) Commander in Chief at a time, and that one (1) Commander in Chief has the final say about going to war. It is his or her decision.
He or she says "go", we go. He or she says "don't go", we don't go.
Regardless of anything else.
What if they had voted no?
Warmongers like Hillary never vote no for war.....................Regardless of congressional votes, regardless of UN votes, regardless of NATO votes, regardless of anything else, this country has one (1) Commander in Chief at a time, and that one (1) Commander in Chief has the final say about going to war. It is his or her decision.
He or she says "go", we go. He or she says "don't go", we don't go.
Regardless of anything else.
What if they had voted no?
Did I say anything in post 2 that is incorrect?He would have been sending in the military against their vote.Regardless of congressional votes, regardless of UN votes, regardless of NATO votes, regardless of anything else, this country has one (1) Commander in Chief at a time, and that one (1) Commander in Chief has the final say about going to war. It is his or her decision.
He or she says "go", we go. He or she says "don't go", we don't go.
Regardless of anything else.
What if they had voted no?
.
But either way, he chose to go.
.
Would he not have been in violation of the Wars Power act? Wouldn't it then be an impeachable offense?
They had a vote, they voted in favor and got the expected results, they are all culpable.
The military swears allegiance to the Constitution, not the President. If given unconstitutional orders, one is obligated to refuse.
The illegal Iraq invasion was a war crime. Any lawyer would know it. Perhaps those in the military did not fully know it, though they should have. Someone, at least, should have refused.
Certainly, those who voted for it share the guilt. The above post is correct in one thing; the Commander in Chief at the time has the greatest guilt.
Did I say anything in post 2 that is incorrect?He would have been sending in the military against their vote.Regardless of congressional votes, regardless of UN votes, regardless of NATO votes, regardless of anything else, this country has one (1) Commander in Chief at a time, and that one (1) Commander in Chief has the final say about going to war. It is his or her decision.
He or she says "go", we go. He or she says "don't go", we don't go.
Regardless of anything else.
What if they had voted no?
.
But either way, he chose to go.
.
Would he not have been in violation of the Wars Power act? Wouldn't it then be an impeachable offense?
They had a vote, they voted in favor and got the expected results, they are all culpable.
.
So we agree that it was Bush's decision. That's my only point.Did I say anything in post 2 that is incorrect?He would have been sending in the military against their vote.Regardless of congressional votes, regardless of UN votes, regardless of NATO votes, regardless of anything else, this country has one (1) Commander in Chief at a time, and that one (1) Commander in Chief has the final say about going to war. It is his or her decision.
He or she says "go", we go. He or she says "don't go", we don't go.
Regardless of anything else.
What if they had voted no?
.
But either way, he chose to go.
.
Would he not have been in violation of the Wars Power act? Wouldn't it then be an impeachable offense?
They had a vote, they voted in favor and got the expected results, they are all culpable.
.
Yes, in the way you are absolving congress for what they voted for. Yes, it was Bush's decision but it was Congress who allowed him to make it. Mrs. Tuzla Clinton being one of them.
A great President will not take such a decision as risking American lives lightly. Thus Bush who was a great commander gave the intelligence to the full body of elected officials that the people had chosen, including Democrats like Hilary. Thus Bush did not make the decision on his own, he had the backing of people like Hillary Clinton (who hated him politically). Thus the decision to go to war was an American decision, made by Americas elected officials. So yes you were wrong in post 2, but you can not see this because the truth is that HILLARY VOTED FOR WAR, and will do it again with Russia who stole her firkin emails and might make TV shows around them.Did I say anything in post 2 that is incorrect?He would have been sending in the military against their vote.Regardless of congressional votes, regardless of UN votes, regardless of NATO votes, regardless of anything else, this country has one (1) Commander in Chief at a time, and that one (1) Commander in Chief has the final say about going to war. It is his or her decision.
He or she says "go", we go. He or she says "don't go", we don't go.
Regardless of anything else.
What if they had voted no?
.
But either way, he chose to go.
.
Would he not have been in violation of the Wars Power act? Wouldn't it then be an impeachable offense?
They had a vote, they voted in favor and got the expected results, they are all culpable.
.
hillary's iraq vote is only being made "a big deal" currently by desperate bernie fans.
^ talking points now parroted by dumbo trump supporters desperately trying to hold anything against her.
rational Americans understand political leadership is filled with tough choices.
merely wishing for peace from the margins does not bring peace, and those who have been in the policy trenches understand the complexity.
just ask obama who campaigned on closing guantanamo, the difference between idealistic wishes and harsh realities.
5 Myths (And One Big Truth) About Hillary's 2002 Iraq War Vote
In the face of Secretary Clinton's undisputed strength in these areas, when Bernie Sanders is asked how his experience measures up to hers in the "Commander In Chief" category, he invariably comes up with a single Talking Point.
Unfortunately that Talking Point, presented in Bernie's shallow vernacular, simply isn't true. It usually goes something like this:
The key foreign policy vote in modern American history was the 2002 vote as to whether we should go into Iraq. I made the decision not to go to war. Hillary Clinton on the other hand, voted for the war...
Like many simplistic and "sound bite" arguments of the modern era, and of Sanders in particular, the argument that Hillary Clinton supported the war George W. Bush prosecuted in Iraq is nonsense. This falsehood can be broken down into five sub-myths.
Myth #1: The 2002 Congressional Resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq, on which Hillary Clinton and a large majority of U.S. Senators voted yes, gave George W. Bush "carte blanche" to pursue war against Saddam Hussein.
False! In fact exactly the opposite is true: While that Resolution did indeed authorize President Bush, under strict requirements of the 1973 War Powers Act, to use force, Section 3(b) of the Act also required that sanctions or diplomacy be fully employed before force was used, i.e. force was to be used only as "necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq," and to do so only upon the President certifying to Congress that "diplomatic or other peaceful means" would be insufficient to defang Saddam.
Despite those legal conditions, the following year we were at war--and millions of us were astonished that the Bush Administration, running roughshod over Congress's requirements, hadn't given more time for U.N. inspectors to complete their job of searching for weapons of mass destruction.
Myth #2: By voting for the 2002 Congressional Resolution which authorized (but was also designed to limit) George Bush's power to wage war in Iraq, Hillary Clinton cannot be considered a "progressive" Democrat.
False! On October 11, 2002, Clinton joined a strong majority of Democrats, including liberal and left-center Democrats like Tom Harkin, John Kerry, and Joe Biden, in voting in favor of the Resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq. Later on, Clinton came to deeply regret giving President Bush the benefit of the doubt on the Resolution, and she has plainly admitted her mistake. Yet it is a "mistake" which many other senators of conscience made with her; if Clinton bears any blame for the resulting war, it is because she placed too much reliance on legislation that was actually designed to check a president's war-making ability but instead inadvertently gave that president cover to run roughshod over the interests of both Congress and the public at large.
Myth #3 : At the time of her vote, Clinton was very supportive of going to war in order to remove Saddam Hussein from power.
False! While Clinton quickly turned against the war, another piece of "lost history" is the deep concern she expressed at the very time of her vote in the fall of 2002. Given the Resolution's several prerequisites to waging war, Clinton's vote was for a Resolution that was also supposed to restrain the President's ability to wage war, and her 2002 floor speech leading up to consideration of the Resolution made this clear:
My vote is not a vote for any new doctrine of preemption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose, all of which carry grave dangers for our Nation, the rule of international law, and the peace and security of people throughout the world.
These words presaged the doctrine of "smart power" Clinton later espoused as Secretary of State. Her vision is neither interventionist on the one hand nor hesitant and supine on the other, but rather something in between: a belief that the United States is the indispensable leader--in a troubled world where such leadership matters--but a belief still grounded in reality, the limits of American power and, perhaps most significantly, the importance of collaboration with like-minded actors who can be found in every corner of the globe. Meanwhile, as Clinton has said many times, then as now, armed intervention is only to be used as a last resort.
Myth #2: By voting for the 2002 Congressional Resolution which authorized (but was also designed to limit) George Bush's power to wage war in Iraq, Hillary Clinton cannot be considered a "progressive" Democrat.
False! On October 11, 2002, Clinton joined a strong majority of Democrats, including liberal and left-center Democrats like Tom Harkin, John Kerry, and Joe Biden, in voting in favor of the Resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq. Later on, Clinton came to deeply regret giving President Bush the benefit of the doubt on the Resolution, and she has plainly admitted her mistake. Yet it is a "mistake" which many other senators of conscience made with her; if Clinton bears any blame for the resulting war, it is because she placed too much reliance on legislation that was actually designed to check a president's war-making ability but instead inadvertently gave that president cover to run roughshod over the interests of both Congress and the public at large.
My vote is not a vote for any new doctrine of preemption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose, all of which carry grave dangers for our Nation, the rule of international law, and the peace and security of people throughout the world.
These words presaged the doctrine of "smart power" Clinton later espoused as Secretary of State. Her vision is neither interventionist on the one hand nor hesitant and supine on the other, but rather something in between: a belief that the United States is the indispensable leader--in a troubled world where such leadership matters--but a belief still grounded in reality, the limits of American power and, perhaps most significantly, the importance of collaboration with like-minded actors who can be found in every corner of the globe. Meanwhile, as Clinton has said many times, then as now, armed intervention is only to be used as a last resort.
