‘What certainly influenced me’ to support Iraq war, Clinton says, was Bush’s billions of aid to NYC

US Politics
on 30 Comments

“Part of what certainly influenced me” to support the Iraq war was George Bush pledging billions to rebuild New York after 9/11 a year before her vote, Hillary Clinton said last night. The comment is getting a lot of attention: folks are asking whether Hillary Clinton got bribed to support the Iraq war.

Last night on MSNBC, Chris Matthews quizzed the former secretary of state and NY senator about why she supported the war in Iraq, and Bernie Sanders didn’t. And she said they came to the issue from different perspectives. “Why was Bernie Sanders right and you were wrong?” Matthews asked. “What do you think was in him that allowed him to see what you couldn’t see?” Clinton said:

Clinton: Look, that was a mistake and I’ve said it was a mistake. And I had good friends like Vice President Biden who were with me, and I had good friends who were on the other side. And I think part of what certainly influenced me is after 9/11 you know I went to New York with Chuck Schumer, the next day, my fellow senator. We were the only plane in the sky and we flew over Ground Zero and we saw the devastation, and we were briefed fully on all of the threats that were still out there.

We get back to Washington I go and see then Senator Byrd, get him to commit to helping New York. Because the first request out of the White House was for 20 billion dollars for the Pentagon, for Homeland Security. Not a penny for New York. So I went and said, Look we have to get money for New York.

When I went to the White House, there were about four of us senators, the two from Virginia, the two of us from New York And I knew that the Republicans in the White House and in the Senate didn’t want to rebuild New York or at least they weren’t willing to put money into it. So I’m sitting there in the Oval Office, and Bush says to me, ‘What do you need?’ And I said, ‘I need $20 billion to rebuild, you know, New York,’ and he said, ‘You got it.’ And he was good to his word.

So my experience with him on something of great import to our country was positive. Because literally, that same day, I get back to the Capitol, and the Republicans are trying to take that money away. We kept calling the White House, Bush kept saying, “I gave them my word, I’m going to stick with it.”

So, you know, I had a different set of experiences.

Matthews said, “But you know we have 100,000 people dead in Iraq because of that war. We invaded.” Matthews then quizzed Clinton about why she is so keen on “constantly” knocking off regimes in the Middle East….

Thanks to Adam Horowitz.

30 Responses

  1. Kay24
    March 15, 2016, 1:04 pm

    Good for Matthews to ask her why we are constantly knocking off regimes in the ME.

    It is time our media (the ones with a spine) asked those who keep wanting wars, or meddling in
    the ME, what their ulterior motives are. We have been making a bloody mess over there, and we keep acting indifferent when it comes to the thousands of human lives killed, maimed, or becoming refugees.

    To not vote for the Iraq war would not have been seen as leadership and being tough, and Clinton had to make sure she looked that way, as she always had aspirations to run for President.

    I am sick of our politicians playing war games with the lives of helpless people, toppling their governments, decimating their countries, and causing havoc in these places. Iraq and Libya were much better off before the zionists and neocons in the US, decided to drop bombs over more Muslim nations. Clinton played a huge part in this mess too.

  2. eljay
    March 15, 2016, 1:29 pm

    Hillary is either stupidly evil or evilly stupid. Either way, she should not be running the U.S.

    • Rusty Pipes
      March 15, 2016, 3:28 pm

      How about cravenly short-sighted: she can only see as far as keeping key people happy until the next election.

  3. joemowrey
    March 15, 2016, 3:00 pm

    This woman is truly a psychopath. She recently commented that “We didn’t lose a single person” in Libya.” Absolutely obscene, considering it was U.S. imperial machinations (with Clinton as puppet master) which fomented the civil war there, and U.S. actions which completely destroyed that country killing untold thousands. And now we’re headed for more death and destruction there under Clinton’s guidance.

    When she becomes President (sorry Sanders’ hopefuls) there will be carnage worldwide that will make Obama’s reign of terror seem like child’s play.

  4. Donald
    March 15, 2016, 3:05 pm

    Tangential point, but that 100,000 figure is much too low. Even Iraq Body Count says the civilian death toll is over 150,000 and now that they’ve started including combatants, they say the total is currently 240,000. And the attempts at measuring excess deaths via surveys by various groups give totals which were much higher than IBC”s for the times covered.

    Plus ISIS is in part a product of the Iraq War.


    • Annie Robbins
      March 15, 2016, 3:10 pm

      at least a million died in that war. and people are still dying because of that war.

  5. David Doppler
    March 15, 2016, 3:06 pm

    What an insightful incident! “I made a deal with Bush. NY got $20B to rebuild [from the blowback fiasco caused by the first Gulf War (bin Laden’s stated grudge was infidel US forces defiling sacred Saudi Arabia land)]. So I voted with Bush for the fiasco that created the blowback known by 3 or 4 names – ISIL, Daesh, etc.. Trust me to be President, because I do big deals starting wars and throwing billions in taxpayer dollars around with all the elite players – unlike Bernie [and I don’t even see why this story might be a problem for me.]

    • ritzl
      March 17, 2016, 4:39 pm

      Great paraphrasing, DD. That’s so reminiscent of the “impeccably argued” logic from that Monty Python sketch in Holy Grail.

      “Therefore, if she weighs less than a duck she’s made of wood and therefore a witch.”

      Just as you think the balance scale will show that she can’t possibly weigh less than a duck and be convicted, the scale does in fact show her to weigh the same as a duck.

      As you point out Clinton spouts a similar fact and logic stream that shows that she can’t possibly be a good candidate, and then remarkably, a la Monty Python, declares that this is why she is a good candidate.

      It would be hilarious sketch comedy except for the next million dead human beings in “faraway” places that would result if voters take this logic and contrived result at face value/seriously.

    • tree
      March 18, 2016, 3:02 pm

      This is why I hate election seasons. People with axes to grind start writing crap and people buy into it. Suddenly it becomes an accepted “truth” when its simply a case of false political spin. I’m not saying you, David, or Phil have axes to grind. I’m talking about the original writer of the opinion piece who tried to, and, by the reactions of people here, including you David (and Phil), succeeded in planting a false story.

      If you listen to the full answer from Clinton at the MSNBC link its clear that she ISN’T saying that she voted for the War Authorization because Bush gave NY millions. She’s saying that she trusted Bush to keep his word on Iraq because he kept his word on aid to NYC, even when there was significant pressure from his fellow republicans to quash the aid and go back on his promise.

      This seems to have gone down the memory hole, but at the time of the vote Bush promised that he would let the weapons inspectors finish their work and also promised to go back to the UN for ratification if weapons were found. He did neither, but Clinton, knowing that he had kept a promise to her on providing funds to NYC despite pressure to renege on that promise, believed Bush’s promise that he would use the authorization in order to press Iraq diplomatically rather than merely as an excuse for war. That is what she is saying when she said she had a different experience from Sanders, who was not present for Bush’s promise to provide funds for NYC. Of course he lied.

      But to insinuate that Clinton was bribed to support the Iraq War is totally false. It’s part and parcel of what I complained about earlier here on the demonization of Clinton. She was wrong, and admitted as such, but so were 28 other Democrats (and all but one Republican), including Kerry, Biden and Dodd, none of whom have been raked over the coals for their votes as much as Clinton has. Even Obama cut Kerry slack for his vote when he supported Kerry in his 2004 bid for the Presidency. This “bribery” crap is just more of the same unfair treatment that Clinton has consistently gotten, and I’m sorry to see so many here lap it up without question. Criticize Clinton for her vote if you so choose but don’t latch onto false propaganda and repeat it as gospel.

      If you doubt my word on this, I’d suggest reading snopes.com, which has deemed the rumor of Clinton “admitting bribery” as false, here:

      link to snopes.com

      Or see slate.com, which discusses Clinton’s similar explanation of her vote made in February of this year.

      link to slate.com

      From Slate:
      In response, Clinton acknowledged, as she has on previous occasions, that she’d made a mistake. But she also offered an explanation for her vote, something she has rarely done in the past. President Bush, she told the audience, had made a “very explicit appeal” that “getting this vote would be a strong piece of leverage in order to finish the inspections.” In other words, a resolution to use force would prod Saddam Hussein into readmitting U.N. inspectors, so they could continue their mission of verifying whether or not he had destroyed his chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons sites. In other words, Clinton was now claiming she voted the way she did in the interests of diplomacy; the problem was that Bush went back on his word—he invaded before giving the inspectors enough time.

      Listening to her rationale Wednesday night, I didn’t know whether she was telling the truth. I had written many Slate columns about the Iraq debate and the ensuing war, but I couldn’t remember the details of then-Sen. Clinton’s position. Looking up those details now, I have come to a conclusion about the rationale she recited at the New Hampshire town hall: Hillary was telling the truth.

      Kaplan at Slate then goes on to explain the circumstances around the vote and quotes from Clinton’s speech at the time. I’d suggest reading the Slate piece at length if you really want the truth instead of more false rumors and innuendos.

      • Kris
        March 18, 2016, 4:31 pm

        Tree, do you really believe Hillary when she says that President Bush didn’t want to give NYC funds for reconstruction after 9/11? I don’t, I think that’s absurd, given the public sentiment at the time. There is no way that NYC was not going to get the money.

        But if you’re right, and Hillary really did risk so much because she “trusted” a known liar and fool like G.W. Bush, it’s even worse than if it was just a quid pro quo. It’s scary, especially when you consider Hillary’s record of “remembering” things that didn’t actually happen.

        Such as: landing under sniper fire in Bosnia, Chelsea was “jogging around the World Trade Center on 9/11, and happened to duck into a coffee shop as the airplanes hit, she and Bill were “dead broke” when they left the White House, she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, she was instrumental in the North Ireland peace process, Nancy Reagan helped in the fight against AIDS… And more. All false.

        It makes no sense to tell lies that are so readily discovered now that everyone has internet access, so why does Hillary do it? She really should have a neurological exam to rule out a cognitive disorder.

        Cognitive disorder or poor judgment? We don’t know, but neither is reassuring, and neither is what anyone wants to see in the POTUS. It’s not about sexism.

        I don’t care if “28 other Democrats (and all but one Republican), including Kerry, Biden and Dodd also voted for the Iraq war. If even people like me and the other millions who demonstrated all around the world to demand NO WAR ON IRAQ could tell that the war on Iraq would be a horrific mistake, then there is no excuse for Hillary’s poor judgment. Unless she does have a cognitive disorder, in which case, she should not be in a leadership position. It’s not about sexism, it’s about the lives of everyone on this earth.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 18, 2016, 6:04 pm

        thanks tree. this is not a story i recalled from the time or have really been following so i appreciate the accuracy.

    • tree
      March 18, 2016, 5:33 pm

      Tree, do you really believe Hillary when she says that President Bush didn’t want to give NYC funds for reconstruction after 9/11? –

      Kris, that is not what Hillary said, nor what I said. She said that Bush wanted to and promised to give funds to NYC. It was other Republicans that were pressuring him not to. Do I think there were Republicans that didn’t want to help out NYC? Yes, I’m sure there were. If you can’t get that point correct then why do you think that you are getting any other point correct in this story? *

      Did you read the Slate piece or Clinton’s speech on the floor of the Senate before the vote? She laid out then exactly why she voted for the authorization and it totally coincides with what she is saying now. This isn’t just some story made up after the fact, as you seem to think.

      And should I take it that you refused to vote for Kerry for President in 2004, or for Obama/Biden in 2008 and 2012 because of Kerry’s and Biden’s similar bad judgment? Or is Clinton’s “yes”vote somehow different from and more toxic than their “yes” votes? The war was the fault of the Bush Administration. Whether or not Clinton, or any other Congressperson voted for the authorization or not, the Bush administration was going to go to war. I would strongly urge you to read the Slate piece, which you seem not to have read. Again, we aren’t talking about a “cognitive disorder”, we are talking about the actual historical record in this case. Her description of her vote today exactly parallel’s what she said when she cast her vote in 2002.

      And people don’t always remember things exactly correctly. Its not a “cogniive disorder”, its a human frailty. You should know that as a nurse. I used to have a nearly eidetic memory when I was younger (sadly lost since adulthood.) But I still made mistakes in my memory on occasion, even then, and certainly now.

      *And BTW, speaking of “cognitive disorders”, would it be fair to claim you have a cognitive disorder because you misread something I wrote a few minutes ago and claimed it said something it didn’t? I don’t think so, but do you? We’d all be diagnosed with cognitive disorders if so.

      If you want to dislike Clinton for her vote, or her policy on Israel or whatever, that’s certainly your prerogative. I just don’t like people making up stories about “bribes” that are clearly false and defamatory. People shouldn’t resort to lying to justify their own decision not to vote for someone. It’s not fair nor open nor democratic. The writer of the piece that accused Clinton of admitting to a bribe did just that-lied- and that, and the widespread willingness here to accept the lie as fact, is the primary objection I am voicing here.

      • Kris
        March 18, 2016, 9:32 pm

        Tree, you are right that people do not remember things exactly, but remembering landing in Bosnia under “sniper fire” when nothing like that happened is not normal, just as it was not normal for Hillary to say that her daughter only just avoided death on 9/11 when that was not the case. It was also not normal to say that Nancy Reagan did anything positive in the fight against AIDS; the Reagans’ inaction was a national scandal that no-one who cared about all the dying people can have forgotten.

        It is normal to “remember” that you had steel-cut oats for breakfast a few days ago, though it was really granola. It is not normal to remember that you ate crusts of moldy bread in an alley when actually you ate granola at your own kitchen table.

        You’re right, I shouldn’t have said that Bush didn’t want to provide money to help NYC, since actually it was some Republicans in Congress who objected to that.

        The story right now is that Hillary thought that she could trust Bush, and voted for pre-emptive war, because Bush resisted Republican opposition and came through with funds to “rebuild” NYC .

        The story used to be (as in the Slate article) that Hillary voted for the Iraq resolution in order to strengthen Bush’s use of diplomacy. In her remarks, Hillary said (from the Slate article):

        My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose.” A vote for the resolution, she argued, “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.”

        Who can even read such nonsense without snickering? Or feeling sick? “Use these powers wisely and as a last resort.??!!!” She was talking about G.W. Bush, and she was talking about authorizing a pre-emptive war, though as a lawyer she must have known that pre-emptive war is the worst crime of all.

        For me, this is a story about Hillary’s poor judgment, but her continuing inability to remember important events with some accuracy is very concerning. The alternative explanation, that Hillary just lies, is not reassuring to me. Like you, I object to lying.

      • Kris
        March 18, 2016, 10:17 pm

        But you are right, tree, that it is unfair to say that Hillary was bribed into voting for the Iraq resolution.

      • tree
        March 19, 2016, 7:01 pm

        Kris, I’d like to make several points in response to your latest comment, in a somewhat random order. First, you said, You’re right, I shouldn’t have said that Bush didn’t want to provide money to help NYC, since actually it was some Republicans in Congress who objected to that.
        However, neither you nor I said that. You still aren’t accurately describing what I said, Hillary Clinton said, or in this case what you yourself said. You never said in your first comment that Bush didn’t want to provide money for NYC.

        In fact your were incredulous that I would believe Clinton’s assertion that Bush did not want to provide money for NYC reconstruction. As I pointed out in my following comment, this was NOT what Clinton said, nor what I said. Now you seem to be acknowledging that Clinton didn’t say that, I think, but are asserting that you incorrectly stated that Bush didn’t want to give those funds but YOU didn’t say that either. You seem to be having problems following the argument and I don’t quite know how to address that when you don’t seem to be consistent even in describing your own statements, but I’ll try again anyway.

        Second, you’ve twice repeated the false meme that Clinton said “that her daughter only just avoided death on 9/11 when that was not the case”. She never said that. That was a lie made up by rightwing pundits. Here’s the story about the pundit lies from Media Matters, complete with the transcript of what Clinton actually said.

        link to mediamatters.org

        She said nothing about Chelsea “only just” avoiding death, but instead said that Chelsea was in Manhattan that morning, had planned to jog from Battery Park to the Twin Towers and back and had been in a coffee shop when the first plane hit, and that Clinton was understandably worried about her daughter because she hadn’t been able to get in touch with her until a few hours after the attack. The rest, about Chelsea just avoiding death was a purposeful misstatement of what Clinton said, uttered maliciously by right wing pundits, in order to cast aspersions on Clinton.

        Yes, that was a lie, but not Clinton’s lie, and you repeat it twice here without having checked whether its truthful or not. I think that’s poor judgment on your part, and doesn’t show any of your claimed disdain for lying, but rather a disdain for Clinton, even when its built on other people’s lies. You sound perilously close to someone throwing stones from your own glass house, and in a political arena you’d likely be rhetorically mugged repeatedly for your own “lies”.

        This is just another example of what I was complaining about with my first comment on this thread. Someone makes up a lie about what Clinton said or did and people swallow it whole, and then use that lie to reinforce the idea that any new accusation of Clinton lying must be believable, without need for question or fact checking, because she ” lied before” even when she didn’t.

        As for ” but remembering landing in Bosnia under “sniper fire” when nothing like that happened is not normal”. Clinton did misstate what happened on that occasion. Probably an embellishment on her part of an incident that happened 12 years before. According to everything I’ve read, others’ recollections, and archival video have corroborated what she said about the incident in her 2004 book, “Living History”.

        “Security conditions were constantly changing in the former Yugoslavia, and they had recently deteriorated again. Due to reports of snipers in the hills around the airstrip, we were forced to cut short an event on the tarmac with local children, though we did have time to meet them and their teachers and to learn how hard they had worked during the war to continue classes in any safe spot they could find. One eight-year-old girl gave me a copy of a poem she had written entitled ‘Peace.'”

        This later embellishment, or misstatement or whatever, was blown out of all proportion in the heat of the campaign in 2008. I see it as an example of her being held to a higher standard than other male politicians. Here’s an example of that. Richard Cohen, the columnist, acknowledged that McCain had made numerous false statements and inconsistencies, but they were “understandable” while Clinton’s one exaggeration on her Bosnia visit was “disqualifying” for the Presidency. (And likewise, Obama’s stated position on NAFTA in Ohio, which was the opposite of what his economic adviser told the Canadian government was the Obama campaign’s position, was not a “disqualifying” falsehood but exaggerating sniper fire was.)

        link to mediamatters.org

        I can only see this as sexist treatment of a woman candidate. There seems to be no other reason for the number of vociferous lies spread about Clinton, all made while disingenuously decrying lying as being a particularly heinous fault of hers, not theirs. It reeks of projection to me as well as a double standard. I’m much more interested in policy positions that in whether or not someone embellished an incident from 12 years earlier in one comment made to the press. I just wish that more voters would ignore the war of the sound bites and the “gotcha” moments and focus on the issues. This kind of petty stuff only demeans the contest, but politics in the US seems to have devolved into an ongoing episode on Jerry Springer, or a badly scripted “reality” show, now complete with Donald Trump..

        And here’s the report from Politifact on Clinton’s statement on North Ireland, where again you claimed she said she was “instrumental’ which is incorrect: She said she was “helpful” and several of those instrumental in the negotiations in fact agreed that she was helpful. So again, not a lie on her part.

        link to politifact.com

        I think they are a bit harsh at the end in judging her statement “half true” , because they interpreted “helpful” to have implied more importance than it deserved, but in any case they acknowledged that she was in fact “helpful” as she said, according to several of those more intimately involved in the negotiations of the Agreement.

        The story right now is that Hillary thought that she could trust Bush, and voted for pre-emptive war, because Bush resisted Republican opposition and came through with funds to “rebuild” NYC .
        The story used to be (as in the Slate article) that Hillary voted for the Iraq resolution in order to strengthen Bush’s use of diplomacy.

        No, you are still not getting it. The real “story” in both instances is the same- that Bush assured everyone, including Congress and the UN for that matter, in October of 2002 that the AUMF would be used as a diplomatic tool to pressure Hussein into allowing the UN inspectors to complete their work and to enforce the UN resolutions, not to wage war. One of Clinton’s stated reasons for believing Bush’s assurance in this instance, whether faulty or not, was based on her experience of Bush having keep his word on NYC. It wasn’t the money per se,it was that he made a promise and kept it, despite some pressure to do otherwise. In both “stories” as you call them, her belief, avowed by Bush to Congress and the UN at the time, was that the AUMF would be used as a “big stick” for a diplomatic solution, not a preemptive war as you assert. You may disagree vehemently with her reasoning, but she has been consistent over time with her rationale, even though she now admits her vote was a mistake. Again, she has gotten much more flak for her vote than any other Senator or House member who cast the same vote. Kerry wasn’t considered “disqualified” in 2004 for “poor judgment” for his “Yes” vote, nor was Biden in 2008 or 2012. Nor was Obama for that matter, who chose to put all three (Biden, Clinton and and Kerry) in his Administration after their “poor judgment”.

        *BTW, the wording of the AUMF resolution itself required that military force was only to be used as a last resort, after all diplomatic efforts had been exhausted, and after the Bush Administration had confirmed in writing that all diplomatic options had failed. Of course the Bush Administration ignored the AUMF requirement and declared war 5 months later. He also ignored UN requirement to put the question to another UN vote at that point and refused to let the inspectors finish their work. The Administration simply created a new legal theory that the earlier UN resolutions from the 1990’s justified their “right” to declare war on Iraq in 2003. They were bound and determined to go to war on Iraq and a different vote on the AUMF wouldn’t ave changed their actions. Its good you protested, as did I, but those protests didn’t start until January of 2003, not October of 2002.

        Again, my main point in commenting on this story is that people are buying into lies in order to justify their own reasons for choosing to vote against her. Vote how you choose on policy, don’t double down on one untruth with more repetitions of old untruths you haven’t bothered to research.

        And be aware that every politician at one point or another has told an embellishment or an untruth, including the saintly Bernie Sanders. It doesn’t make them “abnormal”. It makes them politicians. I’m planning on voting Green as I have done for the previous three Presidential elections, but I am under no illusion that Jill Stein, or any other future Green Party candidate, isn’t entirely capable of exaggerating, equivocating, misremembering or even downright lying at times. If I agree with the policies, then that’s how I’ll vote.

      • Kris
        March 19, 2016, 11:52 pm

        Thank you for your reply, tree. I’m glad I’m not running for office!

        About Hillary’s Chelsea story, her Northern Ireland story, and her Bosnia story–there is evidence that the Chelsea and Northern Ireland stories are indeed untrue. The Bosnia story is untrue and hard to explain away.

        Chelsea: I read the story you linked to at Media Matters, and you’re right, Hillary didn’t say Chelsea only just avoided death on 9/11. This is from the Today Show transcript of Sept. 18, 2001:

        PAULEY: Tuesday morning, Senator Hillary Clinton’s first thought when the second plane hit was terrorists. Her next thought was Chelsea, who was not only in New York, but staying downtown.

        CLINTON: She’d gone, what she thought would be just a great jog. She was going to go down to Battery Park, she was going to go around the towers. She went to get a cup of coffee and — and that’s when the plane hit.

        PAULEY: She was close enough to hear the rumble.

        CLINTON: She did hear it.

        PAULEY: And to see the smoke in person, not on television.

        CLINTON: No. Of course, Bill was in Australia. And, you know, he was so upset by what he was seeing on television that I didn’t want to tell him that I couldn’t find her until I found her…

        Hillary knew, from talking with Chelsea, that Chelsea had not gone for that jog, and instead was in her friend’s apartment near Union Square. Her friend called her to turn on the television after the first plane had hit, and Chelsea watched the second plane crash into WTC Bldg. 2 on tv.

        (Chelsea) Clinton had been staying with her high school friend Nicole Davison in her apartment near Union Square for a few days in September before she went to England to study at Oxford. After they had coffee together, Davison went to work and Clinton returned to the apartment.

        Davison called Clinton with the news of the first plane that crashed into the World Trade Center. Clinton turned on the television and watched the second plane crash into the second WTC tower,…

        Why did Hillary imply that Chelsea had gone on that jog and was getting coffee somewhere when the plane hit? Did she not remember what happened, one week later, or was she deliberately misleading her audience? Rather tricksy.

        Northern Ireland And about her role in peacemaking in Northern Ireland. According to NPR, Hillary herself said that the role she played was “instrumental.”

        On the campaign trail, Clinton has touted her foreign policy experience and told NPR that she has represented the U.S. government in more than 80 countries, including working in Northern Ireland.

        She explains that she went there with State Department officials, as a part of the team that included principal negotiators who were under the authority of her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

        “I wasn’t sitting at the negotiating table, but the role I played was instrumental,” she tells Inskeep. link to npr.org

        And this article in Mother Jones, “Prominent Irish Historian: Clinton Is “Silly” To Say She Was Instrumental in Peace Accords,” link to motherjones.com tells why.

        Bosnia: Hillary told her dramatic, but false, Bosnia story three different times during her 2008 campaign. link to cnn.com It wasn’t just a one-off mistake, it was rich in (false) detail when she told it, and obviously she was not just mixing up an experience in Yugoslavia with the experience in Bosnia. If she had been mixing up the two experiences, the story she told would have been about peacefully meeting and greeting on the tarmac, which is what happened in both instances.

        These are only a few of the times Hillary has “misspoken,” as she calls it.

        I do accept what you say, that what really happened is that Hillary, having experienced Bush’s keeping his word about providing funds for NYC, believed what Bush said about the Iraq resolution, and therefore voted for it. However, in her statement, Hillary said:

        My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose.” A vote for the resolution, she argued, “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.”

        Obviously, she was thinking about “preemption,” and how the resolution could lead to preemption. Preemptive war. Apparently she thought that the U.S. has the right to decide what weapons other countries can have, just as, since then, she has thought that the U.S. has the right to decide what governments such countries as Libya and Honduras may have.

        I voted for Ralph Nader in 2004, and wish I had voted for him again in 2008, but against my better judgment I voted for Obama because he is black. I was a girl in Texas under Jim Crow, so when Obama won, I wept with joy. I have regretted my vote ever since, beginning before his inauguration, when he said nothing as Israel killed 1300 Palestinians in Gaza.

        I intend to do a better job of reading and understanding before I reply to comments, and I am grateful to you for the time you have put into discussing this with me, tree.

  6. Krauss
    March 15, 2016, 3:06 pm

    Chris Matthews is probably the most hated liberal journalist by the base but he is the best. His townhalls are completely gold. The debates are dumb, it’s all about 30 sec soundbytes and half the time is just applause and hooting.

    I watched the townhall on foreign policy and the moment when he said “was Iraq a smart war” after she tried to dodge his “are you a hawk?” Q by saying she believes in “smart power”. That was golden and I just loved how her smile was wiped off her face.

    What followed was, finally, an interrogation of a candidate on a disastrious war. He even tied it to Libya. She showed, once again, that she has learned nothing at all. She stills claims Libya is a democratic success. ISIS has over 6000 fighters in the country and the so-called “moderates” are basically strands of Islamists.

    Here, Matthews broke down. My guess is that he hasn’t read up on Libya enough and just let her pass through with her BS.

    This interview/townhall just reminded me how utterly pathetic Bernie has been on calling out her neocon instincts. He’s been meekly talking about regime change. He must be more aggressive, he must invoke Libya, Syria and, yes, I/P.

  7. Mooser
    March 15, 2016, 3:39 pm

    There’s no way to stay sane until November except by assuming that neither Trump nor Clinton will actually end up a candidate. Except I’d have to be crazy to think that.

    • a blah chick
      March 15, 2016, 4:55 pm

      I think a certain level of insanity is what will preserve my peace of mind, that and alcohol.

  8. Blownaway
    March 15, 2016, 4:32 pm

    Matthews is a Hillary sycophant. There were no hard questions no lobby questions no Haim Saban questions and you can be sure she was teed up for these softball questions. No questions about why keep making the same mistakes in Libya and now Syria? What other Mid East mistakes will she make?

  9. a blah chick
    March 15, 2016, 4:56 pm

    So Hills is admitting that in exchange for money she performed a service for Bush. Isn’t there a word for that?

    • echinococcus
      March 16, 2016, 8:40 am

      Check out the discussion when Trump unmasked her and practically called her that. She didn’t bat an eyelash. Getting money justifies anything at all in her world and she can’t imagine other people seeing it different.

  10. Kay24
    March 15, 2016, 9:21 pm

    It seems Hillary is on her way to become the Democrat’s candidate for President. Since AIPAC and other lobbies, that put the US second to Israel will not be supporting Trump (after all he is the KKK darling) who is unpredictable where he stands, saying he is neutral, most probably they will not put all their money and clout supporting Clinton.

    Ideally, this would be a good opportunity for Clinton to reject their filthy support, which could diminish their influence in this country, and get us out of Israeli “occupation” and interferences, but she unfortunately will not do so. If she only decided to do what is right for our country, and make our election system free from alien money and influence, she would be doing the people a big favor. The time is NOW to kick foreign nations from owning us, interfering with us, preventing them from bragging that they control us, and that we can be easily “moved”.

    Hillary has been yet another shameless puppet for the zionist occupier, and most probably will continue to be so.

  11. echinococcus
    March 16, 2016, 1:25 am

    Don’t you think you should mark obvious propagandistic distortions?

    why she supported the war in Iraq, and Bernie Sanders didn’t

    B. Sanders did support the Iraq invasion, in addition to all other crimes of aggression.
    Repeating: link to mondoweiss.net

  12. sticky
    March 16, 2016, 6:06 am

    Hi Ladies and Gentlemen,
    It’s quite Hilarious to note this great invented reason from Madam, may be the next most probably Prez. of the U.S.A. Ok let’s see this matter in this perspective:
    You are Mr. XYZ Prez. and we suppose, you promise to give 10 billion dollar to certain development, somebody believes this and says, ok now let’s spend some amount on the war. Then you spend suppose, 1 trillion dollar to make war in middle eastern countries. So it’s a very hard mindboggling bargain, isn’t it???

    so the mathematics is 10 billion dollar – 1 trillion dollar which is negative account. People lost the money in this adventure. You gained nothing. calculate this properly. you will see the rtionailty behind this statement of the madam. Thank you very much and we appreciate your courage to say this to the learned people.

  13. Bubba
    March 16, 2016, 9:34 am

    Killary’s logic or lack thereof is meaningless. Based on the results for last night the American choice this November will be Killary or the Trumpster — barring a miracle like a Federal indictment for each. So, pick your poison. (AKA: weird or weirder.)

  14. James Canning
    March 16, 2016, 2:06 pm

    I think Hillary Clinton lacks a “sense of History” and thus was fairly easily sucked into the scheme to set up the illegal US invasion of Iraq in 2003.

  15. Ok, I’ll take Hillary at her word. (2016). Money influences her vote. That’s it in a nutshell in terms of Israel-Palestine-USA too. There is a lobby like AIPAC, that has lots of money and influence. So the politicians do what they are told to get their money and please powerful lobbies. Going to war and letting thousands of Americans die and spending 100’s of billions doesn’t Trump (excuse the pun) Hillary’s vote. Money in Clinton’s own words rules. And our media is somehow perplexed why Americans are so angry?

  16. ritzl
    March 17, 2016, 4:54 pm

    Maybe OT, but Alabama Medicaid just declared it is bankrupt and cannot cover current enrollees let alone new ones next year.

    If that happens it means 1000-3000 dead people (who could otherwise have been saved).

    What say ye, Hillary? $Ts to fight another war?

    (I say “maybe” OT because this war-or-peace debate is just distant intellectual noise to a domestic US audience unless this fiscal causality/connection is made in the very next sentence.)

Leave a Reply