Support NeoGAF

[Deleted member 231381]

She didn't vote to go, she voted to have the threat of force on the table in order to make inspections happen. http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-iraq-vote-bribe/

The relevant part:

When you say that you want your vote to be a vote for the president deciding, and the president has publicly and vociferously campaigned in favour of war, your vote is a vote for war. More of the usual Clinton equivocation cannot undermine this.

 

[dramatis]

You're all acting like a hypothetical Clinton presidency in 2000 wouldn't have gone into Iraq. She voted to go in on the basis of the intelligence publicly available, so the only reason she wouldn't have is if the intelligence only available to those intimately involved in pushing for the decision would have changed her mind.

If you're talking about how much better Democrats are than Republicans, I really wouldn't make Iraq the hill you'd die on.

Who even said that? I get that you don't like Hillary but nobody said that, so I'm not sure what you're arguing against. If we're talking 2000, we would be considering if Gore would have gone into Iraq.

 

[shinra-bansho]

I'm now curious, would Gore have gone to war in Iraq?

If the premise is that Bush was fed poor information by his subordinates and his superior Darth Cheney, in the hypothetical we'll say Gore gets the same information.

EDIT: Hmm, google tells me, probably yes? Maybe?

The story of how Bush bought into this is well-known. His instinct after 9/11 was too think big and aggressively, and his inner circle was littered with neocons and other hawks who’d been waiting for just the right opening to push for an invasion of Iraq. This, supposedly, would not have been the case in a Gore White House.

But look a little closer and you’ll realize that President Gore would have been hearing the same pleas. His own vice president would have been Joe Lieberman, perhaps the most hawkish Democrat in Washington on Middle East issues. Marty Peretz, his old friend and confidante, would have had Gore’s ear and filled it with arguments for going into Iraq. Loud, influential, non-conservative media voices — like Tom Friedman and Peter Beinart — would have amplified these calls on the outside. Republicans would have been screaming for an invasion, and the public would have been on their side. Clinton could barely hold them all back in the ‘90s; after 9/11, would Gore have stood a chance?

Here it’s worth remembering Gore’s own history. In the 1980s, he made his name as a senator and presidential candidate by positioning himself as one of his party’s foremost hawks. One of the reasons, in fact, that Clinton put him on the Democratic ticket in 1992 was Gore’s vote for the Gulf War, which most Democrats had opposed. You could argue that Gore was a changed man by 2001 and 2002, and that he saw the world in a fundamentally different way, and maybe that’s true.

But it should be noted that when he announced his opposition to Bush’s war push in the fall of ’02, Gore endorsed the basic goal of removing Hussein and securing his (supposed) WMD stockpiles. What he objected to was more the go-it-alone nature of Bush’s approach. In other words, you could also argue that Gore, still stung by the 2000 election outcome, may have been motivated in some way by his desire to stage a big, principled fight with Bush — and that a different result in ’00 might have produced a different, more hawkish response from Gore, one that would have led to … an invasion of Iraq.

 

[Diablos]

I like FM synthesis, come at me

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kwgSmXkIQf8

Edit: as for Gore regarding Iraq, I recall him in the 90s being quite vocal about being ok with a potential war. He was pretty hawkish.

I do wonder if 9/11 would have happened though had Gore been President. The Bush admin was asleep at the wheel and didn't want to listen to anyone but themselves.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

You're all acting like a hypothetical Clinton presidency in 2000 wouldn't have gone into Iraq. She voted to go in on the basis of the intelligence publicly available, so the only reason she wouldn't have is if the intelligence only available to those intimately involved in pushing for the decision would have changed her mind. Unfortunately, Hilary has a rather terrible track record on publicly approving of interventions based on poor intelligence aimed at nebulous WMD programmes that probably went on to make the situation worse - there's plenty of statements of her supporting the 1998 Desert Fox bombings where it is reasonable suppose she did indeed see most confidential evidence before coming to her decision.

If you're talking about how much better Democrats are than Republicans, I really wouldn't make Iraq the hill you'd die on.

You're overlooking the fact that the Bush administration pushed its own agencies to find evidence, ignored contrary evidence, and trusted unreliable information because it's what they wanted.

 

[120v]

I'm now curious, would Gore have gone to war in Iraq?

If the premise is that Bush was fed poor information by his subordinates and his superior Darth Cheney, in the hypothetical we'll say Gore gets the same information.

EDIT: Hmm, google tells me, probably yes? Maybe?

a bunch of BS imo

invading iraq was unanimously agreed upon day 1 in Bush's cabinet. (if the book Hubris is accurate). there were extraordinary mental backflips justifying it, like how that much uranium could trek across africa. it had the stamp of "bush administration" all over it

i couldn't imagine Gore or maybe even another GOP president going through those kind of lengths, even with Lieberman as vice

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Gore might have gone into Iraq, but the notion that public pressure would contribute is nonsense. The Bush administration deliberately tied Iraq to 9/11 in people's minds from the start, but discussing them in the broadest terms. They manufactured the public sentiment against Iraq from the start.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Republicans on the Hill said that much of what Clinton has proposed during her campaign amounts to unfinished agenda items of the Obama administration -- and they don’t expect her to have any more luck than he did while facing an obstructionist Republican Congress. “If she wins, her four years will look a lot like the last six years of Obama,” said one influential House Republican staffer. “She’s talking about things the president couldn’t get done, why does she think she will have more luck?”

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/hillary-clinton-presidency-gop-plan-227427#ixzz4IdDPiGis

 

[CoffeeJanitor]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/hillary-clinton-presidency-gop-plan-227427#ixzz4IdDPiGis

Governing!

 

[sazzy]

Pence and Jake Tapper on CNN right now.

 

[rSpooky]

Was this posted?
Seeing the world through "Trump" Glasses..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_JvSVxIDTM

Made me laugh. I know people that seem to be wearing those ...

As a side: How come the US electorate has the short term memory of a goldfish? Why would you change your vote back to Trump after he says one or two not completely insane things or claims he will "soften" on certain topics? Surely you must know he is lying either to you or to the other guys. But still lying. **shrug**

I wonder if long election cycles like these are beneficial or detrimental to their final outcomes tbh.

 

[lyrick]

Suffering through Reince Priebus on MTP, this guy is a special snowflake.

anyway, Chuck Todd brought up that bought up the NYT building a story about an ongoing DoJ investigation regarding Donald and his fathers practices on what sounded like minority hiring, anybody have a link to the NYT article he was talking about?

 

[plagiarize]

I'm now curious, would Gore have gone to war in Iraq?

If the premise is that Bush was fed poor information by his subordinates and his superior Darth Cheney, in the hypothetical we'll say Gore gets the same information.

EDIT: Hmm, google tells me, probably yes? Maybe?

Yeah. I mean it's a fair point. It's like how I laugh at everyone who thinks the Conservative Party wouldn't have brought the UK into the second gulf war like Labour did.

 

[Manmademan]

As a side: How come the US electorate has the short term memory of a goldfish? Why would you change your vote back to Trump after he says one or two not completely insane things or claims he will "soften" on certain topics? Surely you must know he is lying either to you or to the other guys. But still lying. **shrug**

They don't. you need to consider that a lot of the audience that Trump is losing and trying to get back are people who are fully aware of how racist and terrible he is, but are looking for "cover" to publicly justify the vote.

"dog whistles" aren't meant to fool minorities, minorities can hear them just fine. They're entirely about giving white voters excuses to publicly support toxic candidates.

 

[rSpooky]

They don't. you need to consider that a lot of the audience that Trump is losing and trying to get back are people who are fully aware of how racist and terrible he is, but are looking for "cover" to publicly justify the vote.

"dog whistles" aren't meant to fool minorities, minorities can hear them just fine. They're entirely about giving white voters excuses to publicly support toxic candidates.

You are probably on point with that . I guess the same thing must be true of those undecided voters.. I remember last two elections they had people undecided even the day before election.. I never trusted those people. Either they are lying about being undecided or they are incredibly dumb and should probably not vote as they are not aware of what their vote would mean.

 

[thebloo]

I wonder if long election cycles like these are beneficial or detrimental to their final outcomes tbh.

I think beneficial. It gives the underdogs a shot and it makes superstars without substance vulnerable.

 

[Zereta]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/hillary-clinton-presidency-gop-plan-227427#ixzz4IdDPiGis

Honestly, fuck the Republicans.

 

[dramatis]

Suffering through Reince Priebus on MTP, this guy is a special snowflake.

anyway, Chuck Todd brought up that bought up the NYT building a story about an ongoing DoJ investigation regarding Donald and his fathers practices on what sounded like minority hiring, anybody have a link to the NYT article he was talking about?

It's on the front page of the NYTimes site.

http://nyti.ms/2brKBqK

 

[GutsOfThor]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/hillary-clinton-presidency-gop-plan-227427#ixzz4IdDPiGis

Eeesh....

Even if she wins, she loses...

 

[gcubed]

You're all acting like a hypothetical Clinton presidency in 2000 wouldn't have gone into Iraq. She voted to go in on the basis of the intelligence publicly available, so the only reason she wouldn't have is if the intelligence only available to those intimately involved in pushing for the decision would have changed her mind. Unfortunately, Hilary has a rather terrible track record on publicly approving of interventions based on poor intelligence aimed at nebulous WMD programmes that probably went on to make the situation worse - there's plenty of statements of her supporting the 1998 Desert Fox bombings where it is reasonable suppose she did indeed see most confidential evidence before coming to her decision.

If you're talking about how much better Democrats are than Republicans, I really wouldn't make Iraq the hill you'd die on.

You're framing a hypothetical that all of Clintons cabinet would be W Bush warmongers feeding her the same bad information.

You're framing a terrible hypothetical

 

[Gruco]

You're all acting like a hypothetical Clinton presidency in 2000 wouldn't have gone into Iraq. She voted to go in on the basis of the intelligence publicly available, so the only reason she wouldn't have is if the intelligence only available to those intimately involved in pushing for the decision would have changed her mind. Unfortunately, Hilary has a rather terrible track record on publicly approving of interventions based on poor intelligence aimed at nebulous WMD programmes that probably went on to make the situation worse - there's plenty of statements of her supporting the 1998 Desert Fox bombings where it is reasonable suppose she did indeed see most confidential evidence before coming to her decision.

If you're talking about how much better Democrats are than Republicans, I really wouldn't make Iraq the hill you'd die on.

Serious question, how old were you in 2002, and how closely did you follow American politics at the time?

You're overlooking the fact that the Bush administration pushed its own agencies to find evidence, ignored contrary evidence, and trusted unreliable information because it's what they wanted.

Yes. This. The role the Project for a New American Century had within the Bush administration and the day zero motivation to invade Iraq is pretty hard to overstate.

It's shocking, ahistorical, and genuinely upsetting that people still are pushing the absurd myth that Bush somehow took on the Iraq war because the intelligence pushed him in that direction. Wolfowitz, Cheney and Rumsfeld just wanted to fucking do it and happily went after any possible justification. Immediately after 9-11 they started pushing for Iraq and started strategically tying Saddam to 9-11. Any number of former admin officials, from Paul O'Neil to Dick Clarke to others have said this. The WMD case was built because it was the best way to sell the public, full stop, and any intelligence was selectively filtered to make the case. "Curveball" was one famous example. Bush was a foreign policy neophyte who really didn't have the gravitas or knowledge to stand up to his staff.

I think Hillary's war vote was a problem and honestly it was one of the biggest reasons I fought for Obama against her in 2008. To some extent I think it's a good thing for America that the decision still haunts her over a decade later. But I never thought for a second that a hypothetical Gore or Kerry presidency would have pushed for the war and it's basically insane to suggest they would have.

Have we really reached the point where salty Bernie fans are willing to whitewash the crimes of the Bush administration in order to criticize Hillary? Jesus.

 

[tuffy]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/hillary-clinton-presidency-gop-plan-227427#ixzz4IdDPiGis

I'm convinced the Trump campaign is terrible enough to push the House into Democractic control, which would strongly curtail the GOP's obstructionism in the short term.

 

[Y2Kev]

When you say that you want your vote to be a vote for the president deciding, and the president has publicly and vociferously campaigned in favour of war, your vote is a vote for war. More of the usual Clinton equivocation cannot undermine this.

I'm not sure there would have been any evidence to buy into were it not for the Bush administration. Is it not correct to suggest the entire investigation into Saddam Hussein was Bush Administration directed? I think for sure you would have had a military response somewhere, but Iraq?

 

[RustyNails]

You're all acting like a hypothetical Clinton presidency in 2000 wouldn't have gone into Iraq. She voted to go in on the basis of the intelligence publicly available, so the only reason she wouldn't have is if the intelligence only available to those intimately involved in pushing for the decision would have changed her mind. Unfortunately, Hilary has a rather terrible track record on publicly approving of interventions based on poor intelligence aimed at nebulous WMD programmes that probably went on to make the situation worse - there's plenty of statements of her supporting the 1998 Desert Fox bombings where it is reasonable suppose she did indeed see most confidential evidence before coming to her decision.

If you're talking about how much better Democrats are than Republicans, I really wouldn't make Iraq the hill you'd die on.

Others already answered, but the other thing is that neocons surrounded themselves with charlatans like Chalabi who promised things like US will be greeted with flowers, etc which the bush admin bought into wholesale.

And then there's Donald Rumsfeld, John Yoo and Wolfowitz. These guys created and signed off the torture memos. This practice incensed the sunni communities further, fueling the insurgency.

There are so many factors involved in the Iraq war that wouldnt have applied to Gore/Clinton admin, the biggest one being cooked up intel.

 

[Grief.exe]

Trump now just tweeting formerly deep red states that are now in the swing category.

 

[Teggy]

Facebook's "trending" section is such trash.

It constantly gives fake video game news and tonight highlighted a meaningless and impossibly gruesome murder.

Well, people complained that they were moderating it, so they stopped, and guess what happened?


And lololol at that tweet. What a dummy!

 

[nature boy]

Trump and his "secret state" strategy: Tuesday in Washington.

 

[thebloo]

Trump now just tweeting formerly deep red states that are now in the swing category.

It's tweeted by the staff...

 

[watershed]

Trump and his "secret state" strategy: Tuesday in Washington.

Although I dislike the idea of Trump being in my state, I'm pretty comfortable with his strategy of spending time and hopefully money in states he is sure to lose instead of defending states he needs and has needlessly put into the toss up category. He should campaign more in California and New York while he's at it.

 

[Retro]

Got a laugh from me this morning;

 

[Teggy]

https://mobile.twitter.com/AP_Headlines

AP_Headlines
AP_Headlines‏ @AP_Headlines

Clinton Foundation Unable to Account For Each Life Saved While Trump Meets With Advisors

 

[Owzers]

Hugh Hewitt...Media Matters is the same as Breitbart, Bill Maher is the same as Milo Y guy.

both sides....

 

[Dominican Power]

Hugh Hewitt, you piece of shit.

 

[Diablos]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/hillary-clinton-presidency-gop-plan-227427#ixzz4IdDPiGis

No big shock here.

The Clintons may do a better job of dealing with GOP obstructionist tactics. Hopefully time will tell.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I'm now curious, would Gore have gone to war in Iraq?

If the premise is that Bush was fed poor information by his subordinates and his superior Darth Cheney, in the hypothetical we'll say Gore gets the same information.

EDIT: Hmm, google tells me, probably yes? Maybe?

I'm inclined to think he also would have, yes.

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

My friend has never played crazy taxi. Sad!

On the bright side, he won't get arthritis in his hands. Crazy dashes on the dc controller are evil

 

[Deleted member 231381]

You're overlooking the fact that the Bush administration pushed its own agencies to find evidence, ignored contrary evidence, and trusted unreliable information because it's what they wanted.

I'm really not, which is why I pointed out Desert Fox 1998 where the Clinton administration did almost almost exactly the same thing under rather similar circumstances - created shoddy evidence to justify repeated bombings runs aimed at destroying a WMD programme that was at best unclear and even if not unclear was apparently untouched by the whole ordeal, resulting in international alienation including the withdrawal of the French from the UNSCOM programme.

I'm inclined to think that most politicians of either colour would have gone into Iraq at the time. That's not to say things wouldn't have been different - to give Clinton her dues, she is a policy obsessive and I can't believe things like the post-invasion plan would have been done as badly as the status quo - but her voting record and public record as First Lady do not put her into a different category here; they both point fairly firmly to a Clinton Iraq.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/hillary-clinton-presidency-gop-plan-227427#ixzz4IdDPiGis

I just don't see it. I think there are enough Republicans from places like the Northeast who will break rank (at least in the Senate) to get the 60 we need for certain votes (and kill the damn filibuster!). The House is harder, but honestly, the GOP really doesn't want to keep playing this game.

Checks and balances was largely a gentleman's agreement, as we've now discovered. When one group decides to push their authority, the others can in fact push back. And if Hillary takes the Senate with her, she can then take the Court. With 2 branches of the gov't on her side, she can start really flexing the executive muscles. I think enough GOPers like Ryan will do more quiet deals with her so as to not continue the war between the branches.

 

[plagiarize]

I just don't see it. I think there are enough Republicans from places like the Northeast who will break rank (at least in the Senate) to get the 60 we need for certain votes (and kill the damn filibuster!). The House is harder, but honestly, the GOP really doesn't want to keep playing this game.

Checks and balances was largely a gentleman's agreement, as we've now discovered. When one group decides to push their authority, the others can in fact push back. And if Hillary takes the Senate with her, she can then take the Court. With 2 branches of the gov't on her side, she can start really flexing the executive muscles. I think enough GOPers like Ryan will do more quiet deals with her so as to not continue the war between the branches.

Yeah. If they have the senate, the executive and the judicial, I think they'll be just fine. Judicial isn't something Obama had. I don't know my US history well enough to know if Bill had a favorable supreme court though.

 

[ampere]

Why the fuck are you guys talking about Sonic?

Anyway, White Fragility Workplace Training Video.

LOL

I can't believe Marco had the gall to correct someone like that!

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I'm not sure there would have been any evidence to buy into were it not for the Bush administration. Is it not correct to suggest the entire investigation into Saddam Hussein was Bush Administration directed? I think for sure you would have had a military response somewhere, but Iraq?

The neoconservative revival wasn't merely one in office, it was across the media and across intellectual circles everywhere. Even if you have these figures outside office rather than inside office, they would have still created the wide jingoistic sentiment that would have been difficult to withstand. Desert Fox, for example, was largely prompted by this; several more long-standing Clinton allies felt alienated by the process and reported the president feeling pressured to intervene because of public attitude (and the on-going impeachment!), overlooking key evidence in the process. Like, I'm not making up some bizarre hypothetical here - the Clinton administration had done something in a similar line to what Bush did in 1998 already, we have ourselves a clear example where faulty evidence was overlooked to satiate a jingoistic public. Now multiply that by a hundred considering the context of Iraq.

Again, this doesn't mean it would be the same Iraq. I think anything planned by Clinton would have considered post-invasion Iraq much more keenly, for example. But I don't think it would have been avoided. You'd have needed a politician much more inured to the media temperament of the time. They'd also probably have lost in 2004 if they'd tried; one reason why I think in GoreWorld we probably did go to Iraq after all, or alternatively had President... Romney? in 2004.

 

[metalslimer]

I can buy Clinton would have put forces in Iraq but I think they would have pulled back quickly after the insurgency. To be honest though the Bush administration was so obsessed with going into Iraq they at wlbest selectively filtered information and at worst made it up entirely. I don't think that would have been a focus for Clinton

 

[DrForester]

Ugh. What happened to Chuck Todd? Why is he continuing to equate Hillary and Trump this week by just generalizing it as "negative name calling"

 

[metalslimer]

Ugh. What happened to Chuck Todd? Why is he continuing to equate Hillary and Trump this week by just generalizing it as "negative name calling"

Living as a black person, this game is all too familiar. You have to be respectful with dealing with racists otherwise you are just asome bigoted

 

[Gruco]

I'm really not, which is why I pointed out Desert Fox 1998 where the Clinton administration did almost almost exactly the same thing under rather similar circumstances - created shoddy evidence to justify repeated bombings runs aimed at destroying a WMD programme that was at best unclear and even if not unclear was apparently untouched by the whole ordeal, resulting in international alienation including the withdrawal of the French from the UNSCOM programme.

This is a false equivalence which would make Fox News beam

quick, what was the difference between Desert Fox and the 2003 invasion?

I am sure you already know the answer, so how can you actually imagine that anyone would find this persuasive?

I'm inclined to think he also would have, yes.

"It's not Bush's fault, anyone else would have done the same"

Why are you okay with making excuses for war criminals?

 

[Bowdz]

Yeah. If they have the senate, the executive and the judicial, I think they'll be just fine. Judicial isn't something Obama had. I don't know my US history well enough to know if Bill had a favorable supreme court though.

The last time we had a liberal SCOTUS was 1971. At the end of the day, that's why this election is so damn important. It will be a generational swing that can improve nearly every aspect of our political discourse.

 

[RustyNails]

No Man's Sky...what a clusterfuck. Mess, airhorn etc.

 

[Retro]

Something else to consider in this hypothetical; Bush pushed into Baghdad and overthrew the entire Iraqi government, something his own father had said would have been a disaster;

Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

Even if we assume a theoretical Gore administration would have been roped into taking action against Iraq based on the same bad intel, the overall goals of that action might have been quite different.

 

[Effect]

Ugh. What happened to Chuck Todd? Why is he continuing to equate Hillary and Trump this week by just generalizing it as "negative name calling"

It's part of the same lie the media tries to push that there are always two sides to a story. No. Many times if not often there is only one side to a story that is true or truthful. This is part of that false equivalency that is pushed so they don't appear "bias". Refusing to accept that the truth many times simply falls on one side of the the line or with one group. It's not bias or unobjective to say one side is worse then the other based on the grading scale put forward. They so desperately want this to be a horse race as said in the past and if it isn't they'll make it one by shaping the narrative instead of just reporting on it. I hate this the most about news. Sometimes it's easy to get away with but in situations like Chuck Todd it's so blatant what they're doing it's even more infuriating.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

This is a false equivalence which would make Fox News beam

quick, what was the difference between Desert Fox and the 2003 invasion?

I am sure you already know the answer, so how can you actually imagine that anyone would find this persuasive?

One was a bombing run aimed at destroying facilities supposed on faulty evidence to be responsible for weapons of mass destruction, and the other was a ground invasion aimed at overthrowing a regime supposed on faulty evidence to be responsible for weapons of mass destruction; so the difference was the degree of commitment, one involving air raids and the other ground forces.

However... one happened prior to the Twin Tower bombings and at a point where the neoconservative revival was only half complete, the other occurred when neoconservative sentiment was in the ascendancy. I don't think that a president in 2003 would have thought they'd have won in 2004 running on "I did some bombing runs" when the sentiment at the time was absolutely bloodlusting for ground forces. Are we forgetting the public support that the Iraq War had all of a sudden? Someone who didn't do some heavy weight in Iraq would have lost in 2004, easily. And that means most politicians who aren't at least somewhat ideologues would have gone in. I think this argument is very difficult to deny.

"It's not Bush's fault, anyone else would have done the same"

Why are you okay with making excuses for war criminals?

This is boring and juvenile. I think Bush bears a huge amount of fault; I also think he shares in his guilt with most of the American political and media class and while he takes by far the largest portion and could quite reasonably be tried at the Hague, we should hold to account everyone who voted for the Iraq war in some degree, by, for example, not making them a secretary of state.