Lacy says: “Interestingly, almost 60% of Senate Democrats voted for the Oct 2002 resolution…“

And a majority of Democrats in the House voted down the October 2002 resolution – your point?

“…And even more Democrats voted to shut off Robert Byrd’s filibuster of the bill…”

The filibuster with DLC Lieberman working behind the scenes isn’t significant imo. But, the amendments presented to the floor were significant? Why not discuss them rather than fly to the conclusion that —

“…Denouncing those who voted for the resolution would be suicidal for a Democrat…” Huh ???

It’s more than admiration you should be giving to those that voted no … it should be recognization of their damn GOOD JUDGMENT, in fiscal accountability, military strategy, even Patriotism, rather than … ?

I suggest it is you that looks closer at what was happening with Hillary and the rest of the DLC during those months where the PNAC’ers were laying the foundations for war.

I dare you to compare and contrast what the blank check war resolution was going to allow Bush to do (confirmed a) by his immediate actions, and more importantly actions PREDICTED by the NO voters), versus what her floor speech thought/hoped the resolution would allow him to do!

Look up the fierce debates (er… more than just Byrd’s) — esp. Levin’s. Levin, who was on the Intelligence and Armed Services Committee at the time who VOTED NO…,,,

He was just ONE of many – both in the Senate & House that saw the truck sized loopholes in that pre-emptive, without threat, regime change invasion resolution.

Hillary and the other DLC’ers weren’t duped they went along for the ride and got screwed when the mission appeared to fail miserably? An expensive judgment call, both in lives, reputation and money (ours).

Statement of Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) Final Passage of Lieberman Amendment
http://www.senate.gov/~levin/n…..?id=210045

Also, imo some particularly interesting exchanges between Tenet and Levin (pages 80-82…) (note. large pdf)

SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE
FEBRUARY 11, 2003
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.go…..7.wais.pdf

(August 20, 2002)Wes Clark: “…Privately even the hawks within the US government lobbying for war acknowledged that President Saddam was no threat to America, according to the general…”

If Wes Clark knew what the Administration were up to who the hell else do you think knew, and was even in ’slam-dunk’ agreement with?

Nah… I don’t want her anywhere near our foreign policy with possible plans to hit Iran next (shiver). Plus, her close friendship with the ‘current’ Israeli neo-con crowd, and the fact that at one stage she and Shumer were hesitating whether to filibuster John Bolton for the job at UN (…I didn’t want a Lebanon cease-fire… John Bolton ) – just plain creeps me out!

Jane Hamsher @ 336

Lacy @
335

Your claim that Bill Clinton trashed Ned Lamont on Larry King is not supported at the link you provide to Daily Kos…in fact Kos’ own tamer comment is not supported by the facts he gives. Quoting Kos:
“President Clinton, on the other hand, probably provided the singular destructive post-primary moment of anyone outside the campaign. He provided every national Democrat the cover they needed to stay out of the race in one single moment on Larry King Live. He said he wasn’t too concerned about who won the election between Ned and Joe. Mind you, this was post-primary…”

Really now, Bill Clinton saying that after Ned won the primary that he wasn’t too concerned about which man won, just doesn’t do what either you or Kos claim. And your claim he “trashed” Lamont is just bogus.

Every link is not going to give an encyclopedic rundown of the events that happened. Feel free to look into the story a little closer, it was actually a big controversy at the time that you must’ve missed. Bill Clinton’s words on Larry King gave permission to every big Democrat to deny support to the duly elected Democratic candidate and back, either tacitly or openly, the CFL candidate.

Sometimes we assume we’re writing for those who follow events closely and we’re not always correct in that assumption, but it doesn’t alter reality.

I’m a supporter here, but I follow events very closely, and reality is my specialty. Bill Clinton gave somewhat qualified support to Ted Lamont in that Larry King program (CNN transcript below), but absolutely did not trash him as incorrectly claimed. The “netroots” did want a strident rebuff of Lieberman by WJC, and maybe that would have influenced some prominent Democratic leaders to attack Lieberman, and as a result we could maybe now thank them all for the Lieberman switch and a GOP Senate. Reality is that the more prominent Democrats trashed Lamont, the more CT Republicans would have turned out to make Lieberman win. Clinton played it middle of the road possibly for that very reason. Quoting:

KING: What do you make of the Lieberman race?

CLINTON: It’s a complicated thing. There were reasons other than Iraq which caused problems, and now it seems to me that there are reasons other than Iraq which are muddying the water there. But, you know …

(CROSSTALK)

CLINTON: …most of the independent voters are against our Iraq policy, but most of the Republican voters are for it. So it just depends on how many Republican votes Joe gets, as opposed to the Republican nominee, and how many independent and Democratic votes Lamont gets. It’s really sort of an unpredictable race.

KING: Are you supporting Lamont?

CLINTON: I am but, you know, my — I don’t have the same view of this as some people do. My view is Connecticut is an unmitigated blessing for the Democrats because Lieberman has said if he wins he’s going to vote with us to organize the Senate. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRA…..kl.01.html

The name is “Ned” Lamont. Not “Ted.”

Now, the only way Hill would ever get my vote or support would be if she was somehow able to win the primary.
In that case, any Dem will do.

Gore/Obama or Richardson ‘08

I deeply admire those who did vote against that bill as I advised them to do. But many Americans only a year after 9-11 simply did not perceive the diabolical nature of GWB. And, in fact, H. Clinton is one of the few who is on record with a Senate speech just prior to that vote that shows her understanding and expectations from GWB. I defy any objective person to read that speech and still say she wanted or was in favor of what GWB did.

Meanwhile, the issue I brought up here was the claim that WJC “trashed Lamont” on Larry King. I posted a link and quote that disputes that. Everything said by WJC is online. So why not just put up a link, or admit the error like honorable people would do. And the fact WJC did not say what the “netroots” supposedly wanted does not change what he said. Not in the world of reality.

Clinton then allowed himself to be used in expensive robo-calling efforts in CT, all designed to help Lieberman win and/or lose by a small amount. That had the effect of encouraging Lieberman to remain in the race as an independent. This too was designed to help Hillary, because if Lieberman could be beaten by an anti-war candidate in CT, then Hillary was also vulnerable in a natinal election. So Bill did everything he could to make sure the war was not an issue on which Dems would determine their votes.

That selfish strategy turned out to be the opposite of what was best for the Dems being able to retake the Senate and House, but it was the best strategy for Hillary. Bottom line, Bill undercut his own party to help his wife, and in doing so helped prolong the war and defeat anti-war candidates, mostly Dems.

What Clinton did after the primary was consistent with this pre-primary pro-Hillary strategy. He had to convince voters nationally, not just in CT, that they should not vote against candidates based on their pro-war stance — so when he told Larry King that CT were in the happy position of being okay even if Lieberman won, he was undercutting not just Lamont but all Democrats running against pro-war republicans.

Clinton trashed everyone who thought the war was important; he undermined Lamont at every step; he enabled Lieberman’s independent run and now we are saddled with Lieberman’s blackmailing the Senate Democrats with his monthly threats to bolt the party. Clinton trashed principle, trashed the Democratic party, trashed anti-war candidates including Lamont.

Now he is doing it again, this time with Obama. He’s saying again that there is no great difference in candidates on the war issue, so voters should not judge on that basis. It’s the same message and the same motive.

Lacy @
335

Your claim that Bill Clinton trashed Ned Lamont on Larry King is not supported at the link you provide to Daily Kos…in fact Kos’ own tamer comment is not supported by the facts he gives. Quoting Kos:
“President Clinton, on the other hand, probably provided the singular destructive post-primary moment of anyone outside the campaign. He provided every national Democrat the cover they needed to stay out of the race in one single moment on Larry King Live. He said he wasn’t too concerned about who won the election between Ned and Joe. Mind you, this was post-primary…”

Really now, Bill Clinton saying that after Ned won the primary that he wasn’t too concerned about which man won, just doesn’t do what either you or Kos claim. And your claim he “trashed” Lamont is just bogus.

Every link is not going to give an encyclopedic rundown of the events that happened. Feel free to look into the story a little closer, it was actually a big controversy at the time that you must’ve missed. Bill Clinton’s words on Larry King gave permission to every big Democrat to deny support to the duly elected Democratic candidate and back, either tacitly or openly, the CFL candidate.

Sometimes we assume we’re writing for those who follow events closely and we’re not always correct in that assumption, but it doesn’t alter reality.

I’m a supporter here, but I follow events very closely, and reality is my specialty. Bill Clinton gave somewhat qualified support to Ted Lamont in that Larry King program (CNN transcript below), but absolutely did not trash him as incorrectly claimed. The “netroots” did want a strident rebuff of Lieberman by WJC, and maybe that would have influenced some prominent Democratic leaders to attack Lieberman, and as a result we could maybe now thank them all for the Lieberman switch and a GOP Senate. Reality is that the more prominent Democrats trashed Lamont, the more CT Republicans would have turned out to make Lieberman win. Clinton played it middle of the road possibly for that very reason. Quoting:

KING: What do you make of the Lieberman race?

CLINTON: It’s a complicated thing. There were reasons other than Iraq which caused problems, and now it seems to me that there are reasons other than Iraq which are muddying the water there. But, you know …

(CROSSTALK)

CLINTON: …most of the independent voters are against our Iraq policy, but most of the Republican voters are for it. So it just depends on how many Republican votes Joe gets, as opposed to the Republican nominee, and how many independent and Democratic votes Lamont gets. It’s really sort of an unpredictable race.

KING: Are you supporting Lamont?

CLINTON: I am but, you know, my — I don’t have the same view of this as some people do. My view is Connecticut is an unmitigated blessing for the Democrats because Lieberman has said if he wins he’s going to vote with us to organize the Senate. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRA…..kl.01.html