Why?

Trump has claimed he was always against the Iraq war. He has chastised, and correctly so, Hillary's war vote. His VP choice Mike Pence also voted for the war, and defended that decision to this day when Hillary has said she regrets her vote.

IF this is important to Trump like he says it is, and wants to attack Clinton on this subject....why would he choose someone who voted for that war and defended his vote for that war? Hypocritical much?

 

If you've ever been married, you will realize that it is impossible for any two people, no matter how close they are, to agree 100% of the time.

 

You sound surprised. Trump is "utterly amoral" "pathological liar" "fraudster," “narcissist" "phony" "con man" who is "wholly unprepared to be president." And that is what leading Republicans and conservatives said about it.

But Hillary never voted for war. Don't be a sucker for RW propaganda.

The Oct 2002 Senate vote was for whether to give the Bush administration the authority to use force *if* diplomacy failed.

It was the Bush administration that made the decision to invade and occupy Iraq in March 2003, 5 months later. Clinton never voted for that.

- - - Updated - - -

You're still a hypocrite if you criticize another for the same thing you give your spouse a by for.

 

But Trump has said this is what separated him from the other people he defeated. Are you telling me now he doesn't care, when that was something he really was passionate about?

 

Yeah but if your going to make a stance that something was wrong, you shouldn't pick a running mate who agreed with it.

 

I'm not surprised, I am genuinely curious as to why. Hillary indeed voted for war, don't use that excuse she knew exactly what the administration at the time wanted. She is very pro US intervention.

 

She never voted for war. If you claim she did show the resolution.

Don't be a stooge for RW propaganda.

 

I'm merely saying that to disqualify anyone for a single point of contention would be short sighted, and would lead to EVERYONE being disqualified. I doubt 'did not support for Iraq war' was on the 'must-have' list when he was looking for a VP, though it was probably on the 'like-to-have' list.

 

It's not right wing propaganda, she voted to give Bush authority to go to war, which is like giving him the green light. You cannot possibly be serious when you say she did not vote for war, it's obvious to all.

 

cause Trump is a lying pig

 

I'm saying that if he wants to attack Clinton on her vote, he cannot do so when he himself chose someone that voted that way. He lost a good line of attack by picking Pence.

 

Without question, this is true. However, in life as well as campaigning, one must make trade offs. Pence's qualities, apparently, outweigh the potential for political gain on that issue. I am sure they weighed that into their decision when vetting their VP candidates. Pence was not my 1st choice, but strategically, I don't see this as significant.

 

If he made that choice he should definitely not attack her for voting for the war, or this will continue to happen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mChRRDNnNZs

 

Then he has no basis to criticize Hillary on this issue...especially after saying that Pence's stance on Iraq (which was even stronger than Hillary's) doesn't bother him at all...and he did say that

 

People aren't going to agree on every issue every time.That's what makes people individuals.
Unless they're Progressives.
Watch out liberals and normal people everywhere for the Progressives.
They are organized and affiliated and you are not.

 

She (and the majority of the Senate) Bush the authority, *if* diplomacy failed. In Oct 2002, Hussein was refusing to let UN inspectors in, and the Bush administration pushed the vote to (supposedly) give it leverage to negotiate with Iraq and agree to the language requiring it to use diplomacy.

Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program. ...

Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform. ... However, this course is fraught with danger. ... If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.

I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable.

President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.

And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them. ...

So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.

https://books.google.com/books?id=t...ll as substantial nuclear facilities.&f=false

Clinton laid out exactly why her vote was not a vote for war. It was pretty prophetic.

It actually worked. Shortly after the vote, Hussein gave UN inspectors free reign to make spot inspections all over the country. They made hundreds of surprise inspections, and did not find the WMD that was supposedly there. A prudent president would have held off on going to war under these circumstances, but that was not what we had.

In hindsight it is easy to say that Bush should not have been trusted. Hindsight is always clear, but in Oct 2002 it wasn't so clear.

The Oct 2002 vote was not a vote to go to war. That is the RW propaganda spin that (as frequently happens) has been repeated so often it has become the accepted belief. But it was not a vote for war, but a vote to give the administration the power to decide to go to war if diplomacy failed.

Saying Clinton voted for war is just sopping up the RW propaganda ... and Trump's lies.

 

You actually believe that these Senators didn't think Bush would go to war? You believe they thought he would give diplomacy a go? You have to be the most gullible person in the world to believe that....You're correct in saying it was not a direct aumf, BUT, they KNEW what he wanted beforehand. Please, stop with the Democratic propaganda.

 

Trump has jumped all over Hillary for voting for the Iraq War.

and now he says he doesn't care that his VP choice, voted for the Iraq War.

what does this say? it says all his attacks against Hillary, were bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

You're using hindsight. In Oct 2002 it wasn't clear what was going to happen in the future.

Your being a RW propaganda sap.

 

Stop being so simple minded. I am a democratic socialist, not a conservative. Hillary Clinton and the like are war hawks who prefer intervention over peace. This has been proven through legislative record, and her call for war in Libya & Syria. Another unnecessary war.

Hindsight is not needed to understand where the administration wanted to go. You really would have to be an idiot not to see that, back then, or now.

- - - Updated - - -

His attack on her is justified, except he is a hypocrite.

 

Prolly because Trump has the ability to walk and chew gum at the same time as well as consider different issues at the same time.

 

Prove that Clinton knew that Bush was going to invade and occupy Iraq in Oct 2002.

I get that you are a Clinton hater and your nose is out of joint because Bernie lost, but you don't get to make up facts. First you claimed Clinton voted for war and you've had to back off that and not your making a bogus claim that she somehow knew in Oct 2002 that Bush was going to attack and invade.

Prove it.

 

Why would you choose someone so opposed to you on such an important issue? My take is he doesn't care about being President, he just likes the celebrity it entails.

- - - Updated - - -

Look at Bushes speeches. Claiming weapons of mass destruction, etc. None of it lined up with fact, but Hillary fell for it, as well as other dumb Democrats. She DID vote for war, because she voted in FAVOR of giving Bush the option, which was moronic.

 

Bush was saying in Oct 2002 that Iraq needed to let UN inspectors in and comply with resolutions. He never stated in Oct 2002 for that vote that he was going to invade Iraq and go to war. If you claim he did, cite it.

Bush in Oct 2, 2012, two weeks before the vote:

None of us here today desire to see military conflict, because we know the awful nature of war. Our country values life and never seeks war unless it is essential to security and to justice. America's leadership and willingness to use force, confirmed by the Congress, is the best way to ensure compliance and avoid conflict. Saddam must disarm—period. If, however, he chooses to do otherwise, if he persists in his defiance, the use of force may become unavoidable.

 

So why did he need to ask for permission from Congress to go to war? I find it obviously suspicious that if any President asks for war authorization, the duty of intelligent members of the Senate would have been to DENY him, until they provided proof. Hillary didn't need proof, she was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. She couldn't have been more wrong, and her judgement couldn't have been more poor. Why do you insist on defending her and other likeminded war hawk Dems? I'll never understand people like you.