Hillary Clinton vs. Barack Obama: On the Iraq War
64
I. The Initial Vote Authorizing The Invasion of Iraq
Obama: Obama opposed the war from the start. He was not yet a member of the Senate when it voted on August 11, 2002 to authorize President Bush to invade Iraq. Hoever, he is on record as opposing the plan to invade Iraq and was lobbying Democrats to vote against the proposal.
Clinton: Hillary Clinton was already a member of the Senate when it cast the vote to authorize George Bush to use force against Saddam Hussein and invade Iraq. Clinton was obviously not alone among Democrats: 29 of the 50 Senate Dems voted in favor of the proposal.
Clinton said that she voted for the resolution under the impression that Bush would allow more time for UN inspectors to find proof of weapons of mass destruction before proceeding.
However, many have noted that Clinton voted against the Levin Amendment to the proposal, which would have required President Bush to allow more time to UN weapons inspectors and also would have required a separate Congressional authorization to allow a unilateral invasion of Iraq.
II. Votes Concerning Funding the War
Since 2001, the U.S. government has approved more than $750 billion in federal dollars to fuel the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Here is a quick summary on how Obama and Clinton voted on war funding bills.
Obama: When running for Senate in 2004,Obama said that he never would have voted in favor of Bush's initial $87 Billion war budget.
Here is what he said: "Just this week, when I was asked, would I have voted for the $87 billion dollars [in a war funding], I said no. I said no unequivocally because, at a certain point, we have to say no to George Bush. If we keep on getting steamrolled, we are not going to stand a chance."
However, once he got to the Senate, Obama voted in favor of several funding bills in 2005 and 2006. Altogether, he voted to approve more than $300 billion in funds.
His rationale for these votes was that now that the troops were deployed and in harm's way, he felt it would have been wrong to deny them full financial support.
Things started to change in May, 2007, when Obama voted against a bill that provided another $122 billion funding to continue the wars. In support of his decision, Obama stated: "The country is united in our support for our troops, but we also owe them a plan to relieve them of the burden of policing someone else's civil war."
In September of 2007, Obama confirmed that he would not support any further funding of the war until a firm plan for withdrawal is establsihed.
Clinton: Senator Clinton also supported every war funding bill until May, 2007, when she joined Obama in voting against continued funding.
At the time, Clinton told reporters: " It's one thing to support the troops in Iraq, but it's another to continue to support them without an end to the fighting."
She has not voted on other funding bills, though the Department of Defense has asked for another $70 Billion in additional funding. We'll see how that plays out.
III. Efforts to End the War While in the Senate
Obama: In January, 2007, Obama introduced the "Iraq War De-Escalation Act", a plan that would have stopped the troop increase of 21,500 in Iraq (the "surge"), and would also have enacted a phased redeployment of troops from Iraq with the goal of removing all combat forces by March 31, 2008. The bill has not been voted upon, but Obama says on his Election website that the bill still is his plan for ending the war. Obviously, the dates will be different, but if Obama is elected, this is the plan he wants to enforce.
The Obama plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism, and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces. If the Iraqis are successful in meeting the 13 benchmarks for progress laid out by the Bush Administration, this plan also allows for the temporary suspension of the redeployment, provided Congress agrees that the benchmarks have been met and that the suspension is in the national security interest of the United States.
Clinton: In July, 2007, Clinton released a statemtent on her Election website setting forth her plan for withdrawal. In the statement, Clinton said that she will:
- begin bringing troops home during her first days in office and follow a phased deployment after that
- secure stability during troop withdrawals through use of monetary aid and the appointment of a high-level UN ambassador-type to broker peace among the warring factions in Iraq;
- create a comprehensive diplomacy program in the region. The entire statement can be viewed here.
IV. How Much Defense Contractors Have Contributed to Each Candidate
Obama has received approximately $78,000 of his entire campaign contributions (which total more than $142 million through January 31) from the defense industry.
Clinton has received $204,000 in defense company contributions. Her total raised is approximately $165 million through January 31st.
Share it! — Rate it: up down [flag this hub]
Comments
Great comparison. I personally don't like Hillary Clinton's brand of politics. Of course I'm not American and have no say in what happens but like the rest of the world I'm watching in earnest. If I was American I would vote Obama, simply because he has stood against the flow and made his opinions known, among other things. I think the US needs fresh blood to shake things up.
But I'm an outsider looking in :)
I agree. Twenty years of two crooked families is enough. It's time for a change, and as much as I like and admire and respect John McCain, and as much as I acknowledge Hillary's abilities, this country needs some fresh new blood. Obama is the guy. Anything is better than George Bush and his band of human rights criminals.
Great Hub James.
I'm still a little spooked on Foreign Policy. (Obama's Pakistan and Clinton's Iran -- despite the N.I.E disclosure)
Funny you mention human rights, I believe it was yesterday that I saw a "Water-Boarding May Be Torture" article on Time. The interesting part is that the justice dept. have stated there will be no retroactive accusations and accountability. Oh well.
Also, on McCain. He noted that voting Democratic would erode freedom, burden us with big government and that we could kiss our hypothetical freedom away.
I find it amazing because it has been the pro-war, large government, multi dept. legislation of neo-con "conservatives" that have done most of the work. If we're talking traditional conservatism, I.E pre Reagan Democratic-Republicans, then I'm inclined to agree with many conservative tenets. I just don't see any consistency in today's politics and I feel it has many of us confused. WEll except Evangelicals perhaps ;)
Thoogun: I agree with you on just about every point, especially the conservative issue. The people who have led this country for the past eight years aren't conservatives at all, and I wish Republicans would acknowledge that. To keep saying that the Democrats are bad for the economy is a joke. Clinton had us in the black; Bush spends like a drunken AWOL soldier on permanent leave. Oh wait, that's what he is!
I turn 40 years old in a few months, and I remember Ronald Reagan's presidency quite well. I didn't agree with him on a lot of social issues, but I still admire what he did economically and internationally. These Republicans today bear little resemblance to Mr. Reagan, and I wish conservatives would see that before we fall into a depression.
Thumbs up! Great Hub!
Thanks.
Dearest Wonderful Independent-Thinking Fair-Minded James!!
What a GREAT Hub!! Thank you so much for taking the time to put it together and share with us all!! When the facts are presented in a fair way, and all the spin and rumors are set aside, the only choice for independent thinkers is Obama!!
As I may have mentioned before, I have been a registered Republican all my life and switched parties just to vote for Obama!! There are about a dozen of us spread across the U.S. that have been promoting Obama for almost a year in our own circles of influence!! (And we're doing pretty good; we've made a positive impact on the front page of several newspapers!!)
If nothing else, I think this last 8 years has taught us all the severe damage one man (and his supporters) can do to our government, our troops, our liberties and our place in the world!! I think we fell into the belief that the U.S. was the strongest country on earth!! "Might does not mean right" and we are now sorely reminded that democracy is a very fragile ideal kept alive by citizens with strong character!!
I have such admiration for McCain and his contributions but everytime I see the clips of him with Bush (and Bush kissed him on the head!!) I just cringe!! And McCain saying we might be in Iraq for 50-100 years!! It is enough to bring me to my knees in prayer!!
I have less respect for Hillary Clinton!! I never liked Bill Clinton much either!! From the beginning they seemed to know how to work the "behind closed doors" Washington politics!! Also, I have been successfully employed all my life and I have NEVER seen a single person have a lack of integrity in one part of their life that wasn't also present in every other part!! Character is character!! A person cheats at home (and it is accepted) they cheat at work, and vice versa!! Brings me to my knees again!!
A healthy democracy requires participation!! I will never again be so involved with my own little life (2001-2004) to let the Democratic process move forward without my full attention and involvement!!
Voices like your James are greatly appreciated and admired!! Please keep up the GREAT Hubs!! Please keep up being a fully-present participation in the GREAT Experiment of Democracy!!
Blessings always!! Earth Angel!!
P.S. I plea to all Hubbers: Please do not participate in "forwarding" rumor emails without checking out the facts first!! A Democracy cannot survive on a foundation of gossip and spin!! Don't be part of the problem by "clicking forward" without fully understanding the facts and what is at stake!! James has so kindly provided the links above!!
Very useful and relevent article.
I like Obama. He breathes new life into a suffocating nation. I'm slightly concerned with his shorter-than-average experience, though. But, what's the saying? "A man can do something poorly his whole life". I liked Obama's statement about "being right on day one" in response to Hillary's "ready on day one". I'm concerned that, if Hillary gets it all, we'll become a Socialist nation, and then our economy will really tank. McCain is a great leader and probably afraid of no person or nation. I'm sure he'd be great on defense. He is more moderate than some other republicans (I'm a bit of an independent centrist) but on which issues? I think we definitely need to get out of Iraq, and McCain has no immediate plans for that. Obama does. But then what happens? I don't know. I do think you're right that anyone will be better than Bush. He has failed us in almost every area.
Great point by point comparison. You've made what can be a dauning task (comparing candidates) easy and educational. I think I'll share this with my fellow Dems who are still trying to decide how they'd like to vote.
Fantastically clear and sharp analysis for outsiders. I've joined the Obama group on Facebook for what it's worth. Thanks so much.
working
The Phantom Blot says:
6 months ago
Thanks for the info. I think I might respect Clinton more if she either had her own withdrawel bill proposed or endorsed Obama's. But, I guess she can't support the political enemy.