Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Were You Tricked Senator Clinton?
In the recent ABC News Presidential debate on August 19, Hillary Clinton came the closest she has to date to admitting that her decision to authorize military action in Iraq was a mistake. She didn't of course, but did say that she "regret[ted] giving George Bush the authority that he misused and abused." Just as in the past, she blamed her decision on the lies and deception of the Bush Administration, and reiterated that given the information she had at the time, she made the best decision she could. Perhaps little noticed at that point, and certainly little acknowledged by the media since then, was a voice from off camera: "Were you tricked Senator Clinton?" It was easy to miss, as there was no follow-up, and Clinton's excuses went otherwise unchallenged.
The question was a fair and important one, as there were a significant number of Senators and Congressmen who, though subjected to the same lies and deception as Senator Clinton, were able to see through such deception and make the right decision. The question appropriately came from Congressman Dennis Kucinich, one of the leading voices of dissent in the run-up to the war. It is important to note, however, that there were others who, though unable to see through the lies as Kucinich did, still had the wisdom to vote against authorization for other reasons. Clinton, on the other hand, in both her ability to be deceived and in her decisions that followed, displayed a lack of judgment that should indeed be seriously questioned.
During her speech on the Senate floor explaining her vote for authorization, Clinton spoke of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and his connection to Al Qaeda. "Now this much is undisputed," she said. The reality is that what was undisputed in Senator Clinton's mind was very much disputed by those who cared enough to seek the truth. One week before, in a speech explaining his vote against authorization, Congressman Kucinich disputed each of the claims that Ms. Clinton would subsequently call indisputable, walking through the Iraq resolution point by point, dissecting and countering its assertions. On each point, Kucinich proved to be correct. Clinton was dead wrong.
How was it that Senator Clinton was so easily tricked? It's not as if she hadn't been warned. Senator Bob Graham of Florida, who unlike Clinton had read the Iraq Intelligence report and subsequently voted against authorization, specifically urged his fellow senators to also read the report during his own Senate floor statement, as in his mind it left much room for doubt. Yet still, in preparation for this literally life and death decision, Senator Clinton chose not to bother. This failure to actively pursue all of the facts before making such a grave decision was and is absolutely inexcusable.
To be certain, Clinton was far from the only Senator or Congressman to recklessly buy into all the false information that was being thrown their and our way. In fact, most did. But at least some, though believing Iraq to be the serious threat that it obviously wasn't, had the good sense to vote against authorization for other reasons. Senator Clinton did not.
Senators such as Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd, while not questioning the truth of the Bush Administration's claims as sharply as did Congressman Kucinich, nevertheless questioned the wisdom of providing the President with sole authority to declare war against Iraq, fearing an unnecessary rush to war against the will of Congress. Hillary Clinton also questioned the wisdom of rushing into war but decided to "take the President at his word that he [would] try hard to pass a UN resolution and seek to avoid war, if at all possible." In fact, there was an amendment to the Iraq resolution proposed by Senator Carl Levin that would have ensured just that, allowing Bush to seek a second vote to "move against Iraq without UN support" should a UN resolution fail. Clinton chose to support the original resolution and vote against the amendment. One might wonder if she had missed class at Yale Law School during contract law discussions.
Even if Bush could have been trusted to pursue diplomatic efforts, to provide an open ended blank check for him to go to war without consideration of the complete ramifications of such war was unwise to say the least. That dangers created by the war could be more serious than those the war was meant to address should have been clear from the start, even if those latter dangers had been real. Others, such as Representative Tammy Baldwin and Senator Russ Feingold, were clear about this in their floor speeches explaining their votes against the resolution. Once again, Hillary Clinton came up short. Not only was Senator Clinton tricked, but she was dangerously shortsighted as well.
In what other profession could someone make such grave errors of judgment resulting in disaster of epic proportion and then be considered for promotion? Having failed so completely in the self-professed most important decision of her life, how are we to trust that she won't fail again?
Senator Clinton's unwillingness to accept any responsibility is almost as disturbing as her lack of judgment. Again, we might wonder if she also missed class at Yale the day they discussed the concept of contributory negligence. Then again, perhaps her inability to admit to any mistake is just a psychological defense mechanism so that she can sleep at night. After all, over 3,700 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead due in part to her bad judgment. As Senator Graham had warned when urging his fellow senators to read the Iraq intelligence report, "Blood is going to be on your hands." And so it is. How could Clinton lead a country with so much death and destruction on her conscience? More importantly, why would any of us want her to?
Adam Penn is a restaurant owner in Cambridge, MA. He welcomes your e-mails and can be reached at adam@veggieplanet.net.
25 Comments so far
Show AllThe rich own the corporations.
The corporations profit from war.
Therefore, media corporations will push the corporate candidates.
Kucinich says this out loud, and you're not going to vote for him.
You're an idiot.
Hillary made a cynical political calculation. She knew Iraq was no real threat, but the perfect set up was in place. A ready-made villain in Saddam Hussein, and a big prize to be won in Iraq's oil reserves. If events played out like the Bush/Cheney propaganda machine said they would (short war with minimum casualties, candy and flowers and quick transition to "democracy")...well needless to say she couldn't chance being on the wrong side if all that came to fruition. Now, like so many other senators and reps, she wants to claim she was misled. I say BS. If she didn't know, she should have. So which is it Hillary, corruption or incompetence? Either way she is not fit to lead.
Where are the Hillary supporters, who can be counted on to ignore or dismiss the apt and pointed question in the headline? Rather than concede her vote was a flaw or a misstep, they will cast it as shrewd and politically canny. Finally, they'll repeat their mantra: "She's electable, she's electable, she's electable ..."
How can this article get out into the MSM?
If Billary couldn't get anything right about the Iraq war, what are we in store for if she get's into the Oval Office? This is truely frightening!
What the corporate media will never tell you .... it was obvious and very factually provable that the claims of Iraq having WMD's were at least highly questionable if not out-right lies. This comes from a combination of several known facts.
There were UN inspectors in Iraq and they had free run of the country and could go anywhere they wanted. The war party tries to obscure this by referring back to the troubles the inspectors had getting access in the 1990's. But in 2002/03 they had the ability to go anywhere they wanted and see anything they wanted. That's in their reports to the security council and they are available on the un website.
With the inspectors able to go anywhere they wanted, then it reasonable that US intelligence should have been able to use them to find any traces of WMD's. If the US knew where the weapons were (like Rumsfeld and Cheney claimed), it should have been easy to find them. If the US was even guessing at the locations of WMD production and storage, it should have been easy to find them. Remember, these inspectors had the technical ability to measure radiation and trace chemicals at a site that would reveal that WMDs had been there. One would think that at least some evidence of WMDs would be exposed by US intelligence telling the UN inspectors where to look.
The lack of any evidence at all of WMDs found by these inspectors was a clear sign that the intelligence on WMDs was at least questionable. It was certainly a sign that Saddam was not able to launch an attack on us anytime soon. Thus, there should have been no problem slowing down and saying that if there's no evidence of WMDs then we don't need to be in a hurry to attack.
It was obvious for anyone who wanted to look. Senators who'd read the full intel briefing and were warning other Senators not to vote yes until they did the same should have been an even bigger warning flag for a Senator about to vote yes.
The key thing to know is that there was plenty of evidence and reason to support a no vote. Certainly enough to support a "not now, lets wait and see" position. When Senators like Hillary voted Yes anyways, they did so clearly because they supported the war. They'll try to lie and BS everyone about it today because its now such an unpopular disaster. But you've got to realize that any Senator who voted Yes did it because they really meant that they supported starting this war.
All this "we were tricked by Bush and the intel" stuff is crap. And its plainly crap for anyone who wants to look closely. The question is whether voters who are opposed to the war decide to believe this crap so they can justify to themselves voting for someone who supported this war and who currently supports the next war in Iran too.
PS ... and remember what the statements of Democratic Party strategy were in Oct 2002. The Dem leadership was pushing the idea that they would vote to give Bush his authorization for war to "get it off the table" as an election issue. The Dem stratgists were pushing the notion that this was the best strategy for the Dems to do well in the Nov 2002 midterm elections.
We've got Senators who voted to cause a lot of death, destruction, pain and carnage. Hundreds of thousands dead, more wounded and maimed, millions of people fleeing as refugees, a nasty militia level civil war trading attrocities back and forth. All of this comes from this one vote. Maybe, just maybe all of this could have been stopped with a No vote.
Did they cause all this damage because they really believed in this war and supported this war? Did they cause all this in the horribly immoral belief that letting it happen would aid their own political careers and the fortunes of their party? Did they cause all this damage because they were too blind to see the obvious facts in front of them and instead were easily manipulated by false intelligence and a PR campaign?
Any of the above is a fine reason to say that any of these people should be removed completely from the position of trust and responsibility that comes with public office.
30 million "little people" flooding the streets worldwide, twice, weren't tricked. Joe Wilson wasn't tricked. I wasn't tricked. Nearly every member of the UN wasn't tricked.
A vote for HRC is a vote for more Cheneybush, only wrapped up in pretty blue panties.
She is another Joe Lieberman. A Republicrat.
Once again, Hillary voted as a true puppet. An obediant mouthpiece for her corporate sponsers. Her votes (on Iraq) show that she cares only for those who add to her money pile.
there was no mistake nor any regret about her decision. she didn't need to read the NIC report , as it was irrelevent to her decision.
Her decision was made soley on the basis that being seen voting for a war made her look very butch and strong in her run for President, period. Nothing else at all concerned her then, nor concerns her now. She put her own political future plans ahead of what was right for the country.
This alone should disqualify her for the office she is so desperately chasing....she is cut from the same cloth as Bush.
the obvious question, but the Clintons--it isn't just Hillary, answer to those who fund them--and what has that got to do with anything other than pleasing them and their interests from Israel to arms to oil to empire.
Meanwhile Kucinich will be cast as the loon.
Either she did it for political expediency or she was incredibly naive. Either disqualifies her as presidential material in my opinion.
Oh yes, she knew. I guess she thought it would all play out like a hyped up Hollywood war movie, with little to no casualties on the US side, and of course she didn't want to be left out of the victory celebration. So, she voted to kill a lot of people and destroy a country. It probably would've played they way they dreamed it would if the cause had any relevance to being justifiable, and the self proclaimed geniuses running it were not too lazy to produce a functional plan. I guess those Oval office stars in her eyes blinded her to the facts. If she actually believed there was a real threat to the nation, after the old boys disbanded the Iraqi military it was probably quite obvious to her and many others that this was the beginning of a something strange and at the least a major heist of power, wealth, and anything else of value with no concern for the destruction and death that would result. If she had integrity, compassion or a genuine concern for the welfare of others besides just the people in her immediate circle, she could better server herself, the world and this nation by speaking out against the illegal invasion of Iraq and how bad of a decision it was for her to vote in favor of an unnecessary war. Then, at the least I would think she would sleep better at night. Oh well glad I am not dependent on her or this overly pompous government for my security, or I would really be trouble.
Hillary Clinton is the worst possible excuse for a presidential candidate. She's lying to the public before she even gets elected--imagine the possibilities afterwards! She used extremely bad judgment in giving Bush war powers--any fool could see that he was cooking the case for Iraq. She is in the pockets of the corporate elites and is already making war threats towards Iran. She won't support single-payer health care, and will squander our tax money on the military. So why vote for her? Because she's a woman? That would be the most un-feminist reason, and would destroy the legitimacy of the women's movement for a very long time.
Hillery wasn't tricked--she got a George Romney "brainwashing". But hey, not to worry, big money, the think tanks, and especially neocon Republicahn sycophants in the media just love her! Don't you?
Hillery? If I wanted an Israeli Republican I would vote for Sharon!
Watch the $$$$$
The same poeple who are donating to her, donated to Kerry in the last DEm primaries (thereby eliminating real candidates) and also then supplied mega $$$$$ for the Bush campaign.
"Follow the money" as my dad all'us said.
the author writes: "How could Clinton lead a country with so much death and destruction on her conscience? More importantly, why would any of us want her to?
the majority of americans don't want hillary leading us anywhere. unfortunately, the aristocratic 1% do want hillary leading us wherever she wants.
let's put it this way. i don't see hillary clinton putting up any fuss about rigged elections as long as it's rigged in her favor.
face it, the office of the president and the decision to have that position filled is too important for the common american to decide upon. we are happy with cheap prices and expensive dreams, forget about justice.
the decisions that have to be made by such a person are beyond the capacity of a commoner and are best left to the people in charge. the commoner is not capable of understanding the complexities involved political decisions.
don't worry, our aristocratic and imperial brothers and sisters will make sure we have access to affordable health care in case we get sick. and don't forget they will dilligently correct us with tough measures if we lapse into the evils of substance abuse. and although overcrowded, they will educate us with a sanitized and correct version of history.
it is really disheartening to see people talk negatively about our next imperial leader. americas first empress.
oh the glory days of rome, er amerikkka.
Maybe Hill should run in the GOP primary.
Maybe the facts are that Hillary, after 8 years in the white house, knew that wmd's were in Iraq. Everyone knew they were there because we gave them to them. The main question is where are they now?
They [Congress] aren't just corrupt; they are also, dare I say, not very bright. Congress rushed to approve this war because the last war was so popular. They had no idea that this war might play out differently than Gulf War # 1. In the simple minds of the President and Congress, they thought that we would be in and out in a few weeks just like last time, with rampant patriotism and pride over America's military prowess.
Now we are down to ego's. Who in a position of power is capable of simply saying "I was wrong." ? They would prefer to waste countless lives, dollars and resources to protect their ego's. Those who supported the war initially will only speak out against it if they are given an out---"The President lied to me. I'm really smart and insightful, and I would have voted no if the President hadn't lied. Perhaps the only way out of Iraq is to come up with some way for Congress and the President to save face in doing so.
Sorry Whatfools, Sharon is indisposed at the moment. If you want an Israeli in office you will have to vote for Lieberman. It is a shame, as much as I would like to see a woman president Hillary is just so Aipac's bitch.
"...self proclaimed geniuses running it were not too lazy to produce a functional plan..."
David above mentions in passing that there could've been the possibility of success--but according to who? Discounting Iraqi deaths, and by continution, any Arab or Muslim who is portrayed as the evil "terrorist" from the West Bank to Hollywood--might as well be vermin. But they are not, they are human beings with a long proud history and they fight back. How to work that into the script of winning? For some winning may be occupying--or destablizing, or creating internal conflict--but what to sell the folks back home when the fighting and dying goes on forever and that myth of American liberators starts to get threadbare?
Winning like Hollywood would produce it was never a viable option regardless of the "execution".
Thanks for reminding us about Hillary's dismal record pertaining to the lead up to the war.
Senator Dodd, Edwards, Kerry, Biden and Clinton were not fooled they were complicit.
If anyone was rattling their saber louder and more vociferously than Bush and Cheney it was our dear front-runner Hillary.
Situation seems bleak but at least thru the primaries we can support the only candidate who is not a hypocrite and a true liberal. DENNIS KUCINICH.
Perhaps little noticed at that point, and certainly little acknowledged by the media since then, was a voice from off camera: "Were you tricked Senator Clinton?" It was easy to miss, as there was no follow-up, and Clinton's excuses went otherwise unchallenged.
The question appropriately came from Congressman Dennis Kucinich, one of the leading voices of dissent in the run-up to the war. It is important to note, however, that there were others who, though unable to see through the lies as Kucinich did, still had the wisdom to vote against authorization for other reasons. Clinton, on the other hand, in both her ability to be deceived and in her decisions that followed, displayed a lack of judgment that should indeed be seriously questioned.
Anyone still think that if Kucinich or Gravel WERE leading in the polls that it would get published? No, I think that we would continue to receive information telling us that one of the corporate tabbed candidates like Clinton, Obama or Edwards were leading and others who had no fear of speaking truth to power will be marginalized. Kucinich, Gravel and others will never be given a voice in the corporate owned media as evidenced in the article above. Had Kucinich been asked why he believed global warming was the biggest threat to national security and he answered correctly yes, I guarantee the cameras would have been on the corporate sponsored candidate who asked 'do you not believe Al Qeada is our biggest threat?'.
Marginalization of those who could possibly threaten the profits of the war mongerers is part of the political process today in America. Believe it.