Clinton’s Iraq Vote - Five Years Later
The fifth anniversary of the start of the Iraq war provides an appropriate moment to revisit Hillary Clinton’s argument in favor of authorizing Bush’s use of force, and to contrast it with the case made at the time by Bush’s opponents.
In the last few years, Clinton has defended her vote by arguing that “if I knew then what I know now, I would never have given President Bush the authority” to attack Iraq. But a majority of Democrats in the House knew enough “then” to vote against the resolution - as did 21 out of 50 Democratic senators.
In Clinton’s Senate speech, still posted on her senate website, she began by accepting Bush’s premise that “if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” The question, she said, was whether war was the appropriate means of stopping those developments.
In supporting Bush, Clinton claimed to be taking a middle path between two extremes - on the one hand, those who believed we should go to war only if the UN Security Council approved it, which she considered absurd, and on the other, those who favored “attacking Saddam Hussein now.” But not even Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld favored an immediate attack at the point the Senate debate occurred — October 2002 - so she was rejecting an argument no one was making.
Probably the biggest concession she made to Bush was accepting his argument that war was a legitimate response to the attacks on 9-11, which had occurred just one year earlier. Although she did not explicitly agree with Bush’s statements linking al Qaeda to Iraq, she did say her vote was justified by “last year’s terrible attacks,” and that “in balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am.”
Other Senators rejected precisely those arguments. Russ Feingold voted against the authorization to use force in part because of what he called “the President’s singularly unpersuasive attempt . . . to interweave 9-11 and Iraq.” He criticized the “shifting justifications for an invasion,” noting “the spectacle of the President and senior Administration officials citing a purported connection to al Qaeda one day, weapons of mass destruction the next day, Saddam Hussein’s treatment of his own people on another day.”
Ted Kennedy raised a key issue Clinton never considered: going to war against Iraq, he said, “will jeopardize the war against terrorism” - against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. “One year into the battle against Al Qaeda, the administration is shifting the focus, the resources and the energy to Iraq. The change in priority is coming before we have eliminated the threat from Al Qaeda.”
While Clinton accepted Bush’s claims regarding Saddam’s possession weapons of mass destruction, others rejected them. Jim Jeffords, Republican of Vermont said, “There is much speculation about his weapons of mass destruction, but no evidence that he has developed nuclear capability and less that he could deliver it.”
Robert Byrd opposed the resolution on other grounds, arguing that “The newly bellicose mood that permeates this White House . . . is clearly motivated by campaign politics. Republicans are already running attack ads against Democrats on Iraq.” The criticism of Clinton was implicit but obvious.
In the House, Nancy Pelosi proved to be prescient about the course of the war: “There is no political solution on the ground in Iraq,” she declared. “So when we go in, the occupation which is now being called liberation could be interminable. And so could the amount of money, unlimited, that it will cost — 100, 200 billion dollars.” (Of course the war is now costing more than ten times that.)
As for the dangers arising from a long occupation, that problem was foreseen by none other than Henry Kissinger. He testified at a Senate committee hearing before the war vote that he was “viscerally opposed to a prolonged occupation of a Muslim country at the heart of the Muslim world by Western nations who proclaim the right to re-educate that country.” In Clinton’s speech, she never considered that argument.
–Jon Wiener
Copyright © 2008 The Nation
Dear Hillary,
I knew then what you know now, and so did millions of people all over the world who took to the streets to try and stop the madman from invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. You certainly didn’t show any leadership qualities then, only that you were a good follower. And frankly, nothing has changed over the last five years.
I guess Hillary’s argument that she has more experience doesn’t hold much water. After all, experience making bad decisions is not exactly a plus. Bush has loads of experience making bad decisions. Maybe it isn’t how old you are, but rather what you’ve learned along the way that counts.
Now let`s all repeat ten times over, as we have not heard this before–Hillary made a mistake!! There has never in history been such a mistake made and no one is fit for office after making one. She did have some company in the mistake, so there are other unfit people in Congress also.
What people better remember is, whose idea was it to invade in the first place, and concentrate on getting the warmongers out, instead of this tired old story.
Sometimes when people make a mistake, they are better in the future fo making it, if they are able to learn from it. Sorry, Jon Wiener, there are hundreds of things to report on that would be of some interest and are not already worn out.
What many fail to mention is, Bush did not need the senate vote on prop 114 in order to use military force against Iraq and Saddam. Had all of the senate voted no, he would still have used the altered NIE report as his excuse to attack. He and Cheney would have condemmed Congress and set public opinion against them. Of course if one spins it in another way, Hillary using low femenine logic, is the reason we went to war.
Hell, she is as bellicose as ever.
Over there in Hillaryland it doesn’t matter what the reality is–the consequences of beating the war drum or acknowledging the presumed nomination as long as the pandering and posturing frames perception. How else could she run that ridiculous 3 o’clock in the morning red-phone ad despite the fact that she had been proven wrong? She will never admit she was wrong–rather she will frame it as her macho tough guy act being right. And if you challenge that she will suddenly become the victim.
She is foul.
She didn’t even bother to read the Intelligence Report before voting…She was pathetic then and she’s just as pathetic now, if not moreso…
Hillary panders to the Republicans because she basically IS one. The phrase Vichy Democrat comes to mind. When it comes to Hillary vs. McCain, Ralph Nader has it exactly right. There isn’t a hairs width of difference between their policies when it comes to actual votes on the floor. Hillary’s repeated votes for war and war funding while we don’t have health care prove where her true loyalties lie.
If you want to vote for a Republican you have a choice of Hillary or McCain. The only Democratic candidate for president now running is Barack Obama.
“The only Democratic candidate for president now running is Barack Obama.”
Who has consistently voted to continue to fund Bush’s War. (Probably because he wasn’t able to vote “present.”)
Oh, wait… he’s a Saint. He’s been Absolved.
Hillary is pandering to her Zionist supporters while Feingold, a jew, had the intellectual honesty and courage to go against the invasion. Of course it helps to have a liberal constituency…
As long as Hillary Rodham Nixon continues to lie, obfuscate, fabricate an imginary “experience” as some sort of qualificaiton, all the while smearing her opponent in the primaries, the fact that she threw in with Bush & AIPAC remains news, not something that “we’ve heard before”.
Not only has Hilary failed to learn from history, but she has refused to acknowledge it in a manner that would do Dubya proud. For that very profound failing, she did not get my vote in my state’s (CA.) primary.
What Hillary did was far worse than just “making a mistake.” Along with a majority of Senate Democrats in 2002, she voted to enable Bush to commit an enormous crime — which millions of ordinary citizens knew was based on lies.
And ever since, she has steadfastly refused to admit that it was a mistake. Along with every Democrat besides Kucinich & Gravel, she has refused to examine the premise behind the invasion & occupation. The war happens to be largely about control of oil — but to hear Hillary (& 99% of Democrats) tell it, you’d never know that. They still want you to believe it’s about “terrorism” or “restoring stability” or other respectable-sounding euphemisms.
Has anyone heard any discussion in the 20 or so Dem presidential debates about O-I-L as a fundamental motive of the invasion? No? I didn’t think so. You’re not allowed to say that in American public discourse. The truth is too unattractive, so it musn’t be spoken.
Another loathesome thing about Hillary is that in her Oct 2002 vote for the IWR, she began her speech by yakking for 15 minutes about how important “dissent” was in a “free society.” Listening to the opening of her speech that day, even I — who have long since been justifiably skeptical of lying Democrats — was convinced she was going to vote “No” on the resolution. She even fooled me! You have to be a pretty smooth liar to fool me.
But when she suddenly shifted tone, and got down to the brass tacks of announcing her “Yes” vote, I knew right then that this woman could never be trusted. She is the lowest form of political opportunist — utterly ruthless and unprincipled.
THE ONLY COURAGEOUS, HONEST PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IS RALPH NADER.
Hillary Clinton is a neoliberal.
She will not only continue the war in Iraq, she start the another one Iran (if Bush does not do so this year).
She may even start a war in South America with Chavez using Columbia as a proxy (read her statement regarding the recent incident there).
KEM PATRICK—You theorize that Hillary was using low feminine logic when she voted to authorize use of force in Iraq. I submit that it is just the opposite situation– she voted that way so that she would not be accused of being soft on terrorism because she was a woman.
I believe in reading history, many more wars have been started by men than by women, who are by nature not as agressive, so all this blather about Hillary causing the war and can not be trusted to end the occupation is plainly just hot air.
Obama nay be a fine candidate, only it is not wise to get into hero worship, as that will only lead to disappointment. Wait until he gets the nomination, and the Repugs will fill you all in on the REAL Obama story that they are hatching up for that time. They may be more concerned with running against Hillary and are trying to get Obama chosen. We will not know their strategy until that decision has been made.
Regarding Kernel’s comment about her vote being a mulligan, do you also buy into her “when they stand up, we’ll stand down” b.s. she countinues to spout?
I really do not want another President who cannot admit they made a mistake. I was willing to consider Edwards for that reason, he admitted he made a mistake.
Obama admitted he made a mistake in judgment, and although he hasn’t done anything wrong in his relationship with Rezko, he trusted someone who wasn’t trustworthy. Hillary’s still hiding her dirty laundry but I don’t think she can get away with it forever. If she manages to steal the nomination from Obama, the right wing lynch mob will catch her out. And the corporate media will be in full throated hot pursuit. At least with him, his past is already out in the open.
kathyodat
Hillary doesn’t make mistakes, she makes excuses. As far as I’m concerned, she’s a walking disaster. And a liar to boot.
kathyodat
kernel, where do you get this idea that the Repugs prefer to run against Obama? Is that why Rush Limbaugh told the right wing to go vote in Democratic primaries for Hillary? To get Obama nominated? Get a clue! It’s Obama who galvanizes young voters, independents, and Republicans who are actually abandoning their party.
kathyodat
Jeevee, I’d add Cynthia McKinney and Mike Gravel to the list of courageous, honest (current) presidential candidates.
~KERNEL~,You misunderstood, I said it could be spun another way. I was makng fun of ~Riverdude~, whom I am sure will soon appear here and offer some more of his “wisdom” on the subject of females. I don’t aprove of Obama, Hillary or McCain. The ones I supported dropped out.
Congressional failure to use the “power of the purse” to end the war was a consequence of their unwillingness to take extreme political heat for a purely symbolic vote. Never forget what they did to Cynthia McKinney. It would’ve diminished their credibility trying to get our troops better protection and smarter management… (the list of bush blunders is way too extensive for this post).
Clinton’s “mistake” continues with far more than the original War Vote and everyone KNOWS IT.
The extension of the suspension of our Bill of Rights in the Patriot Act opposed by such radicals as the American Library Association. The support of Israel’s Lebanon Invasion, even when Israeli Officers revolted over their orders to attack civilians… Even when Bush himself was critical. The opposition to a Ban on Landmines supported by the International Red Cross among others. The opposition to any limitation on the export of cluster bombs (used extensively in Lebanon) killing 98% civilians, many children (also supported by the Red Cross). Her criticism of the International Criminal Court and opposition to their finding that the Fourth Geneva Conventions are binding to all signatory nations (THAT MEANS US). Her ticking time bomb justification for torture “In those instances where we have sufficient basis to believe that there is something imminent, yeah, but then we’ve got to have a check and balance.” Her opposition to the full repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (anti-gay).
Her Vote to list the Iranian Guard as a “terrorist” organization, which is just a blank check for the U.S. to strike Iran. She still repeats the provably false Republican Litany of Iran’s “nuclear ambitions.”
When was that last one? last week or something?
GOOD GRIEF, GET A GRIP. Clinton did NOT MAKE A MISTAKE. SHE’S LYING. GET IT?
I have to wonder what motivates such willful blindness? If you hold out for your pure “progressive” you will remain politically marginalized and maybe the Democratic Party NEEDS to crumble… but I’ll not hasten that while a chance remains to put out our tentstakes, to include the honest majority of Americans.
When the DNC nominates the Republican Clinton, I’ll be working for Cynthia (god she’s marvelous) BUT NOT A MINUTE SOONER.
“Wait until he gets the nomination, and the Repugs will fill you all in on the REAL Obama story that they are hatching up for that time”
THe Clinton machine is every bit as destructive as the Repug one — it was a Clinton county (or was it state?) chair who circulated the “Obama-is-secretly-a-Muslim-fundamentalist” email.
If there were more, Hillary & her Nixonian aides would have used it already to beat back Obama’s campaign.
25% of the White Clinton vote in Mississippi was Republican crossover per exit polls cited by Chris Matthews on MSNBC for crying out loud.
The Righties ALWAYS accuse US of what THEY are doing.
The argument that the Republicans would prefer to run against the Democrat that’s scored higher in all national polls is utter hogwash… only someone on the payroll of the Clinton campaign, a Republican operative, a stockholder of the war profiteering corporations or a downright RACIST, would continue to repeat such BS.
Of course Obama’s numbers in the National Polls are going down some thanks to the Rovian smear campaign of the Clinton Camp.
You’ll be blaming US in November, and probably laughing all the way to the bank.
“The Righties ALWAYS accuse US of what THEY are doing.”
Exactamente!
Hillary Rodham Clinton, leader of the Vichy Democratic Party.
Ralph Nader, the guy who still doesn’t admit that a President Al Gore would have been a lot different than GWB.
oh HOW B. Hussein O’Bama cried that the 2003 vote to give our Administration the power to launch war was NOT ONE HE COULD TAKE
BUT HE SWORE HE WOULD NEVER MISS THE NEXT ONE since Jan 20, 2005
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh IRAN strik VOTE.
he did.. AND THE KOOL-AID DRINKING flock of his………….
did not NOTICE, CARE, [ fill in your excuse].
he is NOT MLK, M. Ghandi, nor Dalai Lama, not even Jesse Jackson nope he’s a lobbyist cloaked in a senator suit. He really would be better on K Street.
wait HE MADE A MISTAKE WITH REZKO
WHICH ONE
THE ONE HE MADE WHEN T.R. helped run for State Office.
the real-estate deal pennies on the dollar for lot adjacent to his house?
the slum lord bills OBAMA shot down
the party T.R. had when OBama announced running for senate.
the money spent on every Campaign B.H.O has ran for political office?
a a a a a a aa
editing these logs JUST DOES NOT WORK…..
wait…….. HE MADE A MISTAKE WITH REZKO……………….
WHICH ONE
THE ONE HE MADE WHEN T.R. helped run for State Office.
the real-estate deal pennies on the dollar for lot adjacent to his house?
the slum lord bills OBAMA shot down
the party T.R. had when OBama announced running for senate.
the money spent on every Campaign B.H.O has ran for political office?
lmao
wipe that screen off when you’re done there chief
KEM__I agree with you, we have three candidates for President that are not the preferred ones, McWar being the worst one, however we have what is left. I though John Edwards had a lot of promise, but the media took care of his chances.
I do not share the opinion that if one`s favorite candidate does not win, then vote for the opposition party or throw your vote on an unelectable person just for revenge.
I have raised cattle, and if a cow got struck by lightning or other misfortune, one time it was six of them, I did not just quit in disgust and trade them for a herd of sheep or swine.
Sometimes one has to just do the best we can and work for better results the next time.
cranky,
LMAO…that was a good one!
~Patrickballotintegrity~ you posted the best comment here. ___ Obviously you ssstuttter.
~Kernel~ I agree with you totally. I just didn’t want you or any to think that I think females have no logic. On the contrary. Don’t know what happened to ~Riverman~, who has been spamming that comment for a week now.
Didn’t Hillary have a second chance to vote on the war when Levin proposed his amendment to grant Bush his powers only when tied to a supporting U.N. resolution? She nixed it.
Obama is no different. They’re political twins.
So, why the focus on Hillary?
Obama is just a pro war as she is, in fact, maybe more so with his wreckless comments on going into Pakistan illegally.
Don’t depend on these politicians to do anything right. They’re creatures of our corporate world; they are part of the oligarchy that rules the country. They have to be pushed. Demonstrate,agitate,cogitate.
The war is killing us. End it now. Go Populist!!
formernadervoter,
keep voting for Nader and changing the outcome in Vermont. The rest of us have to be pragmatic about opposing the war in our own way. Bernie Sanders is my favorite senator, but I live in Florida. What should I do? I’m in debt, healthcare is through the roof, going to school to get a professional degree, and I can’t afford to make a donation to every single-issue interest group.
I’ll take some Obama to get the train rolling down the tracks.
I hope you take a chill pill and contemplate why that would be such a bad choice?
All he did was raise more money in February than any candidate in American history, mobilize more Americans than any candidate in history, and is running against John McCain on the vote to invade and occupy Iraq in 2002.
It’s not because he’s black, it’s because he’s beautiful
Of course there are some solid factual arguments for having an actual Antiwar Candidate at the top of the Democratic Party’s ballot in 2008 too:
1. Clinton’s marginal victories in big states only shows what 16 years of saturating the media markets with the Clinton name can do to humanize her to the American public. And apparently not much in Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin, Missouri, Virginia, Georgia, and Texas (where Obama won caucuses + primaries) or critical Mountain West swing states like Colorado.
Not to mention the fact that in Ohio she lost all three major cities: Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati, not to mention Dayton. Do you really think the Reagan Democrats are going to vote for her against McCain? I wouldn’t bet on it.
2. Missouri + Virginia + Colorado are now all swing states with 33 electoral votes between them. Had Kerry won any two of these three states he would have won.
Not to mention
Wyoming has a Democratic Governor, Kansas has a Democratic Governor, Montana has two Democratic Senators, North Dakota has two Democratic Senators, and Iowa, Nebraska and South Dakota each have a Democratic Senator. Add those states together and you got 30 electoral votes.
Great Plains + Mountain West + Virginia & Missouri = 63 electoral votes.
Ohio + Pennsylvania (48% registered Democrats to 40% registered Republicans, likely to go Democratic)= 41 electoral votes.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/electoral.college/
If we are serious about who has the best chance of defeating John McCain in a year when the Conservative base is likely to stay home, it is not the Democratic candidate that motivates them to get out and vote and who motivates Obama supporters to stay home.
Kernel, while it is undoubtedly true that women are in general more affiliative and less confrontational than men, HRC has clawed her way up in the male-dominated world of politics by playing by the men’s rules. Clearly she’s more hawkish and personally aggressive than Obama. Let’s not substitute gender stereotypes for analysis of past and present conduct.
AlexLawyer, nice combination of logic and graphics. Personally, I’ve had enough of confrontation and aggression for now. Especially when combined with a low ethical standard.
kathyodat
—
Hillary may some shallow anti-war rhetoric, but her actions at every turn
show her to be someone who shills for AIPAC:-
Iraq
* Her enthusiasm for the sanctions (based on obvious lies)
* her pushing for the invasion of Iraq
* her demonisation of Saddam (once one of our favoured dictators)
* her vote for the war, her continued voting for war funding
* her prentend plans for withdrawal that will leave our troops there forever
* her insistance that impeachment is off the table.
Iran
* Her demonisation of Ahmenjibad.
* Her bagging Bush for not being agressive enough with Iran.
* Her bagging Obama for saying he would talk to them.
* Her vote authorising war on Iran.
* Her insistance that nuclear strikes are on the table.
Palestine and Lebanon
* Her constant one sided support for Israel.
* Her support for the 2006 destruction of lebanon.
* Her cozying up to AIPAC and Rupert Murdoch.
Some folks are trotting out the “mistake” word as solace for their Hillary Clinton support (even though Clinton herself refuses to claim she made a mistake in voting up the Iraq war).
However, the United Nations weapons inspectors had documented, over 10 years beforehand, that Iraq was disarmed. (Iraq was just a dead-in-the-water target for Bush to attack, and everyone knew that.)
Time to wake up! Everyone knew Iraq was no threat even to its immediate neighbors. It had no navy to send planes within targeting distance of the United States. Its missiles couldn’t even hit Israel.
My own Senator, Diane Feinstein, pointed to a supposed secret briefing she received from Bush & Co. to butress her decision to give Bush unconstitutional war powers. Her husband is now raking in millions in defense dollars from his defense industry investments as a result of her betrayal of the American people.
Not that Obama’s support for funding the wars lets him off the hook.
Honestly, people, doesn’t anything matter to you? You watch as our reps vote to bomb the shit out of people, and you want to reward the Democrats for doing that? Have the Democrats thrown you any conciliatory bones this election? Name one! Don’t waste your time with Dems and Repugs - worthless trash. If they don’t represent you, don’t vote for them.
A piece by Andrew Schmookler on NSB that I believe is relevant to this discussion:
*********************************************
For a lot of people, Hillary Clinton’s recent choice to use low-road tactics to keep her campaign alive triggered an important shift in their feelings about Hillary as a leader. Just a couple of weeks ago, Hillary Clinton showed great warmth and graciousness at the end of one of her debates with Obama, expressing her appreciation of the “honor” of competing with him for the nomination and gesturing, as she acknowledged that she might not win, toward a future of unity regardless of who prevails. But the past two weeks have made it impossible to see Hillary in such benign terms.
There are a lot of ways of interpreting just what it was that she revealed, and why it’s important.
Gary Hart, for example, wrote recently about Hillary’s “Breaking the Final Rule” when she “severely damaged the Democratic candidate who may well be the party’s nominee, and, perhaps most ominously, revealed the unlimited lengths to which she will go to achieve power.” That politics is a tough game, Hart said, “does not mean that it must also be rule-or-ruin, me-first-and-only-me, my way or the highway. That is not politics. That is raw, unrestrained ambition for power that cannot accept the will of the voters.”
That’s important. But I believe that what was revealed has deeper overtones still. What Hillary did reveals that ON THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE OF OUR TIMES, HILLARY CLINTON IS ON THE WRONG SIDE.
That most fundamental issue is that in recent years, America was taken over by evil forces. In a manner unprecedented in the history of this nation, a group that achieved the highest power in the land launched a systematic attack on America’s most sacred political institutions and political values, severely damaging virtually every dimension of our political culture. And the central question for us as a nation in choosing our new leadership is whether we will find a way to lift ourselves out of the mire and muck into which our nation has descended, whether we will cleanse our nation of the immoral patterns that have degraded the soul of America.
Hillary has now revealed something absolutely central to understanding where she stands on that vital historical challenge America must now meet.
What is essential to recognize is the implication of her willingness to resort to the very tactics that the Bushite regime has used in degrading what’s best about America.
HISTORY CHANGES THE MEANING OF THINGS
In the wake of World War II, there emerged in West Germany a new democratic state built essentially along liberal lines akin to those of American democracy. Except– into the basic law of the new German state were enshrined prohibitions that would be blatant violations of our American Bill of Rights. In Germany, certain kinds of hatred, certain kinds of bigotry against specific groups, would not be allowed expression, would be treated as crimes.
The history of the Nazi regime had made those destructive patterns so repugnant that the Germans reconstructing that society felt impelled to repudiate them utterly, even at the cost of a small zone of liberty.
In America over the past seven years, certain political tactics have been central to evil’s doing its work in degrading America. One of these is the attempt by political leaders to fan the flames of the people’s fear and to exploit that fear for one’s own purposes. With their fear-mongering, the Bushites manipulated the nation into a disastrous war whose real purposes were other than those told the public to gain their support. And it has been through the fostering of excessive fear that this regime has manipulated the public into supporting its unprecedented assault on the American Constitution and the rule of law.
History changes the meanings of things. When JFK campaigned for the presidency on the “missile gap” at the end of the Eisenhower era, the “fear card” did not have the meanings it has now. Fear is almost always a way of diminishing a people’s ability to use its higher mental processes, and to be guided by its best values. But in America today, fear-mongering by leaders is something so central to the stink of evil that anyone truly outraged by this reign of evil would find it repugnant even to contemplate picking up such a repugnant tool.
Like the Germans who felt impelled to reject utterly the kind of inter-group hatred that had ben so central to the Nazi nightmare, Americans who are passionate about rejecting the degradations of this Bushite era would have a natural and powerful impulse to avoid any contact with that regimes major tools.
WHAT HILLARY SHOWED
In the Biblical story of Solomon and the two women claiming the one survivor of their two newborn infants, the one who is motivated by envy is entirely willing to accept Solomon’s trick judgment that the infant should be cut into two pieces to be given to each of the two women. The real mother, who is motivated by her love for the infant, cries out that the baby should be given to the other woman. Solomon of course then knows which of the women is the true mother, and the baby is given to her.
Similarly in Hillary Clinton’s kitchen-sink strategy, she has inadvertently told us the central truth about her in relation to our nation’s central issue: by her willingness to pick up the tools of the evil regime she’s wanting to replace, she’s shown that she’s not really outraged by its evil.
She’s resorted to several of the Bushites’ disreputable tactics, but I’ll stick here to the one: the fear-mongering.
Anyone who really saw her mission as helping lift this country out of the degradation the Bushites have inflicted on this nation would feel impelled to avoid using that tool at all costs. It is too much dripping with blood. It is too fouled with the stink of cynical lies. It is too infected with the disease of tyranny’s advance.
But Hillary did not seem so uncomfortable wielding that tool, frightening America with that 3 AM red-phone-call ad.
Anyone whose desire for the presidency was motivated by a vision of our being guided again by what Lincoln called the better angels of our nature would not have encouraged Americans to descend into a more fear-governed, less hope-governed place. This is a country that needs to be led out of fear, not further into it. Too many people have been too scared for too long. And too much damage has been done by driving people into that primitive reptile-brain place.
But Hillary did not hesitate, when she thought it could revive her hopes for power, to tell Americans, “Be afraid, be very afraid.”
Hillary has revealed, therefore, that she is not motivated by any great desire to raise this country out of this darkness. From her conduct we are able to conclude: She’s not all that much into fighting evil.
Hillary Clinton is, therefore, not the person we need to lead us at this particular historical moment, while we as a nation face our particular historical challenge. On that central issue, she has now shown clearly, she is not on the right side.
Alex and Beforkids__ Well, it is good to know that Hillary is as much or more agressive than Obama. That means we do not have to worry about electing a woman as she is on even ground with the men. Personally, I believe it is not a bad idea to elect a person with some toughness as it will be necessary to deal with the Repugs, who will fight to the last to keep all of their disastrous mess they have created.
That may be why the Repugs are actually more concerned about facing Clinton than Obama, and his message of unity will go up in smoke when he tries to implement some new ideas. The people that have benefitted so greatly the last eight years are not going to just lie down and say walk on us. Unity is a grand goal, but no one but a dreamer could think it will happen quickly, if at all.
When large banks are starting to fail, our dollar becomes worth less and less, the economy tanks, people continue to lose their homes and jobs, and we sink further into depression, there will be much more to worry about than to document every mistake Hillary ever made, some of which are incorrect anyway. If the condition of our country appeals to anyone, they should not support either one of the Dems, just let McWar handle it and continue to pamper the billionaires and finish us off.
“You watch as our reps vote to bomb the shit out of people, and you want to reward the Democrats for doing that? Have the Democrats thrown you any conciliatory bones this election? Name one! Don’t waste your time with Dems and Repugs - worthless trash. If they don’t represent you, don’t vote for them.”
We have to shed the notion, first of all, that political realities are fundamentally determined by elections. They aren’t. The significance of elections is variable; in the present case, we have two verified warmongers and one who has relatively limited belligerent rhetoric. The only way to disarm the militarists & the military-industrial parasites is by surrounding & flooding them out, not by direct confrontation; electing Obama will not be a “reward” for the Democratic machinery, but a sort of self-reward to the public for beating the well-financed, well-entrenched Clinton machine.
It is absolutely essential that the people gain confidence, not in electoral processes, but in their own potential for political action. We can’t leap from the frustrating inertia of the current system to real democratic action all at once. The anger towards the McClinton campaign is a necessary part of repudiation of the main representatives & beneficiaries of the structure; as those cave in, as they’re revealed to be irreformable, people will have to learn that they are not the subjects of the ancient ghosts of “founding fathers”, but political actors & originators in their own right.
We also ought to recognize that US history is only a fragment of larger, revolutionary history. Our institutions are very rigid due to our pedigree — the men who designed the national charter were quite alarmed, even Jefferson, when it began to look as if they might lose their own privileged positions.
While Obama is not revolutionary, he is no dedicated acolyte of privilege; and as with everything, the Rodham-Nixon bunch are trying to claim that they, somehow, represent the non-privileged, when the reverse is true.
I didn’t get it, but now I do. Those last three above posts, PowerofLove, Kernel, and Dichterfreund clarified it for me. Obama is offering a new way, of hope instead of fear, discourse instead of assault. And Clinton is reminding us to be afraid. And people are splitting into trying a new way or retreating into a fearful defensive way. It’s not really about who is more progressive or who voted for what, it is much more visceral than that. And arguing with visceral reactions is a complete waste of time. I couldn’t figure out why the Clinton supporters didn’t seem to be listening but now I understand. People aren’t listening to each other. This has nothing to do with reason, just feelings. On both sides. Some people want to open doors, others want to lock them. The Republicans got this right all along.
kathyodat
With Hillary, we can count on hearing the voice of the Demagogic Losership Cabal. The morality(or indeed, legality) of the Occupation of Iraq is not a
question for Hillary, only whether it was expedient. Is this someone I can
vote for? I am afraid not. The vote to authorize the occupation is only one
in a growing list of reasons why I cannot and will not vote for Hillary Clinton(and notice that the word “bitch” never occurred here…I think it
applies more to Bill).
DICKTERFREUND: Another excellent posting. Gracias.
Clinton is a WARMONGER
I gotta say, listening to Scahill, the Blackwater Expose’ author, I’m feeling ill.
Having read Clinton and Obama’s plans for Iraq in detail, he reports that the Embassy and bases will remain with an auxilliary force of 40,000 personnel, whether Clinton OR Obama are president.
Throw in traditional U.S. Counterinsurgency programs and PRESTO CHANGO, El Salvador; replete with atrocities committed by proxies, and all the attending public denials.
See? I’m feeling ill.
Obama is now, mildly less despicable… much more honest, I think but… WTF?
Ya know?
BeForKids (1:54 am) writes, “Obama is offering a new way, of hope instead of fear, discourse instead of assault…”
- This sounds like you’re talking about Jesus Christ, not an American politician running for the nomination of a thoroughly corrupt big-business party, backed by millions in corporate donations, flowing particularly from Wall Street.
The reason Obama has so much corporate backing is not because he is “offering hope,” but because the corporatists understand that he can be marketed in precisely this way, & that many ordinary citizens will fall for it.
Hillary insists it wasn’t a mistake and we should take her at her word. It was a clear position of participation in an aggressive, illegal attack on a nation - that CIA chief Tenet had just told Congress - posed no threat to us.
Extreme profits have been made, and those war profiteers have rewarded Hillary lavishly. She is just another war mongering killer, and if we believe her crap about winding the war down, we are abusing democracy.
At this point the most important thing is for the peace movement in our nattion to have some electoral strategy. As now constituted, the peace movement is not connected to labor (although the entire org’d labor is now opposed to the war), veterans (although this is an area where there is strong opposition to the war), or other mainstream areas of our country. This as meant that, although the vast majority of the population is opposed to the war, as well as labor, retirees, much of the mainstream communities of faity, etc.
As well, this election is one where there is a massive spontaneoous upsurge of the American people, who are concerned about their retreating living standards, as well as the war, (which is connected). We have 3 candidates, one of whom will be president. One (McCain) is saying that he is comfortable with a 100 year war. Hilliary is now falling all over herself trying to be seen as opposed to the war, even with all her pro-war baggage, and Obama, who has always opposed the war.
Developing an electoral strategy does not mean being uncritical. But it does mean that the peace movement MUST stop setting up ridiculous, unrealistic standards for people, candidates and the movement. It could very well mean that the peace groups could put themselves in the middle of the electoral contest, helping force the issue of the war into the debate, forcing candidates to become more anti-war to move the discussion forward.
As it is now, the peace movement, unfortunately, isolated themselves from labor, church and vets groups and the mainstream of society. This, at the time when conditions could mean that their message is most acceptable to the American people. This needs to change, and soon. Without this, the war can be taken off the table and candidtes not deal at all with it.
I have come to a few conclusions about Hillary Clinton and the war in Iraq. Hillary Clinton supported the war because she wanted to hold Saddam Hussein responsible for the terrorist attacks on US soil — plural, because of course 9/11 was just “finishing the job” from the previous less successful attack on the World Trade Center, when her husband was president.
Hillary Clinton knew that we would not have been subject to these attacks had George H. W. Bush not insisted on US-led military action to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait. And that, “my friends,” is the link between Iraq and 9/11.
You may have forgotten, but none other than Ronald Reagan himself, in an interview on Larry King Live, expressed his misgivings about anything other than a UN-led response to Iraq’s invasion and annexation of Kuwait. Ultimately, I think this is where future historians will have to look. Was the US wise, in a newly post-Cold War world, to press for a US-led military response to Saddam?
Going back even to the US invasion of Panama, was the US failing to get beyond a Cold War mentality? Was the US failing to establish or live up to international norms?
In other words, could we not have succeeded — with much less cost in lives and treasure — at both reassuring potential foes such as China and Russia as well as serving our national security interests, if we had chosen to support and build upon international structures and institutions designed to avoid war?
Instead, of course, we used same to push for a terribly destructive and costly military solution that has apparently left us much weaker, economically and militarily.
RichM,
the reason you don’t have any backing (much less over 1 million supporters like Obama) is because you’re lame to hate on hope.
In fact, BeforKids is on point, worth reiterating:
“Obama is offering a new way, of hope instead of fear, discourse instead of assault. And Clinton is reminding us to be afraid. And people are splitting into trying a new way or retreating into a fearful defensive way. It’s not really about who is more progressive or who voted for what, it is much more visceral than that. And arguing with visceral reactions is a complete waste of time. I couldn’t figure out why the Clinton supporters didn’t seem to be listening but now I understand. People aren’t listening to each other. This has nothing to do with reason, just feelings. On both sides. Some people want to open doors, others want to lock them.”
And unionguy is also on point about how this kind of cynicism translates in elections into losing: “Developing an electoral strategy does not mean being uncritical. But it does mean that the peace movement MUST stop setting up ridiculous, unrealistic standards for people, candidates and the movement.”
Take some advice from that great 20th century philosopher Mick Jagger who once said “You cant always get what you want, But if you try sometimes well you just might find, You get what you need”.
Oh, NOW Hillary Republican Clinton is trying to change her tune. Sorry, too late. She STILL supports funding of the occupation in Iraq where innocent people are still being killed by the occupation army. Like all Bush supporters, she pretends she was misled regarding the facts previous to the invasion. Poor Hillary, the “victim.”
She supports and praises the other Mad Dog of War John McCain, and she supports the weapons industry. She’s a whiner, and she has a bad temper just like John Insane …. er, McCain does.
A couple of points above are: 1) people aren’t listening to each other and 2) this has nothing to do with reason, just feelings.
Answers:
1. Yes.
2. No.
Yes, people aren’t listening when they write, “Obama has always opposed the war.” How many times do we have to say it here: Obama voted to fund the wars. That means he supported the wars. Please get this through your heads, and remember that the body count now is about one million dead Iraqis, 4,000 dead U.S. GIs and 29,314 U.S. casualites.
Obama voted to fund a massive slaughter (Hillary, too). Put on a happy face, feel good about yourselves and vote for the warmonger of your choice. Or don’t. That’s the choice.
No, this is not about emotions. It’s about looking at the candidates voting records and (to a less extent) campaign promises and making a decision based on those things. Both Obama and Hillary supported the wars and promise to continue them. They both have voting records favoring NAFTA-GATT trade deals that have caused the loss of so many jobs here and even in Mexico and Canada. They both have taken nearly equal massive corporate campaign dollars, with Obama slightly edging out Clinton. The reason it’s hard to choose between them (if one were to do that) is that their voting records and policy statements are so similar. They both turned a blind eye and supported Israel as it rolled tanks into the Gaza strip.
Please folks. Want to feel good? Get involved in a charity or something. But never deceive yourselves in an election, which is a poll. Vote your interests. If the system is rigged to exclude those who represent your views, why would you vote for the enablers who set those rules that exclude such representation? Do you really think things will change that way? People argue this every election year and vote lesser evil, and it’s not changed a thing. In fact, the Democratic Party has become a shell of itself, and a mirror reflection of the Republicans, sipping from the same corporate campaign dollars trough.
Sorry to spoil your hope, but even Las Vegas gamblers check the odds before putting their hopes into the game. Why do you refuse to acknowledge these candidates’ records? Am I being unrealistic in suggesting that checking the record is the best way to decide? Remember, Bill Clinton was the candidate of “real change” and hope once too, and what a disaster his policies were, bringing in NAFTA, ending welfare, bombing Yugoslavia and the Sudan.
Thoughts_Into_Action Oh really? Is that why almost half the country voted for George W Bush - twice? Is that why his approval ratings were reported to be 90% after 9/11? Personally I thought the country had gone berserk - and really, it had. If people were voting their interests, Reagan would have had one term in office. People are not informed, they don’t pay attention, I saw that when Reagan was the governor of California. And after what he had done to the state and got reelected, I thought My god, he could get elected President. The he turned around and did to the whole country what he did to California with no one noticing he had Alzheimers’ and if we didn’t have term limits he would have been elected again even though by then he was incoherent.
Incomes have been essentially flat since 1975 and people are only in the last two years noticing that. For many years, I’ve been wondering how bad does it have to get for people to notice? Well, we’re finding out. Pretty bad. Since 1975 they’ve been working overtime, doubling up on jobs, maxing out home equity, maxing out credit cards, and now there are no more options, so now at last they’re paying attention.
kathyodat
1. Obama has always opposed the war. It’s ridiculous and disingenuine to suggest otherwise. I’m disappointed with Democrats for not doing more to begin a phased withdrawal or draw attention to that need since they took power, but the reality is that Obama has to work within the math. It’s called parliamentary democracy. That doesn’t change the fact that he opposed the war in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and now in 2008.
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/03/08/fact_check_on_new_york_times_s_1.php
2. Withdrawal hasn’t occurred because of the Republicans in the Senate and Bush’s veto power. Once the 2002 Iraq War vote was cast, every subsequent Senate vote has been and will continue to be a vote to get the army out of Iraq that 67 people or 60 people + the president can agree on. The best thing we can do is elect a President who had the foresight to oppose this war from the beginning, and that would be Barack Obama.
3. As for Palestine-Israel, here’s a more balanced perspective than the one given above.
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6619.shtml
4. I agree that we should be disappointed with Obama on Palestine, but he’s still better than McCain or Hillary by monumental lengths (not the least of which is his judgment in opposing the Iraq War from the beginning, supporting democracy in Afghanistan and Pakistan, realistically supporting American alternative energy, focus in his healthcare plan on tackling the costs of healthcare instead of relying on health insurance companies to make it more affordable (didn’t happen in Massachusetts), and fighting for ethics reform in Illinois and Washington, D.C.).
Nader is not really worth voting for because the last two elections he has engaged in undermining the overdelayed building of the Green Party in places where it could win locally. And lets face it, the Green Party needs to win a gubernatorial or senate race before it will win a presidential race. At least Obama has supported IRV.
http://fairvote.org/?page=1755
“Progressive Strategy in 2004 and Beyond”
by Patrick Barrett
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=6020
1. Sorry dougwagner, you are incorrect on Barack never voting for war funding. He voted for supplemental war funding when a troop withdrawal timeline was also imposed (but the legislation, HR 1591 was vetoed by Bush). To his credit, he didn’t vote on some other war funding bills, or he voted no. I think somewhere buried in all of those legislative summaries he voted $50 billion or so, which wasn’t supplemental war funding, if I grasped it right. Here is a list compiled by the Washington Post: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/key-votes/. The list seems to echo that of Project Vote Smart.
Matt Gonzalez, Nader’s running mate, claims this: “Since taking office in January 2005 he [Obama] has voted to approve every war appropriation the Republicans have put forward, totaling over $300 billion.” Unfortunately, Gonzalez doesn’t footnote that statement. Here is the article: http://quartz.he.net/~beyondch/news/index.php?itemid=5413.
One big problem is Obama’s time line for withdrawal. It is way too long. Yes, there is civil war in Iraq, but there will also be a civil war there regardless of how fast the United States withdraws its forces. This is really a bogus way of appeasing the defense industry, which can be assured of years of no-bid contracts during an Obama regime, which will wait for the “right time” to withdraw. It’s also why Obama carefully phrased his objection to giving Bush illegal war powers to attack Iraq, saying, “I’m not opposed to all wars” (which he mentioned about three times or so). Not much of an antiwar speech, I think.
We really need to hear the words “immediate withdrawal” from the Democratic frontrunners. When they talk about Iraq, they kind of sound like Nixon with his secret plan to end the Vietnam war and the whole “peace with honor” crap.
4. Remember, Obama wants to bomb Pakistan, which is what Bush is doing now. Please.
Possibly you could say Nader isn’t building the Green Party. He isn’t a Green after all. He says the right things and is dead-on in his positions. He was also excluded by the Democratic-Republican-controlled Elections Commission from participating in a debate, which would have built the Green Party. He drew crowds who paid to hear him while on tour as the Green Party Presidential candidate. The Green Party even paid to count the votes after the 2004 election, I believe. So much for Green-Dem coalitions.
Your last link on strategy is fine as far as a think-piece goes, but it isn’t really practical, because you can’t get IRV (instant runoff voting), which the Greens of course advocated, from a Democratic Party that doesn’t want it. The Dem Party didn’t want any third-party candidate in the debates. The Democratic Party is the DLC party - a corporate shill. And that’s why you will never reform it by voting Democratic. The Democratic Party gets its money from corporations, so addressing the people’s issues is seen as just necessary PR while they carry out corporate policies, and wars. And the Democratic frontrunners clearly have ugly policies - they just don’t whoop it up like McCain. And please, don’t bother with health plans supported by the insurance companies. It’s not healthcare policy. Single payer is healthcare policy that works and is cheaper to administer, but no Dem frontrunner is advocating that.
The Occam’s Razor approach is simple: Vote for those that represent you. There is no “strategic voting” approach to be adopted in this election. The candidates’ positions are much too much the same on the most important issues. And the party in power will continue to disempower third parties, by whatever means.
1.Ralph Nader was not the Green Party candidate in 2004. David Cobb was.
Ralph Nader has never shared personal donee lists to his presidential campaigns with the Green Party that would help build it. This year, he will also not be running as a Green. Crowds he draws are not necessarily Greens or even necessarily progressive, remember in 2004 he got the endorsement of the Pat Buchanan Reform Party, not the Green Party.
2. Barack Obama has adovcated Single Payer. That is why he is advocating costs instead of more enrollment in health insurance companies.
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/21/fact_check_obama_consistent_in.php
3. The byzantine process of passing legislation in Washington,D.C., while hard to understand, is too often used as a green light to push misleading and disingenuine portrayals of candidates. Barack Obama has opposed the Iraq War every year since 2002. He was one of the first to advocate within the Democratic Party for phased withdrawal and has helped bring both Democrats and Republicans in the Senate around to that view.
I stand by the truth that “withdrawal hasn’t occurred because of the Republicans in the Senate and Bush’s veto power. Once the 2002 Iraq War vote was cast, every subsequent Senate vote has been and will continue to be a vote to get the army out of Iraq that 67 people or 60 people + the president can agree on. The best thing we can do is elect a President who had the foresight to oppose this war from the beginning, and that would be Barack Obama.”
Voting for funding troops so that they are safer is not the same thing as authorizing the war which is the reason they need more body armor. The Generals are not going to provide more body armor or send the troops on less dangerous missions if Congress does or does not send over more body armor.
The legal reality is that once the Congress authorizes a war using the War Powers Act (Hillary’s 2002 Vote) the President as Commander in Chief can only be constitutionally over-ruled by a 67 Senator super-majority.
4. As for supporting democracy in Afghanistan and Pakistan I think you should consider whether or not it makes sense to suggest the Taliban is not an antidemocratic destabilizing force on political stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
If you want to withdraw from Afghanistan and leave it to the Pakistani Generals and the Afghan Drug Lords vote for McCain. That’s what he’s advocating: The Suharto Solution that the CIA pushed in Indonesia and in Mobutu’s Congo.
Here’s some names to look up.
Patrice Lumumba
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrice_Lumumba
Soekarno
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soekarno
The fact is that the Taliban harbored Al Qaeda with the support of elements of the Pakistani intelligence community. The war has not been perfectly conducted in Afghanistan, but if we put as much focus into finding a solution in Afghanistan and Pakistan that restores rule of law and democratic institutions that Pakistanis are familiar with while helping rebuild a post-Taliban Afghanistan a nuclear power like Pakistan will be better off in the long run with our support for those institutions than they would be if we supported the Pakistani Army, Muslim League Party-Q solution that Musharraf was pushing, and that the Pakistani people rejected in the last elections. In fact, the original Muslim League did significantly better than Musharraf’s version of it.
2008 Parliamentary Elections in Pakistan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistani_general_election,_2008#Results
“McCain Outspoken in Defense of Musharraf”
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/12/28/mccain_outspoken_in_defense_of.html
“Killing Ourselves in Afghanistan”
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/03/10/taliban/
“Pakistan’s Next Red Mosque Problem?”
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1650518,00.html
“Al Qaeda Ops Show Leadership in Control”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-07-13-910579931_x.htm
5. What Sen. Barack Obama has said on supporting Democracy in Afghanistan and Pakistan
“When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world’s most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland…
…I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.
And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism. As the Pakistani government increases investment in secular education to counter radical madrasas, my Administration will increase America’s commitment. We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists’ program of hate is met with one of hope. And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair – our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally.”
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=events.event&event_id=269510
6. Rule of Law in Pakistan
“U.S. Embrace of Musharraf Irks Pakistanis”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/29/world/asia/29pstan.html
“Pakistan Rivals Join to Fight Musharraf”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/world/asia/10pstan.html
“The United States is a democratic government, and democratic governments should work for democratic values across the globe. Pakistan is no exception.”- Pakistan Supreme Court Justice Rana Bhagwandas
www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/world/asia/06pakistan.html
“On the Road with Pakistan’s New Hero”
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1628168,00.html