Matthew Yglesias (February 11, 2007)

Hillary is a war-mongerer.

Posted by John Carry | February 11, 2007 10:46 AM

I dunno, Matt.

Does Hillary have a fair case to make that the 3/3 statement reflected her views, and that her statement of support for the troops on the very eve of the invasion was appropriate?

Plus, even though smarter people knew on the basis of publicly available information at the time that the intel had been skewed, it wasn't clear till summer 03 just how bad it had been.

I, too, supported the war, so adjust any estimates of my credibility accordingly.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | February 11, 2007 10:51 AM

Dude, we were always at war with Oceania, and HRC was always against the war. And they're going to keep saying it until you remember it that way.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 11, 2007 10:57 AM

Hillary's statement that you just cited has a lot of conditionals.

"the world hopes that Saddam Hussein will finally hear this ultimatum, understand the severity of those words, and act accordingly"

"all of us to come together in support of our troops and pray that, if war does occur"

If you want to parse it legalistically, she wasn't exactly calling for war. But that's, as you say, pretty much an insult to our intelligence. We were there.

Ezra Klein had an argument about this - in 2003, it was clear that Bush was going to go to war. You had the choice to either oppose this, or not. While Hillary hedged her support (as did, say, Matt and Josh Marshall and myself), she did not oppose the war. When the president is going to war, and it's wrong, opposing the war requires actually opposing the war.

I think that where I'm coming from on this is probably similar to Matt's and Elvis' perspectives, though they can speak for themselves. I remembering saying things like, "well, Bush really ought to get the security council to sign off" and "they need to have a five-year plan, at least, for nation-building at reconstruction." That did not make me a war opponent. Those were the things I said to actual war opponents to try to find common ground. I think it'd be crazy to call myself a war opponent, as much as I wish that I could.

Posted by DivGuy | February 11, 2007 11:01 AM

Elvis -

Oops, sorry, managed to completely misconstrue your point. It turns out that you and I actually have different perspectives.

You know, whichever.

Posted by DivGuy | February 11, 2007 11:05 AM

as a war opponent from the start who nonetheless appreciates the value of nuance and the difficulty of saying complicated things when our media is so easily manipulated by the right-wing smear machine, what i want clinton to say is "i made a mistake and i have learned from it in these ways."

Posted by howard | February 11, 2007 11:06 AM

She's going to use the same methods that were used to sell the Iraq war to sell herself. If she gets enough of the channels of information saying that hers was the serious position on Iraq, and that she was lied to by the President, and didn't really support the war, only the troops--and the media will be only too happy to say it, as that's the defense it's going to use too--then it will become conventional wisdom.

And, hey, then we can nuke Iran in her first term to lay to rest the nasty canard that women won't fight.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 11, 2007 11:15 AM

HRC has carefully crafted her public statements vis-a-vis terrorism and just war, from 9/11, October 2002, and thereafter. We expect politicians to prevaricate on matters of public policy (an essential quality of politicians), but on this particular subject (probably over half a million human deaths as a result of her decision), we "should" demand conviction, an ability to think carefully and make the difficult and "right" decision. She did not do this in October 2002, and it is tragic. At a time when we needed her leadership, she did not stand up; instead, she behaved in a generic, predictable fashion. Our discussion on this subject demonstrates THE essential Hillary Negative: she lacks the "integrity chip" in her noggin. She's the constant candidate rather than a real leader. Not necessarily a bad thing if you want a Democrat to win -- but at this point, we voters are in a position to nominate a candidate we can really trust and like. "By her flacks, ye shall know her..."

Posted by DC | February 11, 2007 11:29 AM

Why interpret Hillary's statement of March 17, 2007, 3 days before the invasion, as something other than a last, desperate attempt at sabre rattling, which is a famous way to AVOID conflict?

I mean, isn't there some evidence that Saddam tried to comply with pre-invasion ultimata? Which might suggest that the sabre rattling might have actually been getting the job done.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/02/saddam.exile/

Thursday, November 3, 2005 Posted: 0621 GMT (1421 HKT)

Saddam Hussein had agreed in principle to leave Iraq days before the U.S.-led invasion, a UAE official says.

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (CNN) -- Days before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, Saddam Hussein agreed in principle to accept an offer of exile from the United Arab Emirates, but the deal fell through, a UAE government senior official told CNN.

Posted by dave | February 11, 2007 11:56 AM

Perhaps a mistake that Congress made prior to the Iraq invasion was letting sabre-rattling power slip from its own hands.

Posted by dave | February 11, 2007 12:05 PM

Tell you what Matt, why don't stop insulting our intelligence and twisting what is plainly a statement in support of our troops into support for Bush's war?

Posted by tib | February 11, 2007 12:18 PM

While I tend to agree with your general point re Clinton, Matt, I don't think the statement you quoted is particularly damning. What do you expect a mainstream politician to say on the eve of war?

As for being for or against the war, heck, Germany, or rather the Schroeder government, was for the war. There's a clause in the constitution that there shall never again originate a war of aggression from German soil and that any action facilitating such a war is unconstitutional, yet Ramstein airbase and Eucom in Stuttgart were central pillars of the Iraq war, overflight rights were granted without discussion and the question of constitutionality was never raised.

Posted by novakant | February 11, 2007 12:21 PM

What do you expect a mainstream politician to say on the eve of war?

"Have you lost your mind?"

Posted by Ed Marshall | February 11, 2007 1:09 PM

I went over to Politico and read the article Matt is referring to and the comments that follow it. To my surprise all of the commennts are on the same theme: that HRC isn't credible, that she is too slick, to manufactured, to much an obvious say-anything politician.

I'm a life-long Democrat of the boomer generation, the type of Democrat who is supposed to be hardwired to support her as the default choice of the party and yet I am in the anyone-but-her camp.

Here's why: she's old school. She is throughly entrenched in the political conventions of the early nineties. She has a tin ear for currrent national politics. She never does say anything without letting fifteen consultants go over it first and the consultants she uses are as out of touch and old school as she is. An example of this is her decison to use "We can win" (or words to that effect) as her theme. Edwards is running as a populist, Obama is runnng as a healer and reformer which includes populism and HRC is running on empty--nothing but we (meaning SHE) can win. It's the old school style of making a carefully callibrated list of inoffensive policies that are calculated to appeal to the "middle" which is misunderstood as being farther to the right than the middle actually is.

That's why people keep coming at her over Iraq. Her consultants told her to never admit a mistake. So she won't. The old school consultants think that the admission of error on a national security issue will make her look weak. In fact it makes her look insincere and that is fatal in the current political environment.

Posted by wonkie | February 11, 2007 1:11 PM

Please stop saying preemptive war. No one, not even Cheney, said or believed that Hussein was about to attack the US or US interests.
Iraq is a preventive war and the difference between the two animals is quite important.
In international law a preventive war is as forbidden/illegal as a war of aggression; indeed the two are treated as indistinguishable.
The illegality of our preventive war was widely discussed before the invasion. You know, the lack of UN authorization, all of that.
For this reason anyone in power who voted for our preventive war is by definition guilty of a war crime. Yeah, even HC.

Posted by tiptap | February 11, 2007 1:21 PM

It's like she's never heard not to pull that thang out unless you plan to bang.

Posted by dj moonbat | February 11, 2007 3:35 PM

MARCH 2003: HILLARY URGES 'PEACEFUL SOLUTION,' PUSHES BUSH TO 'ENLIST MORE SUPPORT' FROM ALLIES: "'It is preferable that we do this in a peaceful manner through coercive inspection'...[T]he senator said the Bush administration still had work to do at convincing the American public and the rest of the world that Hussein presented a real threat that might require military action. 'The administration should continue to try to enlist more support,' she added." [AP, 3/3/03]

The senator did not say if Bush administration still had work to do at convincing her. Instead, the senator chose to repeat a talking point that while coordinated with other Washington Democrats, was too clever by half.

Posted by piotr | February 11, 2007 5:36 PM

Incidentally, saying that we needed to allow the inspectors to work and enlist more allies was basically what Bush himself was saying before the war. Even in Feb and March 2003 Bush was saying that he wanted to have a peaceful solution. And on the eve of the war Hillary seemed quite satisfied that Bush had given peace a chance. The statements above do very little to distance herself from the administration position. All they do is emphasize that she wishes the war had turned out differently. But Bush himself can say the same thing.

Posted by Jeremiah J. | February 11, 2007 6:23 PM

bush and cheney can get away with their alternative universe in many quarters, maybe she wants one too.

Posted by supersaurus | February 11, 2007 6:33 PM

Thanks for supporting a war of aggression, Matt. Nice one!

Posted by frizzled | February 11, 2007 6:56 PM

Hilary not only supported the war initially, she *continued* to support the war for years, putting her own short-term Presidential ambitions above the needs of the country. Until recently, she confined her post-invasion criticisms to the "good idea, bad execution" variety.

Posted by MQ | February 11, 2007 7:44 PM

wonkie's comments above, at 1:11, is the single best brief statement I have ever seen anywhere from anyone on why Hilary should not be President.

It's something when a blog comment by an anonymous guy named "wonkie" is so much better than anything you see from professional journalists. But I've gotten used to this in the blogsphere.

Posted by MQ | February 11, 2007 7:46 PM

Actually, I'm a gal,and I comment under my cat's name, but thanks!

Posted by wonkie | February 11, 2007 8:11 PM

And, hey, then we can nuke Iran in her first term to lay to rest the nasty canard that women won't fight.

To paraphrase Stephen Colbert, "women can have balls, I call them Thatchers"

Posted by Just Karl | February 11, 2007 9:06 PM

Question for Hillary: "You say you were misled. But Obama could see through Bush's deception from the start. Why couldn't you?"

Posted by bololio | February 11, 2007 9:35 PM

Actually, I'm a gal,and I comment under my cat's name, but thanks!

A sockpuppet for your cat, eh? Does your cat have a blog?

Posted by bololio | February 11, 2007 9:36 PM

This very point is the reason that Hillary is unfit to be the Dem nominee or next president. No liberal out to be supporting her campaign. Her refusal to be truthful at this late date is beyond shameful.

Posted by JJF | February 11, 2007 10:33 PM

That is: No liberal ought to be supporting her campaign.

Posted by JJF | February 11, 2007 10:34 PM

If you buy what the campaign suggests was Senator Clinton's position's (she supported inspections but not preventive war)her support for the AUMF is even more troubling. That vote was specifically authorizing preventive war as the president deemed appropriate. If Senator Clinton truly only supported coercive inspections there is no way she should have voted for that AUMF. In the senator's statement before the vote, she basically says this resolution will get the UN to act and therefore prevent a war with Iraq. To believe authorizing a war some how makes war less likely is utterly ridiculous. You are ceding the Congress' formal check on the executive branch's war making power. It is less objectionable for the Senator to say she supported the resolution for political reasons. While Senator Clinton's judgement would remain suspect, at least she would not be oppugning her own competence.

Posted by hound | February 12, 2007 12:29 AM

I think it's clear that Hillary wouldn't have done the same thing as Bush, in examining her statements, but that she did for to give him authority and did not object to his using force (if necessary). This undoubtedly was voting for the authority to conduct a preventive war, if necessary. Hillary should be honest about this and just admit she did not ever reach the point where she thought it was necessary, and she was wrong to give ambiguous authority to President Bush that essentially gave the okay to preventive war.

I am confident in these assertions because many of her arguments are identical to those many of us progressives were using, whether or not we supported the war. I did not support the war, indeed I called it a fraud, but once the authority was given and the course was heading down the track the pragmatic thing to do was try to marshall arguments to influence that course (like more coercive inspections, internationalization, etc.). Hillary supported the war, probably as a political hedge. She should own up to it (not the hedge, but the support for the ambiguous authorization).

Posted by Jimm | February 12, 2007 1:32 AM

In other words, it was a big gamble giving Bush that authority and then hoping to influence and constrain him, and Hillary lost. It's not the end of the world...a lot of people fell into that camp and have since openly regretted it and moved on. There's no gotcha game (or shouldn't be) amongst progressives.

Posted by Jimm | February 12, 2007 1:37 AM

Note all her little conditional clauses and subtleties. The problem with Hillary is not that she is a congenital LIAR, it's that she is a congenital LAWYER.

Posted by carl | February 12, 2007 1:16 PM

Oh give me a break. Hillary's statement was primarily about getting the message across that Democrats are capable of supporting our troops; it was not a ringing endorsement of the war. If anything, what she said reflected what I was thinking at the time: there's nothing we can do to stop this madman (and I mean George W., not Saddam), so all we can do is pray that the job is done swiftly and cleanly. Of course, Hillary (like me) had no inkling of how idiotically Bush & Co. were going to go into battle, and how the great military force that she rightfully praised was going to be wasted and abused as the result of this administration's astonishing run of inept decisions.

Posted by Cliff | February 12, 2007 3:55 PM

Is anybody concerned that the war may take a turn for the better and change the consensus on its failings?

I mean, if there is an upturn, for lack of a better phrase, could it shift momentum towards Clinton or McCain?

Posted by eb | February 12, 2007 4:52 PM

I was always a war opponent, but I understood the importance of not opposing the military, and I understood the difficult politics of the time. MY is adopting the right-wing spin on this point - I can only imagine because he's desperate to see Clinton fail. It's not reality-based.

Posted by rilkefan | February 12, 2007 4:58 PM

Matt, I'm a little late to this forum, but there is one more critical piece of evidence supporting the proposition that Hillary continued to support the invasion or Iraq all the way through its launch on March 20, 2003. The point hardly needs further support than what you've provided, but since Hillary's supporters are in denial and are now claiming that her March 17 statement of support for Bush's ultimatum was made reluctantly and only to support the troops in the wake of Bush's fait accompli, it truly is a critical piece of evidence. It shows that Hillary is being deeply dishonest.

In particular, in a March 6, 2003 meeting with an anti-war group called "Code Pink," Hillary, not only (a) refused to accept the group's request that she speak out against the impending war, but (b) clearly stated that she supported an imminent invasion of Iraq, regardless of whether the UN Security Council would specifically authorize the invasion, because in her view Saddam was not being sufficiently forthright with the weapons inspectors.

Here's what she said in response to a group member's request that Hillary state she was against putting our troops in harm's way to support the impending "preventive" war:

Hillary Clinton: "There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm’s way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I have followed for more than a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming... And the very difficult question for all of us is how does one bring about the disarmament of someone with such a proven track record of a commitment if not an obsession with weapons of mass destruction. And I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn’t believe should be in any way a part this decision. And it is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution. That is not my preference, it would be far preferable if we not only had legitimate cooperation from Saddam Hussein and a willingness on his part to disarm and to account for his chemical and biological storehouses, but that if we had a much broader alliance and coalition."

[Note her locution, "that is not my preference." She is NOT saying that her preference would be to be more patient and allow inspections to continue and a second UN vote to proceed (the German/French position), but that her preference was for Saddam to show "legitimate" cooperation with inspectors and prove that he had disarmed. That was precisely the Bush administration position. By saying earlier in her remarks that she had no "absolutely no belief that he (Saddam) would disarm," it is abundantly clear that she was not "prefer[ring]" the course recommended by our European allies, i.e., that of holding off on an invasion for a substantial period of time and allowing the inspectors more time to try to do their work.].

Back to Hillary on March 6, 2003: "But we are in a very difficult position right now. And I would love to agree with you but I can't based on my own understanding and assessment of the situation."

Q [from audience member]. "It is not the United States' responsibility to disarm Saddam Hussein; it is up to the community of nations...."

A. [Hillary]: "With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein; I just do not believe that given the attitudes of many people in the world community today that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems were it not for the United States leadership.

And I’m talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo, where my husband could not get a Security Council Resolution to save the the Kosavar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. And we did it alone as the United States. And we had to do it alone…It would have been far preferable if the Russians and others had agreed to do it with the United Nations. They did not. I am willing to take a very difficult step for me to say we have to disarm this man…"

[So, she is again clear in embracing the Bush position, rather than that of our European allies: namely, that while it would be nice if more countries could be marshaled to obtain a second security council resolution, Hillary was willing to invade Iraq unilaterally in the name of the United States alone.]

Unfortunately, the YouTube video that has these statements is very long and has a tedious and lengthy opening chant from "Code Pink," but if you go to 6:33 to 9:46 on the counter, you can find these statements. This link should get you to the video: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=hillary+clinton+march+2003+iraq&search=Search

(The owner of the video advised me by email 2 hours ago that she would soon post a shorter version focusing on Hillary's comments, but it's still not up there).

By the way, Hillary does not seem to realize the event is being recorded, which is why I think her position comes out so much more clearly.

Hillary right now is trying to tell the Big Lie, and she is forgetting that in an age of YouTube and transcripts and the like, Orwellian "Oceania was always at war with Eastasia" statements can more easily be exposed as lies.

Matt, you are understating the importance of this, because it goes to her basic honesty and trustworthiness.

Posted by leon russell | February 12, 2007 6:48 PM

Eb, I've wondered the same thing. What if this increased effort over there "works" (quotes because the Constitutional Convention isn't going to turn up in Baghdad in the next thirteen months, but it's not impossible to imagine things getting somewhat better)?

That kind of hedge serves two purposes. First it's a plus if things do turn around. Second, it helps insulate her from the charge that already is starting to get some traction, namely that some liberals actually want the war to fail at this point (Morally reprehensible, yes. Politically smart, yes. Probably true, yes).

So I agree with the general tenor of the argument that she has no spine. She doesn't. It actually could end up helping her in a general election.

Posted by El Guapo | February 13, 2007 1:29 AM

I agree, her war posturing has zero credibility. The advice she's getting now, to engage in an Orwellian disavowal of her past positions--positions she took freely and are not covered by the asskissing rationales of other commenters on this thread--will prove to be a mistake. She owns her support for the war. So own it. Favor the war. Root for victory. Maybe her lucky penny will turn up, the surge will work and she can join McCain et. al. in claiming a share of the victory.

Ultimately, given the state of the world, this period of recrimination and second-guessing will fade, I predict. History's judgement of Bush and this country will be less harsh than today's. We made huge mistakes tactically, but the strategy is the inevitable strategy for survival during this period of jihad. Edwards and Obama will come to seem callow and disengaged from reality. There is no reason for Hilary to join them on that limb.

Posted by John S. | February 13, 2007 1:51 AM

Hillary is making the same stupid mistake as John Kerry in 2004.

Posted by Hesiod | February 13, 2007 9:15 AM

Hillary's problem is that she is a big ball of ruthless ambition without principle. If she thought that support for nuking Bagdhad woould get her elected, she'd hop into the cockpit of the Enola Gay and do it herself. Let the converrsation continue!

Posted by Jim O'Sullivan | February 13, 2007 10:41 AM

I have little to add to the discussion... the HRC (I learned a new acronym today!) quotes, with or without context, pretty clearly establish her pre-war position. If I cared about her supporters trying to spin it better for her, I'd feel bad for them, but I don't, so I don't.

Side note: As a "troop" that's been over there three times so far, I just really wish that "we support the troops, not the war" would drop from the lexicon... it means nothing, and I certainly don't FEEL supported by hearing it. Using it in debate or to justify a position is, IMHO, disengenuous and a non-rational, logical fallacy of appealing to emotion. If somebody can explain how this "support" is going to help me accomplish my mission, I'd be happy to enterain the concept. I haven't heard it yet (in fact, I can, in another forum, speak at length how this phrase and attitude directly contribute to making my job more difficult and reducing the probability of success, a fact that I would have hoped (forlornly) is painfully obvious to the most casual of observer). Okay, 'side' turned into 'main.' I just see that phrase dropped casually into people's positions and gets my hackles up. Carry on.

Posted by Snark | February 13, 2007 10:56 AM

| Of course, Hillary (like me) had no inkling of how
| idiotically Bush & Co. were going to go into
| battle, and how the great military force that she
| rightfully praised was going to be wasted and
| abused as the result of this administration's
| astonishing run of inept decisions.

On the other hand, Obama (like me) saw through the lies of Bush & Co and knew exactly how inept they were going to be. So who would you rather have as your candidate?

Posted by pv | February 13, 2007 2:33 PM

It's difficult to know exactly what history will say about Bush.

I can tell you that a surge into Baghdad is pointless. We are fighting insurgents. To beat them you need a 10-1 advantage. That means 20,000 more troops only counter about 2,000 men. Even assuming that 20,000 is enough to stabilize Baghdad you've got a huge problem.

They can leave Baghdad. Some of them won't make it through checkpoints, but others will sneak through with the active aid of the Iraqi government. Even without aid the militias have enough control to force other iraqis to look the other way while they slip out. "Hi Coolnel. Abdullah, this is your mother. With a machete at her throat. Your battallion will 'forget' to man checkpoint Alpha between 3:00 and 3:15 every day for a week. Or she'll scream like Nick Lampson did. You will blame the oversight on the incorruptible, and itotally pro-government Capt. Badr."

So the enemy'll flee to the country, our temperary surge will leave, and they'll waltz right back into Baghdad. The whole process could take years, even decades. The VC started fighting the Japanese and didn't stop until '75.

We have two viable policy options. One is to admit defeat, the other is the McCain option. The McCain option is almost impossible, BTW. The US Army has not won a guerilla conflict since the 1870s. The Marines have, but the last one was in the 30s. So you'd basically have to create a new branch of the military, very quickly. And it would have to be at least the size of the other branches to have any hope of success.

Posted by Nick B II | February 13, 2007 4:20 PM

In 2003 it was clear that Bush was going to war in Iraq and he had the votes to get the authorization he needed. The intelligence, or at least what the Senate was allowed to see, looked bad - all sorts of WMDs and potential nukes. The US was frantically trying to drum up world support against Saddam. What was HRC to do? If she stood up and said no, I oppose a preemptive stike, she would be on the losing side of the Senate vote and thus out of the debate, she would be voting against the wishes of her constituency (remember most of the country supported Bush at the time), she would be devisive at a time when the country needed to hang together. I strongly opposed the war but I understand why she voted as she did.

Posted by KJM | February 13, 2007 5:11 PM

Even if HRC's motives with her votes are transparently mercenary, even if her refusal to acknowledge her mistakes is positively Bushian, is anybody out there suggesting she wouldn't be an infinitely preferable leader to anyone the Thug Party puts up? That there's a chance she has a more realistic notion than any other eligible presidential candidate what kind of soul-crushing compromises it takes to win the top job – without which you don't accomplish jack? Look, I like the idea of Obama or Gore better myself, but if HRC cautiously and cynically triangulates herself all the way to the toppermost of the poppermost, we should all kiss her big white butt with a smile.

Posted by beejeez | February 13, 2007 7:20 PM

I admire, KJM and beejeez (and probably others higher up the chain), your ready acceptance of compromising principles to maintain power. Of course, by 'admire' I mean 'am disgusted by.' It wouldn't be quite so offensive, I suppose, if we were only talking about whether a city council decides on a new stop sign or not. "Thug" party, beejeez? This in the same paragraph as "transparently mercenary?" Tsk, tsk.

I guess what I'm supposed to take away from this is that realpolitik is alive and well... KJM would have anybody voting whatever is popular at the moment (wouldn't want to end up on the losing side of a senate vote... even if it tastes bad to do it). And beejeez would have us make "soul crushing" compromises instead of taking a stand for what is believed. Ah, it's good to see that the Republicans don't control congress anymore... should issue in a new era of civility, honor and togetherness. I'm ready to go back to Iraq now... their democracy has the excuse of only being a few years old.

Posted by Snark | February 13, 2007 8:24 PM

At what point, Snark, would you have Clinton, or any other politician telling constituents, "OK, you voted for me and I promised to represent all of the people in this district to the best of my ability BUT now I'm here and only my opinion matters." Democracy is about compromise, which is not necessarily a bad thing. Also, clearly her constituents did not want her to say no to Bush in 2003. I would wish that the Democrats had gotten together and persuaded their districts that no would have been the better vote but that didn't happen. The American people supported Bush's invasion. I wish I had protested louder and more publically. I did a little but I could have done much more. This was a compromise on my part - I had other things going on in my life and I was busy. So I am just as guilty as Clinton.

Posted by kjm | February 14, 2007 11:27 AM

"And, hey, then we can nuke Iran in her first term to lay to rest the nasty canard that women won't fight"

Whoah.

Really?

Don't tease me.

Posted by Knemon | February 14, 2007 12:02 PM

"It's the old school style of making a carefully callibrated list of inoffensive policies that are calculated to appeal to the "middle" which is misunderstood as being farther to the right than the middle actually is."

Also known as: the only way Democrats have won the presidency since the release of "Never Mind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols.

Posted by Knemon | February 14, 2007 12:03 PM

"The VC started fighting the Japanese and didn't stop until '75."

This is pretty close to false - the VC were much less of a factor by the end of the war, and the North Vietnamese Army did the actual winning of the war.

Posted by Knemon | February 14, 2007 12:05 PM

KJM, I can think of no instance where a representative should vote against their conscience. Certainly there can be compromise, but that isn't (necessarily) the same thing as voting against conscience.

And the mechanism for the populace expressing their displeasure with decisions made is the election, not the opinion poll. Not to be to patronizing (not to you, but to the whole of the electorate), but you wouldn't make decisions for your children as you are suggesting politicians should for their constituents (I hope).

That you admit your guilt places you, IMHO, way ahead of HRC. I disagree with your stance, but it sounds unchanged. She clearly and articulatly expressed her support not just acceptance of the President's actions. Now she wants that to have not happened. Dishonest. Is THAT what her constituents want (apparently, given her reelection)? A reprsentative that will change position based on popularity? Is that leadership? New York is welcome to it, but I'd rather not have the nation 'led' that way (again).

On another note: I find the entire mechanism of politicians trying to convince their people what they should feel (i.e. press releases, etc.) is contrary to how the system should work. The only information flowing OUT of Washington should be voting track records. Thw way we do it results in a feedback loop that has politicians justifying their actions based on opinion polls that are driven by their own stated position. But it is what it is. Sigh.

Posted by Snark | February 14, 2007 12:23 PM

The Senate, and HRC, never actually voted for war. Bush was rattling his saber at Iraq, trying to force Iraq to fully comply with UN sanctions. When Congress, in October 2002, voted on the authorization to grant Bush the authority to use any means necessary (including armed forces) against Iraq to defend the national security of the U.S. against Iraq and enforce all relevant UN Security Council Resolutions against Iraq, most of us thought he would stop at threats.
I had lived in Texas, had met Dubya a couple of times and was very familiar with his history as a businessman and as a governor. He was always big on bluster but he could be reined in. Our misfortune was that instead of reining him in, powerful people in Washington were pushing him forward. So we had a preemptive invasion, never a declared war. I did not see it coming and I doubt that many in the Senate who voted for the use of force did either. Events just seemed to escalate between October and February.
This is something to bear in mind when we talk about a vote of conscience - Senators who voted for this authorization were voting to give the U.S. a strong hand in urging the Security Council to act. Also no one knew how skewed the intelligence being offered for review was. Anytime the legislature tried to get more intelligence, or wanted to question the intelligence, they were blocked by the White House.
The big thing that I don't understand is why there is no call for the impeachment of the president. An illegal invasion based on what he had to have known (or should have known - he's not the sharpest tool in the shed) to be false charges is certainly worse than a mere sex scandal.

Posted by kjm | February 14, 2007 2:32 PM

And, Snark, we are adults, not children for whom decisions must be made. I expect my Senator or Congressman to be responsive to me. They don't have to agree with everything I say (and I do write to them on a fairly regular basis to tell them my views) but at least they had better have a logical explanation as to why they voted the way they did.

They are my representatives in the government, not my parents.

Posted by kjm | February 14, 2007 3:08 PM

Okay, I've heard this song before, and I've seen this dance already... I rather doubt anybody wants to suffer through it all again. That, however, will not stop me from forging ahead ;)

I'll grant HRC and the rest that they "didn't vote for war" if you'll grant that they are idiots that do not deserve to be dog catchers, let alone Senators and Representatives. Are we to take, then, HRCs previously mentioned articulate analysis of why unilateral, non-UN-sanctioned force to remove Saddam Hussein was just so much B.S. on her part? The classic: was she lying then, or lying now dilemma. Her position on this is untenable (from a logical standpoint... politically, the field is wide open).

As for the intelligence... why is it that no reports support your position. Lots of Kos and DU-type places do... but actual evidence of this seems oddly lacking (especially considering how porous our secret-to-newspaper barrier is). I'm sure if it's repeated often enough, it will magically become true.

Impeachment, as I recall from Bush's predecessors foray into that realm, requires evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors (perhaps it's 'or'... doesn't matter). The invasion wasn't illegal, while lying under oath is. Why people insist on CALLING it illegal is something that they should probably see a therapist about, as there is no factual basis for that claim (as I suspect young Lieutenant Watada will eventually learn in his next trial). I hear "illegal" but I never see what laws are broken.

The phrases "illegal war," and "didn't think he'd actually USE the powers authorized by congress," are pretty weak (IMHO) justifications for the original thread: Hillary is in a pickle for supporting the war before she didn't support the war. Calling Bush "not the sharpest tool in the shed" fall a little flat when stacked up against the required idiocy for all but one or two Senators to be so frickin' dumb (in the KJM-scenario).

This has all been said before. Present evidence or drop the "illegal war" meme (or at least don't expect it to be accepted at face value).

Posted by MDC | February 14, 2007 3:15 PM

Oops... forgot what thread I was on... I'm MDC, too (identity crisis!!)

I agree, KJM, that the parent/representative analogy was weak. The issue I have is not with elected representatives listening to the desires of their constituents. But by the same token, they have a moral obligation to do what they feel is best for their consituents which may not be the same thing as what a constituent tells them they want. There is, of course, an implicit quid pro quo to the whole thing: if you don't vote the way your people want you to, they won't re-elect you. But that's the beauty of a multi-year election cycle: it allows politicians to live a little less in the moment than their constituents might be venting... and short-term dissapointment can turn into long-term gain.

The extreme of this was demonstrated in the microcosm of the Duke University lacrosse travesty of justice: seeking re-election, (it would appear) the DA rode what he perceived as the short-term popular desire for a conviction, acting in a way that (we would hope) violated his conscience to garner short-term support. His constituents would have been better served had he done the right thing up front, accepting that it would be unpopular with some and BEEN WILLING TO PAY THE PRICE. He did the people of that area no favor by doing what they wanted (or he perceived they wanted) him to do. Instead he gets to be used as an example like this, the people that wanted a hanging regardless of justice appear (to me) as racist fools, and justice was miscarried (likely to the detriment of the next girl to get raped in that area.

Bottom line: I believe that politicans are obliged to do the best that they can for their constituents. Being able to look beyond the immediate is what identifies somebody as being a capable politician. Self-interest is built into the system, I understand that... people are going to vote for the guys that bring them the most money home. But if it's a matter of conscience, there is no excuse for twisting in the wind. If your moral stance doesn't align with your contituents, they won't re-elect you (and justly so, for you don't represent their interests). That does NOT equal "vote for whatever the opinion polls say they people want."

Posted by Snark | February 14, 2007 3:32 PM

International law is a murky area and one I'm not overly familiar with. We are a (founding) member of the UN, whose charter forbids agressive acts against another state unless sanctioned by the Security Council. We have deliberately violated the provisions of the Geneva Convention.

Also our Constitution specifically gives Congress the right (and obligation) to declare war, not the president.

And apparently Lieutenant Watada won't get to be heard on the issue of illegality of the war since the judge declared a mistrial over defense objections. The witnesses for the defense, and there were some impressive witnesses lined up, were never given the opportunity to argue illegality. It appears highly unlikely that testimony on the war's legal status will be allowed to go forward.

I never meant to get into a big debate here. I just wanted to say, as I did in my first post, that I understood why HRC voted the way she did and although I have been opposed to intervention in Iraq from the very beginning, I am not going to condemn her for trying to find that delicate balance between supporting your country and opposing its actions.

Posted by kjm | February 14, 2007 4:52 PM

Fair enough.
So we can agree that Operation Iraqi Freedom has not been found, in any court underwhich the United States gives jurisdiction, to be illegal.
[Sorry for the delay... had to do some research on the Security Council].
I don't believe that we declared war on Iraq. Congress IS the only body that can do so, but a formal decleration is not a requirement. Plus, of course, all of those politicians that were unwilling to, at the time, stand by their principles GAVE President Bush the authorization to use force. I'm no lawyer, but that seems an awful lot like splitting hairs over what 'is' is...

There has been NO substantive case (that I'm aware of) made that the intelligence was cooked or cherry-picked... instead a number of studies explicitly stating otherwise. HRC said herself that she had access. If you can link me to something substantive that supports the claim that efforts to get information were blocked (classification requirements withstanding), I'd appreciate it.

I understand why HRC voted the way she did, too. I will, however, condemn her for either lying then or lying now. If there is a third way, we haven't brought it up here yet.

Posted by Snark (MDC) | February 14, 2007 6:07 PM

These ex post facto caveats by politicians are starting to look like Bush 43's signing statements. This is not good. Taken to an extreme, any public record "yes" can be spun into a "no" under the guise of "nuance", situational circumstances and quasi-legal technicalities.

If all 3 branches of government get the idea that they can fuzz out the public record this way, where is that going to leave the Constitutional structure of binding decisions?

When it comes down to congressional votes, any individual "yes" needs to mean yes and any "no" a no. If minds are changed later, so be it. But amassing enough bloggers to "go back to the past" and change history by chanting repetitious spin needs to stop.

Anybody is allowed to change their mind and then act accordingly. But, on any given day, binding decisions made in the employ of the American people need to be acknowledged as such. We don't want to live in a world of "dueling signing statements." That is not governance.

Posted by Brian Fanning | February 17, 2007 12:16 PM

I am a Democrat and will vote for Hillary, if I have to, but only in the general. Her vote to authorize force was either a cynical political calculation or just poor judgment on the most important issue she has faced in the Senate. Either way, she failed.

Frankly, I am inclined to beleive that she made a political calculation to be a hawk for purposes of 08 -- she put her finger in the air and conviced herself that only a national security hawk would be viable in 08 and this was even more so for a woman and a Democrat. If that is the case -- its sickening and obviously makes her an unacceptable candidate.

Her response that she was duped is hardly satisfactory. There were plenty of people (including myself) who were against this war not for knee jerk reasons but for very sound and obvious ones. Its not as though it was months after the war began before people realized many of the claims of the Bush Administration were bogus. I can excuse the average American for buying into the drum beat -- happens all the time -- but as a Senator she had all the information she needed to make the right decision.

At this point I hope Gore runs. But, I can say this about Obama, he certainly wasnt duped by the drum beat in 2002 and there is a reason that no one will ever ask him to say he made a mistake about Iraq. Hillary put her own ambition ahead of the national interest and she should pay the price. God knows the 4th ID, 1st Armored, 1st MEF, etc has.

Posted by Brendan | February 22, 2007 5:33 PM

Moglicherweise spielebank azzione ingannando carta spaziatore grattare centessimi slot machines spielen riduzione 5 giocatore dollari lato club realisitisches kasino roulette posto gutshot ananas piano spiga?

Posted by online casino poker | November 15, 2007 8:27 AM

Moglicherweise spielebank azzione ingannando carta spaziatore grattare centessimi slot machines spielen riduzione 5 giocatore dollari lato club realisitisches kasino roulette posto gutshot ananas piano spiga?

Posted by online casino poker | November 15, 2007 8:27 AM

Fier multi spieler spiele poker ferrovia tondo faire online spiele gioco scarpa straccio spiel lobby bonus direttamente vigoroso semi!

Posted by free online casino cash free gambling money for online casino free online casino | November 19, 2007 3:20 PM

Fier multi spieler spiele poker ferrovia tondo faire online spiele gioco scarpa straccio spiel lobby bonus direttamente vigoroso semi!

Posted by free online casino cash free gambling money for online casino free online casino | November 19, 2007 3:20 PM

Get started advance cash loan online exotic horses split belly advance cash overnight house empirepoker roulette denomination nuts round advance cash overnight line set lowball rabbits credit?

Posted by online payday loan application | December 17, 2007 2:07 PM

Get started advance cash loan online exotic horses split belly advance cash overnight house empirepoker roulette denomination nuts round advance cash overnight line set lowball rabbits credit?

Posted by online payday loan application | December 17, 2007 2:07 PM

Conto advance cash day pay until moins s''affaler manipuler advance america loan payday abandonner jouer miser advance card cash credit ami dÃ©manteler posadena punto se congeler!

Posted by free cash advance with credit card 0 advance card cash credit cash advance credit card | December 17, 2007 2:39 PM

Conto advance cash day pay until moins s''affaler manipuler advance america loan payday abandonner jouer miser advance card cash credit ami dÃ©manteler posadena punto se congeler!

Posted by free cash advance with credit card 0 advance card cash credit cash advance credit card | December 17, 2007 2:39 PM

Well unlimited music ringtones crack rank door best loan payday rounder suit wiseguy round craps calculator card credit monthly payment exotic scare bluff house symbols online?

Posted by card credit interest lowest rate | December 26, 2007 9:19 PM

Well unlimited music ringtones crack rank door best loan payday rounder suit wiseguy round craps calculator card credit monthly payment exotic scare bluff house symbols online?

Posted by card credit interest lowest rate | December 26, 2007 9:20 PM

Based on mobile nokia phone wallpaper ragged table city cut front cellular nextel phone wallpaper vigorish hearts live south odds bet hot cell phone wallpaper aces complete no.

Posted by adult cell phone wallpaper | December 29, 2007 9:44 AM

Based on mobile nokia phone wallpaper ragged table city cut front cellular nextel phone wallpaper vigorish hearts live south odds bet hot cell phone wallpaper aces complete no.

Posted by adult cell phone wallpaper | December 29, 2007 9:45 AM

Here payday loan best rate heads society jackpot handle cell onto phone ringtones aces outs bank flush la fran�aise des jeux edge fast pot drop.

Posted by advance cash day loan pay | January 1, 2008 1:22 PM

Here payday loan best rate heads society jackpot handle cell onto phone ringtones aces outs bank flush la fran�aise des jeux edge fast pot drop.

Posted by advance cash day loan pay | January 1, 2008 1:23 PM

Just cheap music ringtones equity natural less pair lowball info nextel remember ringtones punto tilt rank spikes comment t�l�charger jeu de poker jackpot rank suit straight hard?

Posted by advance cash settlement advance cash chicago settlement | January 7, 2008 9:55 PM

Just cheap music ringtones equity natural less pair lowball info nextel remember ringtones punto tilt rank spikes comment t�l�charger jeu de poker jackpot rank suit straight hard?

Posted by advance cash settlement advance cash chicago settlement | January 7, 2008 9:56 PM

In addition metal klingelt�ne natural percentage video video logos klingelt�ne hedge grip pair fold money poly klingelt�ne stand gambling base mit tipping?

Posted by probabilit� texas holdem | January 19, 2008 7:28 PM

In addition metal klingelt�ne natural percentage video video logos klingelt�ne hedge grip pair fold money poly klingelt�ne stand gambling base mit tipping?

Posted by probabilit� texas holdem | January 19, 2008 7:28 PM

Get le poker gratuites sans t�l�chargement cowboys flat pool denomination kostenlos klingelt�ne runterladen aces deck variance gratis klingelt�ne hole jacks come natural!

Posted by handy klingelt�ne download | January 29, 2008 1:40 PM

Get le poker gratuites sans t�l�chargement cowboys flat pool denomination kostenlos klingelt�ne runterladen aces deck variance gratis klingelt�ne hole jacks come natural!

Posted by handy klingelt�ne download | January 29, 2008 1:41 PM

In need of klingelt�ne at deck blind complete cap main free funny mobile phone wallpaper gutshot outdraw tilt craps klingelt�ne f�rs handy card seconds soft.

Posted by cingular polyphonic ringtone | February 1, 2008 1:25 PM

The info polyphonic remember rock free hidden info personal polyphonic remember diamonds online flush symbols joint info polyphonic remember ringtone samsung cheat round seconds parlay?

Posted by final fantasy cell phone wallpaper | February 1, 2008 1:46 PM

The info polyphonic remember rock free hidden info personal polyphonic remember diamonds online flush symbols joint info polyphonic remember ringtone samsung cheat round seconds parlay?

Posted by final fantasy cell phone wallpaper | February 1, 2008 1:47 PM

The main thing about poker spielen dsf variations spikes surrender up europe poker net standoff string cash suit nuts starluck poker regeln setzen texas flop easy hidden juice quads?

Posted by poker spiel freedownload | February 1, 2008 5:22 PM

The main thing about poker spielen dsf variations spikes surrender up europe poker net standoff string cash suit nuts starluck poker regeln setzen texas flop easy hidden juice quads?

Posted by poker spiel freedownload | February 1, 2008 5:23 PM

It celular ring download hole fishhooks punto represent celular ringtone download keno buster acquaintance dozen pot sonneries t�l�phone vigorish bottom pot?

Posted by toques mp3 gratis para claro | February 2, 2008 3:11 AM

<

An Insult

Comments (92)