Judis Kyl-Lieberman

The debate's finally gotten back to this issue, which is good because earlier today I read a very good precis of exactly what's so troubling about Clinton's support of the resolution, notwithstanding her backpedalling since she started taking heat for it. I'll just turn this over to John Judis:

Clinton's reason for supporting the resolution was that, as the Times put it, she was shifting from "primary mode, when she needs to guard against critics from the left, to general election mode, when she must guard against critics from the right." Clinton, the article said, was also "solidifying crucial support from the pro-Israel lobby."

These explanations reinforce the impression that for narrow political reasons, Clinton lent her support to a measure that might eventually lead to war. And that, of course, revives doubts about Clinton's vote in October 2002 for the Iraq war: Namely, has she really rethought her support for the Iraq war? And even if she has, will pressure from Washington lobbies or from political opponents who accuse her of timidity sway her to back new military misadventures?

Right. This isn't just about the impact of the vote, it's about what the vote tells us about Clinton's approach to these issues.

Comments

There are what -- 500?? Minuteman ICBMs still in Montana/North Dakota/Wyoming? Plus the ones on our nuclear ballistic submarines.

Whose hand do we want on them? Hillary's??

When there are major threats to the USA, I prefer that the President be focused on the optimum way to deal with those threats -- and not be focused on how the optimum solution will play out in the Washington Kukuki dance or on how the situation can be best exploited to advance her personal interests.

It would also help if Madam President felt just the slightest concern for her fellow US citizens. If she, for example, visited the soldiers in San Antonio and looked upon those men whose flesh has been burned from their skulls by IEDs -- who are missing arms and legs and scream at night in nightmares. All because of her vote as a Senator trying to curry favor with Haim Saban, S Daniel Abraham and others like him.

Posted by Don Williams | November 15, 2007 10:08 PM

Show me a governmental system in which legislators do NOT cast votes with an eye to the impact on their future electoral prospects, and I will show you a system which is not democratic. Democracy sucks; it just sucks less than the alternatives.

When John Kerry voted for the AUMF-Iraq, he was at least partly motivated by political calculation: when I run for President, which vote will help me more, or hurt me less? Never mind that Dubya was publicly proclaiming (you can look it up) that the AUMF was necessary to AVOID WAR, which is how Kerry tried to justify his vote later. We all know Kabuki when we see it. Kerry, Edwards, and Clinton all calculated that THE AMERICAN PUBLIC would reward a Yes vote, down the road. Doing what you think the public will later reward you for is what politicians are SUPPOSED to do, in a representative democracy. "Do what you think is right", and damn the electorate, sounds fine and noble until you recognize that Dubya subscribes to that notion -- just like Saddam did.

So "pandering" to the half of the electorate that keeps America's average IQ down to 100 is not a sin against democracy. If you vote for Kyl-Lieberman because you calculate that voting against it will hurt your chances to be elected President, you are making a calculation about what the majority of your fellow Americans want.

Your calculation can be horribly wrong, of course.

-- TP

Posted by Tony P. | November 15, 2007 11:07 PM

The idea that as President Hillary Clinton would attack Iran or remain indefintely in Iraq is, quite simply, nonsense. It is confusing what Hillary belives she has to say for political reasons in the campaign with how she would govern, and is really no different from those who took W's "compassionate conservatism" seriously.

A Clinton foreign policy will look pretty much like an Edwards or Obama foreign policy, and they will all look like the height of sanity compared to any GOP foreign policy. The differences between the Dem candidates on foreign policy are a matter of what they think works to get votes, not issues of substance. (And I say this as an Edwards supporter, not a Hillary supporter.)

The real differences are on domestic issues.

Posted by tdraicer | November 15, 2007 11:12 PM

"a measure that might eventually lead to war"

"Clinton's vote in October 2002 for the Iraq war"

"has she really rethought her support for the Iraq war?"

Wow, that's a lot of canards in the space of a few sentences.

Posted by rilkefan | November 16, 2007 1:28 AM

"will pressure from Washington lobbies or from political opponents who accuse her of timidity sway her to back new military misadventures?"

Do you really have to ask? Of course it will!

"A Clinton foreign policy will look pretty much like an Edwards or Obama foreign policy,"

And that's the problem - they all want war with Iran. Or at least, they're too stupid and venal to know how to avoid war with Iran. Worse, they don't care if a war with Iran occurs because they decided to pander to the Israel Lobby, and/or the oil lobby, and/or the military-industrial-war profiteer lobby.

After all, how is war with Iran going to hurt them personally? Bush is going to walk away from the White House at the end of next year and start soaking up millions of dollars a year from speaking engagements, op eds, and other crap. And so will the next President at the end of their term. These people are invulnerable to everything except the judgement of history - which itself will be debated until long after they're dead and don't care.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 16, 2007 1:33 AM

I think the chances of a Clinton administration being involved in a war with Iran is higher than either an Obama or Edwards administration doing so. If the English bookmakers were to take money on such a proposition I think Clinton would be the favorite with Richards as the longshot.

Posted by unfriendly wager | November 16, 2007 3:11 AM

"When John Kerry voted for the AUMF-Iraq, he was at least partly motivated by political calculation: when I run for President, which vote will help me more, or hurt me less? Never mind that Dubya was publicly proclaiming (you can look it up) that the AUMF was necessary to AVOID WAR, which is how Kerry tried to justify his vote later. We all know Kabuki when we see it. Kerry, Edwards, and Clinton all calculated that THE AMERICAN PUBLIC would reward a Yes vote, down the road. Doing what you think the public will later reward you for is what politicians are SUPPOSED to do, in a representative democracy. "Do what you think is right", and damn the electorate, sounds fine and noble until you recognize that Dubya subscribes to that notion -- just like Saddam did."

Except that that same vote helped to cast Kerry as a flip-flopper and lose him the election to Bush. Kerry looked like he believed in nothing while Bush looked like he believed in something. It took until 2006 before voters finally had enough. The biggest intangible that Americans consider when they vote for president is "character" and Kerry looked like he had none. Also, remember, we are not a democracy, we are a republic. The Founding Fathers set up our government so that elected officials could have some protection when they pursued unpopular policies that they thought were right. (Iraq, on the other hand, was a popular policy that was foolishly wrong.)

Posted by Reality Man | November 16, 2007 4:31 AM

Wow, that's a lot of canards in the space of a few sentences.

Only if you buy the "oopsie, I didn't want war, how in the world did that happen" dodge.

Posted by novakant | November 16, 2007 6:50 AM

Presumably there are big Jewish donors to the Democrats who want to see a belligerent stance on Iran. This gives her a leg up in fundraising with them.

Posted by bob h | November 16, 2007 7:52 AM

Lookit: the system of primaries is a problem. If Clinton or Obama hew left all the way the Republican nasty noise machine will eviscerate them. Same for a moderate Republican. To those purists who stand on principle how does one get elected under the present system by ignoring the centre. For all the high minded rhetoric a candidate spouts to the satisfaction of the commentariat, its the voters from among the ordinary folks who count- like those who asked their questions. Not Blitzer, not Russert (no one elected these clowns) but that Mum who wants to know why her son gets 30 grand and a privateer gets a hundred while serving in the same war zone.

So Matt: why not deal with what the voters want, not only what activists and other ists"" want

Posted by Alan | November 16, 2007 9:06 AM

I'm starting to get the feeling from a lot of Hillary Clinton enthusiasts that she's simply above such petty things as taking "positions" or expressing one or another view.

She's somehow grandly above it all, and any of us who inquire as to whether or not she seemed likely to do the right or wrong thing on some issue are somehow bizarre, exceptional, unhappy people, and we are clearly not part of the wise and experienced insiders who know that whatever issue we're talking about she will do the Right Thing, and conversely, whatever it is she does will retroactively be understood as the Right Thing To Have Done At The Time.

Posted by El Cid | November 16, 2007 9:33 AM

Re bob h's comment "Presumably there are big Jewish donors to the Democrats who want to see a belligerent stance on Iran. This gives her a leg up in fundraising with them."
----------
1) Not even Jewish American. Try ISRAELI. Who acquired (purchased? ) dual US citizenship.

Hillary's problem is not that she sucks up to Jewish billionaires.

Her problems is that she sucks up to ZIONIST billionaires.

Men who have shown by past actions that their loyalty lies with Israel , who have spent vast sums trying to influence the US government to act in ways which help Israel but harm the US.

Men who seem largely indifferent to the thousands of dead and permanently crippled US soldiers that have resulted from their push for an unnecessary war.

2) Bob's apparently a newbie, so I'll reiterate what I've noted before. Most Americans don't realize that the biggest donor to the Democratic Party in 2000-2002 was an Israeli billionaire named Haim Saban.

3) In a recent (Dec 2006) interview with Haaretz, Haim boasted of how Bill Clinton fetched soft drinks for him when Haim visited the White House.

4) Haim then went on to say that:
a)Israel is where his loyalty lies --a very strong loyalty. He thinks, for example, that EVERY Jew should serve in Israel's military --the IDF. Including presumably every American Jew.
b) Haim is sometimes to the right of the most rabid Israeli rightwingers
c) Sharon was right
d) Iran is a major, unacceptable threat to Israel and it is essential that it's nuclear program be destroyed immediately. Ahmadinejad is Hitler.
e) Not clear Israel can do so.
f) Israel security has two main pillars -- American protection and Israel's nukes
g) George Bush has been the best friend Israel has ever had but can do nothing because he has lost all political capital
h) Hillary, by contrast , will be "good for Israel"
i) It's Haim's duty to ensure that US strong support for Israel continues.

5) Back in 2002, Haim Saban used his money to set up the Saban Center for Middle East policy at Brookings -- and his Directors at that center pounded the drums for an attack on Saddam Hussein. Director Kenneth Pollack put out a best selling book "The Threatening Storm" telling America that Saddam was working feverishly to develop nuclear bombs and was likely close to success. Director Marti Indyk joined with Kenneth Pollack in a LA Times OpEd calling for war: See http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2002/1219iraq_indyk.aspx

6) With 3700 dead in Iraq, You would think Hillary would hesitate to associate with such people. But no: http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20061211005411&newsLang=en

7) Hillary's amiable embrace of Haim is more understandable when you realize that Haim has already raised $1 million for her. Plus he has recently bought the 5th largest US TV network -- the Spanish Language Univision. No doubt so that Haim can urge the Hispanic swing voters of California, Texas, and Florida to "Vote por la gran puta Hillary, por favor "

Posted by Don Williams | November 16, 2007 9:41 AM

Here's Haim Saban's interview with Haaretz in Dec 2006: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/798292.html

See also http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Haim_Saban

Posted by Don Williams | November 16, 2007 9:49 AM

Except that that same vote helped to cast Kerry as a flip-flopper and lose him the election to Bush.

The whole flip-flopper thing could be used against any politician, especially any legislator, should the media chose to give the issue a lot of play. Seriously, Reality Man, do you think that if Kerry hadn't voted for the authorization that the Bush people would not have been able to paint him as whatever they decided to paint him as?

The man was a decorated combat veteran who volunteered for service in Vietnam, and somehow even that was turned against him. I suppose it was Kerry's fault for serving, or accepting the purple hearts that were awarded to him, or captaining a swift boat, or protesting the war when he returned home. Because certainly these right-wing memes about Democratic candidates can never possibly be manufactured out of whole cloth.

Tony P. makes some good points.

That said, I think Clinton's vote on Kyl-Lieberman was atrocious and is a real black mark on her senate record--though not, contra Matt, because of "what it tells us about [her] approach to these issues", but because of "the impact of the vote". War with Iran would be a very bad thing and HRC should know better than to give Bush any help in making this happen.

Posted by Rob Mac | November 16, 2007 12:47 PM

Rob Mac: when I said that a political calculation can be horribly wrong, I was thinking specifically of Kerry's vote on AUMF and Hillary's on Kyl-Lieberman. A "political calculation" is about pleasing voters IN THE FUTURE. But the future is often shaped by the policy you vote for today.

Kerry (and Clinton, and Edwards) miscalculated on AUMF because they foolishly expected Iraq would go well enough in 2003 to make having voted against AUMF in 2002 look bad in 2004. Likewise, Hillary played with fire on Kyl-Lieberman, this year. Establishing herself as "tough on Iran" will only work, politically, if Dick and Dubya have sense enough to not start a war with Iran. But as you say, the "impact of her vote" makes that LESS likely.

-- TP

Posted by Tony P. | November 16, 2007 2:38 PM

"Except that that same vote helped to cast Kerry as a flip-flopper and lose him the election to Bush.

The whole flip-flopper thing could be used against any politician, especially any legislator, should the media chose to give the issue a lot of play. Seriously, Reality Man, do you think that if Kerry hadn't voted for the authorization that the Bush people would not have been able to paint him as whatever they decided to paint him as?

The man was a decorated combat veteran who volunteered for service in Vietnam, and somehow even that was turned against him. I suppose it was Kerry's fault for serving, or accepting the purple hearts that were awarded to him, or captaining a swift boat, or protesting the war when he returned home. Because certainly these right-wing memes about Democratic candidates can never possibly be manufactured out of whole cloth."

Oh come on, Kerry walked right into that for them. He practically set the trap himself when he said "I voted for it before I voted against it." You can't spend that many years in politics without realizing you don't put yourself in such a situation. So principles should just go out the window just to play to what's popular? What were Kerry's principles in the campaign with regard to Iraq? That we should have gone in with more allies? Like that would have made Iraqi ethnic politics much different. When you have access to classified info the public doesn't have and you can see that following what's popular is going to be a disaster, being "democratic" by buying into the mob is not leadership. We might as well have direct democracy if our leaders just end up caving any time the public - the majority of whom can't find Iraq and Iran on a map - decides on fear that suicide is a good idea. Kerry could have also effectively neutralized the whole Swift Boats attack by actually standing up for himself when he had the chance. This is why Bob Shrum candidates keep on losing. Who do you think is going to attract more swing voters, the politician who won't stand up for himself when attacked and doesn't seem to have core principles he's willing to fight for even when they're unpopular or the guy who stands up for himself and his beliefs even when they're unpopular?

Posted by Reality Man | November 16, 2007 3:52 PM

Although it's not sufficiently cynical for the current fashion, I see no reason to doubt that Hillary, Kerry, and all the other Democrats who voted to authorize the invasion (and/or the "regime change" Resolution of 1998) did so because the evidence available at the time showed it to be the right thing to do. Not coincidentally, a big majority of voters looked at the same or similar information and made the same judgement.

Kerry's problem wasn't the Swifties--no one really gave a damn about Vietnam when we were in the middle of a war in Iraq, and it was idiotic of Democrats to think they would. It was his incoherence on the issue. He believed he voted correctly, but by 2004 he felt the need to model some Deaniac-style outrage, and instead of concentrating on Bush mistakes lost control of his own analysis.

As far as Hil's support for Kyle-Lieberman, I take it as evidence that she deserves the seriousness her campaign is being taken with. There isn't going to be any attack on Iran in the next couple of years, and everyone not living in a left-wing echo chamber knows it. The Bushophobic zealots may not be able to read a map, but you can rest assured that the responsible officials can.

Posted by Robert Powell | November 16, 2007 6:00 PM

Reality Man: what are "principles" in a democracy? How do you tell the difference between a principled politician and an arrogant one? By holding elections, that's how. What do you call a politician who is not forever trying to curry favor with the voters? Dick Cheney, that's what.

Robert Powell: if only Kerry had said "I voted for the $87 billion before the Republicans insisted that it had to be borrowed money" he might have done a lot better, in a race where just a LITTLE better would have been enough.

-- TP

Posted by Tony P. | November 16, 2007 10:11 PM

Powell: "The Bushophobic zealots may not be able to read a map, but you can rest assured that the responsible officials can."

And that official would be - who? Dick Cheney?

And you know with total certainty that there will be no attack on Iran in the next two years.

Which means Iran will complete its acquisition of the nuclear fuel cycle and theoretically, once it really can run 3,000 centrifuges - steady at maximum output for at least a year, that it will have enough enriched uranium for one nuclear weapon (if, of course, they pull out of the NPT NOW to enable them to enrich to that level at all.)

And you think Israel and the US is going to stand by for that when they (and Bush) have already said that where Iran is NOW is over the "red line."

Because Iran is not going to stop enrichment. No way, Jose. So what is the next move, eh, Karnak? More sanctions? Right. And the price of oil goes up enough to offset them.

Next move, Karnak? Bush is going to crumble like he did with North Korea and offer Iran a "grand bargain" with security guarantees, assistance for their nuclear energy program, and the like?

Right.

Email me when this happens.

Or are you predicting Hillary will win the election and do the same?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 17, 2007 12:00 AM

"Reality Man: what are "principles" in a democracy? How do you tell the difference between a principled politician and an arrogant one? By holding elections, that's how. What do you call a politician who is not forever trying to curry favor with the voters? Dick Cheney, that's what."

Well, this is the first time we've been having the presidency run out of the Office of the Vice Presidency. Dick Cheney is doing a job he was never elected to do in the first place. The VP's job is to cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate and to make the President look good by comparison. We've basically had a subtle form of a executive branch coup in Dick Cheney. That doesn't really play into the whole democracy vs. a republic debate.

Also, a senator who looked at the evidence available and realized that the popular Iraq War would be waged on bullshit (Shrum advised several members of Congress, including Kerry and Edwards, to vote for the war even though they didn't buy the BS and didn't see the evidence as compelling) should have done the right thing and voted against it. Ending our agricultural subsidies would be unpopular, but it would be the right thing to do. Raising tariffs on everything would be popular and the wrong thing to do. Passing the Voting and the Civil Rights Acts was unpopular and was the right thing to do. A big part of leadership is being able to vote one's conscience when your stance is unpopular and to make your case publicly in a convincing manner. Isn't that what we used to respect Paul Wellstone for?

Posted by Reality Man | November 17, 2007 3:22 AM

It seems highly unlikely that any strikes against Iran would eliminate their nuclear program. Moreover, starting a war with Iran at this juncture (and make no mistake, that's what strikes would do) would be an act of political and military insanity. Perhaps the first consequence would be a naval holocaust in the Persian Gulf, where we have tens of thousands of sailors and Marines floating around as sitting ducks for the Russian-supplied "Sunburn" supersonic cruise missiles Iran has deployed in the mountains commanding the Gulf, and for which we have no adequate defense.

The second would be to rally the Iranian people, who represent our best hope for an eventual modification of the Iranian regime, to the flag and the regime. And, according to a military intelligence officer on the scene, "Iran could burn Iraq down around our ears". A war with Iran at this point would make Iraq look like Grenada.

I don't think anyone except left-wing paranoids pays any attention to Dick Cheney any more.

Posted by Robert Powell | November 17, 2007 5:43 AM