« Obama's Speech | Main | The Typography Primary » Prescient27 Jan 2008 09:55 am "Clinton says insurgency is failing", Associated Press, February 19, 2005: As 55 people died in Iraq on Saturday, the holiest day on the Shiite Muslim religious calendar, Sen. Hillary Clinton said that much of Iraq was "functioning quite well" and that the rash of suicide attacks was a sign that the insurgency was failing. I'll just observe that I don't think that take on things has been borne out by the subsequent years. Comments (44)
1) Wonder if anyone asked Clinton about the insurgency here in the USA? There's been a rash of killings ( 121 ? ) by returning troops suffering from mental problems (and possibly from unfocused rage at how they and their friends have been fucked by Senator Clinton, George Bush and our other lying politicians.) See the New York Time series on this subject at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/us/13vets.html and 2) Anyone remember how the Republican Congresses of Newt Gingrich threw 40% of the Army out on the streets in the 1990s -- and then, on Sept 11, stood up on TV in front of the US Flag and sang "God Bless America"?? 
But of course, according to Big Dog Bill, there ain't a dime's worth of difference between Hillary and Obama on the war. "Since the comparison of the Iraq positions over the years of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is one of the hottest issues of the campaign, we thought it would be useful to post a comprehensive comparison of all of their votes on everything relating to the Iraq war. So here it is: A massive compilation of Iraq-related bills -- and the votes by Hillary and Obama on them, side by side -- beginning in early 2005, when Obama first joined the Senate. Of the total of 69 votes we compiled -- some significant, some not -- it turns out that the two differed on only one. You'll see that one in bold on our chart. But let us be clear: We are not posting this to suggest that their earlier difference at the start of the war -- their most important difference -- should in any way be overshadowed by these similarities. For many, that difference will remain paramount -- for good reason. We just wanted to add factual grist to what is but one component of the debate. As you can see, Clinton and Obama have voted the opposite way on only one vote on our list: The confirmation of General George Casey to be Chief of Staff for the Army, held just this past February. Hillary voted against confirmation, while Obama voted to confirm. Additionally, please don't hold it against us if we missed any important votes. No agenda here, readers."
Definitely in its last throes.
Give her a break, Matt. Back then she had only 33 years of experience to guide her in reaching that judgment.
Accompanying her husband, former President George H.W.Bush, on a tour of hurricane relief centers in Houston, Barbara Bush said today, referring to the poor who had lost everything back home and evacuated, "This is working very well for them."
Dan the Man sounds like he needs a little Schedule C appointment in a Clinton Restoration. They're warming up the seat in your OEOB cubicle only in your dreams, Dan.
What is making the Matthew Yglesias who was loving war in 2002 and 2003 so crazy to show how much we should hate Hillary Clinton. Stop the hating, Yglasias, you sound like a spiteful 10 year old.
No hate Jennifer. Matt was just pointing out how similar her position was to Dick Cheney's in 2005.
I watched Barack Obama last night and found nothing of interest. Do I have the Yglesias permission to say so? War-loving Yglesias is bent on showing how much he can blame someone else for his stupidity. Stop the hate, Yglesias. Is it a woman thing with you? Seems that way.
What is making the Matthew Yglesias who was loving war in 2002 and 2003 so crazy to show how much we should hate Hillary Clinton. Matthew's probably just trying to find a job in an Obama administration. The Atlantic blogging job doesn't pay very well.
War-loving Yglesias is bent on showing how much he can blame someone else for his stupidity. He could always blame himself. No, wait, he would never do that.
What counts is the way Evita voted in 2002, Dan the Man. Once the war's on, you can't "vote against the troops." She was an enthusiast for this war till the polls told her to be otherwise. Evita has no moral center. And you're just mad because the Clintons' attempts to transform Obama into the "black candidate" failed miserably and she got her ass whupped in South Carolina.
Yes, people who make mistakes should never be allowed to change their minds.
"Yes, people who make mistakes should never be allowed to change their minds." Oh, they are allowed, but if they want to claim good judgement and Seriousness, it would be nice if they would have recognized the problems in Iraq before early 2005, when EVERYONE, except some hacks, changed their minds. "I watched Barack Obama last night and found nothing of interest." Really Jennifer? It must suck to be you. I don't know anyone who wasn't moved, including Hillary supporters I know. Even over at National Review's Corner they were waxing fondly about the speech.
Like it or not, HRC is someone who has been "putting her finger in the air" all along on Iraq, not just VOTING but telling us what she THINKS. She thought the Insurgency was in its last throws she was obviously drinking the Kool-aid or thought that by appearing to drink the Kool-aid she was better off politically at the time, when other Americans were and still are being killed for a FAILED WAR. Excuse me Dan and Jennifer(and MY), but I do take that into account.
Like it or not, HRC is someone who has been "putting her finger in the air" all along on Iraq, not just VOTING but telling us what she THINKS. She thought the Insurgency was in its last throws she was obviously drinking the Kool-aid or thought that by appearing to drink the Kool-aid she was better off politically at the time, when other Americans were and still are being killed for a FAILED WAR. Excuse me Dan and Jennifer(and MY), but I do take that into account.
Matt, If you are going to question Hillary's judgment about Iraq, that is fair. However, your heading "The Insurgency is Failing" is so misleading. This visit by Hillary and other Congressional members occurred 3 weeks after the first Iraqi election. At the time, it was hailed as a success, Iraq's first Democratic election. Since the Military and the Iraqis were prepared for more violence, the low casualties gave everyone a false sense of hope. However, from February 2005 through the summer the insurgency ignited with more horrific suicide bombings. Finally, in February 2006, after the Mosque bombing, the Shiites struck back. That is why the President wanted the surge, because Iraq was out of control.
Well, let's see, what is the latest Hillary claim to the presidency? Experience? Not so much. Competence? Hardly. So, children, what's left? Her record on Iraq? I don't think so. But of course, you had to shoot the messenger. Thank you, Matt, for reminding us just how Republican the real Hillary always has been.
Obama was right on the war and Billary was wrong. And she won't disclaim her war vote by doing the right thing if elected. There is no good reason to expect anything other than the same triangulation and posing. All of which will be complicated by her need to out tough the shrubbies. A vote for Billary is a vote for war without end amen.
Re Dan the Man "Matthew's probably just trying to find a job in an Obama administration. The Atlantic blogging job doesn't pay very well." Actually, he's auditioning to be the token liberal on the fascist news channel.
"Stop the hate, Yglesias. Is it a woman thing with you? Seems that way." Is it a woman thing with you? It sure seems to be. Why else would anyone vote for Hillary "I'M A WOMAN!!!" Clinton?
Sashaqz, John, SlC, Abe, If you want to discuss Hillary's Iraq record, we can talk about the issues. But, what is the substance of your posts? This is suppose to be a discussion about Iraq?
Dan, No one really cares how Obama and Hillary voted once the War was authorized; There were few good options and little the Democratic Party could do to stop it. The only meaningful vote in this whole debacle was the vote to authorize war -- a vote in which 22 Democratic senators, including Feingold, Levin, Leahy, Kennedy, Byrd, Wyden, Graham, Wellstone, Durbin, and Boxer, voted 'no'. That's the conscience of the Senate right there. So why did Hillary support the resolution? Does she now believe she was in error? And will she take responsibility for her terrible error? Doubtful on all counts. The Clintons are just like the Bushes; The buck stops nowhere. And Dan, the thing that riles us so much about Clinton supporters, and Billary as well, is that they think we're stupid and can be fooled with fabrications and fallacious arguments. Once again, Dan, you've made a fallacious argument. Keep trying, though. Eventually you might succeed in persuading every last one of us that regardless of the outcome of this primary, supporting Billary in November is now impossible.
It's worth remembering that Hillary basically supported the Iraq War until after the 2006 elections, and continually criticized Democrats who opposed it as unserious on foreign policy. Her supporters would like us to believe that it was one disingenuous vote cast in 1992 cast for political reasons (or cast just to scare Saddam). But it's actually 4 years of support for something that, even if you initially supported it, was so obviously a cluster**** within 4 or 5 months that anyone actually qualified to be President would have figured out that it was a bad idea. The key weathervane here is Murtha. Big supporter of the war and militarism generally. Saw what was happening, changed his mind, and became a courageous leader against the war who took a lot of criticism. So how come Hillary's not as intelligent as a crotchety old congressman who few people had even heard of before the war?
No one really cares how Obama and Hillary voted once the War was authorized; There were few good options and little the Democratic Party could do to stop it. The only meaningful vote in this whole debacle was the vote to authorize war -- a vote in which 22 Democratic senators, including Feingold, Levin, Leahy, Kennedy, Byrd, Wyden, Graham, Wellstone, Durbin, and Boxer, voted 'no'. That's the conscience of the Senate right there. So why did Hillary support the resolution? Does she now believe she was in error? And will she take responsibility for her terrible error? Doubtful on all counts. The Clintons are just like the Bushes; The buck stops nowhere. Well, actually, I do care. Neither of these candidates is among the handful of DC Democrats who tried to do everything in their power to bring this war to a swift end. Neither supports defunding the war. Neither supports impeachment. Neither was willing to promise that all the troops would be home by 2013. The fact that Obama was against the war in 2002 and 2003 is an important mark in his favor. But their very similar behavior in the years since then--as well as their foreign policy teams, full of hawkish retreads from former administrations--suggests that, on issues of war and peace, we can expect business-as-usual from either an Obama or a Clinton administration.
Sounds to me like Hillary and co. got the standard "Green Zone" treatment that every politician who goes to Iraq gets and basically just repeated it for consumption. Has ANY American politician had the opportunity, plus the epertise, to be able to give a truly independent assessment while over there - or had the cajones to actually say to the press, while guests in the Green Zone - that everything was going to shit? and continually criticized Democrats who opposed it as unserious on foreign policy I'd be interested in some backup for this particular assertion.
Fasdf, I respect your reason for not voting for Hillary. If I'm understanding your comment, she chose her so called "electability" over her true convictions. She's crossed a line, and it goes to the heart of her judgment. In the eyes of many voters, the Clintons were always power hungry, and this vote confirmed it. I can only speak for myself, but I'm one Clinton supporter that does not take any of you for granted. The difference is that I can forgive her for making this vote. For me, it's personal. I would hate to think that my whole life's work would be judged by one colossal blunder. Even if your constituents hate it, you can't survive in politics without coalitions and compromises. But, I understand your point, that this is unforgiveable. Finally, this Iraq War has evolved on many levels with so many suffering. Change cannot take place in Iraq if Democratic voters are destroying their candidates.
What I want is to push and push for either Obama or Clinton to get us out of Iraq, but we are getting more involved all the time and I am not the least convinced Obama intends to get us out over all the objections that will be raised. Not pushing Obama now is a mistake. Paying attention to the National Reviewlies about Obama is worse than a mistake.
I listen to Obama go on about unity, and I know that unity will mean we stay in Iraq because leaving Iraq will mean a big fat sloppy fight. National Reviewers will be crazy mean, the moment they decide Obama is thinking of getting out of Iraq and there will be worse opponents.
Yglesias wants us to leave Iraq, then push Obama and stop the Clinton trashing so that Obama has to be a fighter for us.
I'd be interested in some backup for this particular assertion. Ethel, do your own research-- you can find the quotes easily enough with google. But suffice to say, she still does it now (she did it at the South Carolina debate). EVERY time she claims that she is the Democrat who is strongest and toughest on national security, the subtext is that she is more hawkish. And Iraq is exhibit A of that hawkishness.
Ethel, do your own research-- you can find the quotes easily enough with google. But suffice to say, she still does it now (she did it at the South Carolina debate). EVERY time she claims that she is the Democrat who is strongest and toughest on national security, the subtext is that she is more hawkish. And Iraq is exhibit A of that hawkishness. That's quite different than the meme that whoever has an alternative POV about Iraq is "unserious about foreign policy". You are the one who is claiming that's shes "continually criticized those Democrats who opposed it as unserious about foreign policy". It's one thing to advocate a particular point of view, or claim that one's degree of supporting that point of view is stronger than others - but you are saying that she continually demeans the rest of the Deomcratic party as "unserious". Sorry - I don't interpret her stance that way - since you obviously do, and you are asserting as fact, it would be illuminating if you backed it up with specifics and a specific charge that alludes to "continually" declaring that the rest are "unserious", rather than relying upon your own subjective, and probably biased, inferences.
As Obama told the Chicago Tribune on September 26, 2004, "[T]he big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures [to stop its nuclear program], including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point ... if any, are we going to take military action?" He added, "[L]aunching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in" given the ongoing war in Iraq. "On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse.
Wasab has it right - Obama is just as big a hawk as Clinton - except that he's not one on Iraq - just Iran and Pakistan. And those are the two WORST places to be a hawk on at this point. Both of them would make Iraq look like the original neocon "welcoming us with flowers" cakewalk. Not that it excuses Clinton in any way for being an AIPAC toady (just as Bill was in pardoning Marc Rich on Israel's behalf - along with some money thrown his way.)
Ethel-to-Tilly Well said!
"Wasab has it right - Obama is just as big a hawk as Clinton - except that he's not one on Iraq - just Iran and Pakistan." Well, that's good, since we didn't (nor are we planning to) invade Iran or Pakistan. Nor has Obama authorized military action in either country. Until he does, we'll have to classify him as a "hawk" in theory -- just as John Edwards is a "populist" in theory and Hillary Clinton is a "Democrat" in theory.
Obama gets a pass for not being there for the authorisation vote, but he'd have voted for it. He plays the odds and there's no way he'd have got on the wrong side of it, and at the time, antiwar looked very much the wrong side, didn't it, Matt?
"I listen to Obama go on about unity, and I know that unity will mean we stay in Iraq because leaving Iraq will mean a big fat sloppy fight." Folks who haven't realized that Obama is both sincere and subversive with the unity shtick need to open their eyes, please. Unity is both a means and an end. In this case, if leaving Iraq will be a big fat sloppy fight, it will either happen during the fall campaign, in which case the outcome of the election will create a mandate one way or the other, or, it will happen in 09 with new facts on the ground for any President of either party to consider. In that case, having the respect of the people is absolutely essential to standing down the chorus of worst-case scenario hawk dead enders who are too scared to change the status quo. Seeing unity as a good thing does not mean seeing it as the only thing. Its as if the partisan blinders that people wear also come with a filter that makes them view everyone else as blinded in some way. Obama may not be your preferred candidate, but claiming that he'll stay in Iraq because of some ideological allegiance to "unity" is based on no evidence. It seems to be based on nothing but your own preconceptions and a misunderstanding of the politics of change in this election. Some years it is a great buzzword (92) but every so often in history things actually do change.
Dr. Zen: "Obama gets a pass for not being there for the authorisation vote, but he'd have voted for it." From all the evidence I've seen, he wouldn't have. We have all his public statements in opposition to the War, and his strong ally and political mentor Dick Durbin voted against it. He said he wasn't impressed with the evidence as presented by the media, and the evidence contained in the intelligence reports was even more flimsy. Dr. Zen: "He plays the odds and there's no way he'd have got on the wrong side of it, and at the time, antiwar looked very much the wrong side, didn't it, Matt?" Uh-huh. Because it's not as if anyone would ever know that he opposed the War given his public statements on the floor of the Illinois Senate and at an anti-war rally. Face it, he did the politically unpopular thing in vocally expressing his opposition to a popular war. He could've kept quite, much as Hillary Clinton did in the period between her vote and Bush's invasion. But he didn't, and that gives him more moral authority than either Clinton or Edwards.
"I can only speak for myself, but I'm one Clinton supporter that does not take any of you for granted. The difference is that I can forgive her for making this vote. For me, it's personal. I would hate to think that my whole life's work would be judged by one colossal blunder. Even if your constituents hate it, you can't survive in politics without coalitions and compromises. But, I understand your point, that this is unforgiveable." She kept on supporting it afterwards and hasn't disavoiwed the theory - preventive war - behind it. She has surrounded herself with supporters of the Iraq Liberation Act and fellow war supporters. These are the type of people who in 2004 were talking about how war opponents shouldn't have jobs among the Democratic DC establishments. She is also the one who has talked about pre-emptively nuking terrorist training camps in Pakistan. It's not one mistake if it grows out of your judgement about how the world works and will only breed more.
Reality Man Iraq Liberation Act Hillary's Nuclear Option Hillary's Iraq Vote
EWard & Ethel, The real issue is not how we should leave Iraq, but if we're staying, to what end? If we're unwilling to leave under ANY circumstances, then the Shiite government simply isn't going to make the concessions necessary to bring the Sunnis and Kurds into the key Iraqi national public institutions (army, police, federal gov't, etc.). If we're unwilling to stay under ANY circumstances, then not only does the Shiite government no longer have any incentive to work to integrate the Sunnis & Kurds before we exit stage left, but the Sunnis and Kurds have no incentive to do anything but prepare for full-on civil war. I gave money to Howard Dean's campaign early on (Jan 2003) because he was the only voice of reason I could hear on the Iraq war from the word go. Less than a year later, he pretty much lost Iowa and the nomination for saying that Saddam's capture had made America no safer, an indisputably correct if impolitic statement. He was treated as "unserious" for stating the obvious and for making sober, correct judgments about questions of national security. HRC didn't make the right decisions, and didn't do anything to defend him, either. I can't vote for Hillary or Edwards over Obama because, in my opinion, his initial judgment was so far superior to hers on Iraq. Perhaps the prospect of the Presidency will cloud that judgment -- as it surely did cloud Hillary's back then -- but that's a chance I'm willing to take. I simply don't trust her to make the right decision after watching the AUMF vote and her actions since then, including on Iran.
Other Mike, What is Obama's Iraq strategy?
Comments closed February 10, 2008. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
But of course, according to Big Dog Bill, there ain't a dime's worth of difference between Hillary and Obama on the war... It astounds me that some Democrats seems to want to nominate, for the second time in four years, a candidate who voted for this stupid, wasteful war!
Posted by Traven | January 27, 2008 10:29 AM