There We Go Again

In the latest in a bizarrely long line of efforts to convince us that Hillary Clinton never supported the Iraq War, we've now got her saying "After 9/11, I would never have taken us to war in Iraq. I would have stayed focused on Afghanistan because the real threat was coming from there." Now it's entirely possible that, in a purely counterfactual sense, had some freakish sequence of events put her in the White House in September of 2001 that Hillary Clinton would have stayed focused on Afghanistan rather than drawing attention to Iraq. But in the real world she was a United States Senator, the President of the United States asked for the authority to invade Iraq, and she voted to give it to him.

Clinton has on-again, off-again tried to argue (now she's on again) that that didn't mean she favored actually invading. But it would seem to seriously undermine the argument that she's a doer with tons of valuable experience to argue that she didn't know what was going on. In the real world, it's hardly creditable to think that she was that naive.

Comments

Desperation.

Posted by Woody Bombay | January 6, 2008 8:18 PM

HRC has the right to change her mind, her votes, etc. She is a legend. And we have a duty to simply support them - no questions asked.

I love the Clintons. May they live longer than anyone on this Planet. Their conscience, notwithsanding the comment by Edwards (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/edwards-no-conscience-in-clinton-campaign/), is perfect.

The Clintons are true chosen ones to rule American in the past, today, and tomorrow.

Posted by eorse | January 6, 2008 8:19 PM

It is not only 'entirely possible' but it is about as much an absolute certainty as any counterfactual can be, that Hillary Clinton would not have invaded Iraq following 9/11. Surely you know that. No one but Bush led by the small cabal of right wing neocon lunatics, who did invade Iraq, would have invaded Iraq had they been the president instead.

Posted by ken | January 6, 2008 8:35 PM

But she was in a place to do something about Bush and his cabal. Instead, she went along with it.

Posted by mad6798j | January 6, 2008 8:43 PM

Ken

I think you're right as far as it goes, but who cares? As Matt said, in reality she got along to get along. That she didn't stand against a war that she "didn't agree with" is even worse, isn't it?

Posted by bill | January 6, 2008 8:43 PM

Ken, how dare you invoke logic and reason into this discussion.

Don't you know HRC=GWB.

Damn Matt, don't go off the deep end now that it appears she is done.

Do you honestly thinks she would have 'picked' war with Iraq for no reason, like Bush?

This defense, of course, does not geet her off the hook for her craven vote. But these are two different questions, for those who can handle such complexity.

Posted by Andruw | January 6, 2008 8:44 PM

I think somehow her stance must hinge on the meaning of the word "is."

I smell toast.

Posted by jim | January 6, 2008 8:54 PM

The Clinton quote does suggest a measure of desperation... I do agree with Ken however that she wouldn't have invaded Iraq. No one sane would have.

Posted by Hugh Simmons | January 6, 2008 8:54 PM

Well, I don't much like Clinton (either one!), but I really do like her saying this sort of thing, over and over and over again.

Taking this sort of position during the primary campaign would make it that much more difficult for her to turn around and later do something stupid/crazy like attacking Iran under renewed neocon pressure if she gets elected. Also, it hopefully ups the ante a little for Obama and Edwards to start saying similar things, only even stronger.

Maybe they'll all eventually get somewhere even a tiny bit closer to where Ron Paul already is on these issues, which would be nice, since they have a chance of getting elected and he doesn't.

Posted by RKU | January 6, 2008 8:55 PM

Ken is dreaming. Hillary Clinton gave not an inkling of indication in March of 2003 that she had any serious reservations about Bush's decision to go into Iraq, and supported the war drive every step of the way. She's inventing a non-existent past.

Posted by Dan Kervick | January 6, 2008 8:56 PM

I think she'd be better off not saying anything, seriously.

Posted by Jake | January 6, 2008 8:58 PM

>>I do agree with Ken however that she wouldn't have invaded Iraq.

Is this really a talking point you want to use, though? "Hypothetically I wouldn't have invaded Iraq after 9/11. But, you know, in reality I actually VOTED IN SUPPORT OF INVADING IRAQ after 9/11." I think that was Matt's point. Ken's point is true in the abstract, but is moot, really.

Posted by jim | January 6, 2008 8:58 PM

Just another example of the press treating women unfairly - nice job, Matt.

Or...

There are actual policy, personality (specific) and stylistic reasons why Obama is cleaning her clock.

I think some are way over the top in their hatred of Clinton, including a certain Atlantic blogger who shall go unnamed, and that definitely haa to do with her being a woman (as probably does her treatment in general to a small degree).

I think to the degree her "story" irks people - obviously that has to do with being a woman (a prerequisite for being the First Lady), but that doesn't affect all female politicians. I don't think Pelosi gets hammered the way Clinton does - although she has to suffer through her own silly media treatment (hairstyles, fashion choices, etc...)

But I love Pelosi and dislike Clinton - and 95% of what I know about both have come through a media filter.

Posted by SoCalJustice | January 6, 2008 8:58 PM

No, Jim. It isn't a talking point I would want to use. That's why I said her quote suggests desperation.

Posted by Hugh Simmons | January 6, 2008 9:00 PM

Hugh,

I wasn't really questioning you per se. We don't disagree. I should have used Ken's direct quote.

Posted by jim | January 6, 2008 9:04 PM

"Taking this sort of position during the primary campaign would make it that much more difficult for her to turn around and later do something stupid/crazy like attacking Iran under renewed neocon pressure if she gets elected."

Nope. Not buying that at all.

She'll just say what all the other Iran war-mongers say: "We got it wrong in Iraq, but we got it right on Iran. Iran really DOES have a nuclear weapons program!"

Yeah, right.

We KNOW Iraq had a nuclear weapons program way back in the day - long before 2003. There is little to no evidence that Iran has EVER had a nuclear weapons program.

So as usual, the war-mongers are saying the exact opposite of what is true.

And Clinton will do whatever Israel and AIPAC tell her - or bribe her like Marc Rich did her husband - to do.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 6, 2008 9:05 PM

SoCalJustice: "I don't think Pelosi gets hammered the way Clinton does - although she has to suffer through her own silly media treatment (hairstyles, fashion choices, etc...)"

I agree to an existent, but that is the point--no one gets hammered like someone named Clinton or Gore--but Speaker Pelosi was undermined from day one by the MSM (too lazy to get the Howler links).

And I would hope fellow progessives would get the message and see what was going on...but I am not confident.

They may, on a certain Wednesday in November.

Posted by Andruw | January 6, 2008 9:10 PM

I can't believe Hillary brought attention to the Iraq War vote. I'm at a loss for words.

For once.

Posted by hlah | January 6, 2008 9:19 PM

Matt did a much more exhaustive take down of this line when Hillary trotted it out at the beginning of the campaign, back in March or so. It is a big lie. Her claim that he voted to give Bush authority in October and was surprised when he used it six months later in March does not square with the historical record. She uttered not a peep of caution in the critical two week period before Bush issued his ultimatum. In contrast, others who voted "yea," such as Tom Daschle started going to the Sunday shows and the like saying "Bush is being too precipitous; he should let the inspectors finish their work. And we need time to study the el-Baradei report indicating Iraq had suspended its nuke program."

Hillary not only was silent in that critical period, but she put out a press release within moments of Bush's issuance of the ultimatum to Saddam, saying that she supported Bush's call for war.

If she secretly believed back then that invasion was a bad idea, then she's worse than what I would otherwise would have thought. She engaged in a criminal abandonment of her duty to her constituents and an abdication of her role as a leader with national stature.

Posted by RaymondA | January 6, 2008 9:33 PM

Two more points. First in her vote to authorize force in Iraq she said, on the floor, that "This is the most difficult decision I've ever made in public life." If the vote was not one that she believed would lead to war -- if she thought that the vote was just a way of resuming inspections -- then the vote would have been easy as pie.

Second, in that same speech, she was one of the few Senate Dems -- even among those who voted "yes" -- who said there was a connection between 9/11 and the issue of whether to invade Iraq.

Posted by RaymondA | January 6, 2008 9:36 PM

And Obama voted to find the occupation every time Bush demanded it.

Posted by Volum | January 6, 2008 9:42 PM

This argument would be far more convincing if in her statement on the floor outlining her concerns when she voted for the AUMF, she had mentioned Afghanistan, the Taliban, or Osama bin Laden even once.

She mentioned Al Quaeda once--to say Saddam had harbored them; and she mentioned 9/11 once--to say it had taught New Yorkers "the danger of inaction." So, in her big speech explaining why she was voting for AUMF and exhorting the President to take certain action, she never suggested Iraq could take our aim away from terrorism--on the contrary, she argued that because there were terrorists, we needed to invade Iraq.

Contrast this to Feingold, who in his floor remarks explicitly brought the danger that taking on more burdens posed to the unfinished business in Iraq, or to Al Gore or Barack Obama, who did the same in even stronger terms.

If in her 2002 floor statement outlining her concerns about Iraq she couldn't even be bothered to mention Afghanistan, is it really credible for her to suggest now that it was her overriding concern?

Posted by anonymous | January 6, 2008 9:45 PM

I do agree with Ken however that she wouldn't have invaded Iraq.

I'm not so sure. She's yet to find a war or surge or threat of war that she could bring herself to vote against. She's afraid of being painted as "weak" and so in compensation she errs on the side of war in everything except rhetoric, and then only recent rhetoric. As recently as last summer she was gung-ho about progress in Iraq, etc. She didn't change direction on that until long after the polling numbers were solidly on the anti-war side.

So if by some twist of fate she had been president, who knows whether that same fear of being painted as "weak" would have caused her to give in to neo-con pressure to attack. What she says now, when polls are running so strongly against the war, doesn't tell you anything about what she might have done back when every poll was in support of attacking Iraq and more than half the country believed Saddam was behind 9/11. She voted for the war (either knowingly, or because she was taken in by Bush's lies) when polls supported attacking Iraq. If she'd have been president, would she have have suddenly gained enough backbone to go against the polls? Assuming it's her first term in this hypothetical, and she's concerned about reelection.

Posted by bob | January 6, 2008 9:52 PM

Volum,

Does anyone, for a second, think that a single vote against war funding in the senate would do anyone any good? And do you think, for a second, that Edwards (had he still been in the senate) wouldn't have voted for funding?

Posted by Ben | January 6, 2008 9:58 PM

It's also worth remembering that Bill Clinton tried to go to war with Iraq in 1998, and the idea was shot down only after Albright and Berger faced massive public protests when they tried to promote the idea.

Hillary Clinton is a hawk who believes in the projection of American power in the Middle East and around the world. She has always been that, at least since she has been a nationally-known public figure. That's why she voted for the Iraq War. That's why she continued to support the Iraq War for YEARS after it was clear that it was a cluster****.

She's discovered that the Democratic base is mad that while they were right on Iraq, the entire party establishment was wrong, and is therefore sick of having to nominate hawks because they are the only "electable" candidates.

Posted by Dilan Esper | January 6, 2008 10:09 PM

On a maybe unrelated note, Edwards position sometimes strike me as the Bizarro-world version of Clinton's. Clinton has run as a Bloomberg-style centrist for the last 8 years (with a few exceptions) in the Senate with the idea of obvious idea running in the general as a moderate and frontrunner for the nomination. Edwards, on the other hand, has switched from a DLC-style centrist into almost a parody of the fire-breathing economic populist (with the obvious goal of taking the Iowa caucus). I think Hillary must have more liberal core beliefs that are being Mark Penn-ed and focus-grouped to death while Edwards must see some part of his public persona as schtick (not that he doesn't believe what he's saying). There's just something that strikes me as a little "planned" about both sometimes (not that you have much freedom to be "real" in a presidential campaign)

Posted by Ben | January 6, 2008 10:11 PM

Maybe I'm just some naive liberal, but I believe Hillary when she says that. Sure, she voted for it, just like Kerry, Biden, Reid, and Daschle did, but it was brought to the Congress precisely because Bush was dead set on doing it. Her vote in favor of the resolution doesn't reveal anything about how she confronted the issue as President.

Of course, this doesn't let her off the hook. She needs to be held accoutable for her record. Simply because she would have made a superior decision than President Bush doesn't excuse not standing up to the President on a disasterous decision.

Posted by Matthew Struhar | January 6, 2008 10:15 PM

Maybe I'm just some naive liberal, but I believe Hillary when she says that.

The problem was never the vote, per se. But Hillary never came out against the war once it was clear Bush really was going to attack. There was plenty of time for the Democrats to make a big ruckus about Bush abusing their vote. But they didn't. End of story.

Posted by Mark | January 6, 2008 10:19 PM

The following Senators did vote against the Iraq War Resolution. It wasn't that hard to resist

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

Posted by hlah | January 6, 2008 10:21 PM

To clarify:

To win the nomination and become president, you need to be a little calculating. Hillary has set herself up as the eventual Democratic frontrunner and has been running for the general election (not trying to rock the boat) for as long as she's been in the senate. Edwards, on the other hand, has been running for the democratic primary for the last 4 years (establishing his liberal bona fides, investing in a red-meat economic populist message he thinks will win in Iowa, etc).

Posted by Ben | January 6, 2008 10:26 PM

Dilan Espar,

She's discovered that the Democratic base is mad that while they were right on Iraq, the entire party establishment was wrong, and is therefore sick of having to nominate hawks because they are the only "electable" candidates.

You mean the party "base" (that's a charitable way of describing them) think they were right, and they think the party establishment was wrong. The establishment doesn't seem to agree with them.

I'm not sure what your definition of a Democratic hawk is, but the only candidates who were ever really in tune with the "base" on Iraq are now toast, and they were never really serious candidates anyway.

Posted by Mixner | January 6, 2008 10:34 PM

What's your point, Mixner?

That the Democratic establishment is a corrupt bunch of war mongers who take money from the same war profiteering corporations that the Republicans do?

Tell us something we don't know.

And since Obama appears to be completely against the Iraq war - if not an Iran war - and looks likely to take Clinton down at least in the primaries, how do you square that with the notion that all the candidates opposed to the war are "toast"?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 6, 2008 10:46 PM

That the Democratic establishment is a corrupt bunch of war mongers who take money from the same war profiteering corporations that the Republicans do?

I do love it when you're so silly.

And since Obama appears to be completely against the Iraq war ...

Obama does not appear to be completely against the Iraq war. Neither does Hillary. Or Edwards. Not that Edwards was ever really a serious candidate. Perhaps a bit more serious than your resident bit of presidential candidate comic relief, Dennis Kucinich.

Posted by Mixner | January 6, 2008 10:54 PM

How about this?(the Kenyan situation on the news reminded me):

Didn't she, (or Bill on her behalf) a week or so ago said the she WOULD have gone into Rwanda? So I think I have some small amount of doubt of the notion that she would have not gone into Iraq if she was Prez.

Posted by Kolohe | January 6, 2008 10:59 PM

#1) Always thought nominee lib Hitler Hillary was the most likely, that Obama fellow second most likely.

#2) Never thought either could beat the kewl mayor type.

#3) Think nomination of lib Hitler type smarter than the Obama fellow. Getting unions to turn out like California 2005 may be Democrats best chance of increasing majorities in Congress, least bad eventuality for country.

Sierra Nevadas, running on battery. No power. Will devour the remains of nearest PG&E exec as opportunity permits.

Posted by Linus | January 6, 2008 11:22 PM

To add a last point: Hilary's posturing for the election fucked us all over, Edward's has pushed the top 3 candidates in the right direction.

Posted by Ben | January 6, 2008 11:23 PM

Obama appears to be enough against the Iraq war that he will make some efforts to get the troops out. No guarantees, of course, I can easily see him fuck up on the stupid idea of a "training mission".

Worse is his attitude toward Iran, which makes him unsuitable as President.

However, your point is in tatters, since Obama clearly is a serious candidate and is clearly more in tune with the base than Clinton is.

Don't bother trying again, Mixner, you'll just embarrass yourself as you did with your torture nonsense.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 6, 2008 11:39 PM

Edward's has pushed the top 3 candidates in the right direction.

Yeah, that must be why Hillary and Obama keep going and on and about poverty and "corporate greed," just like the Edwardsbot, rather than virtually ignoring those issues.

They're as liberal now as they're ever going to be. Make the most of it. Once a winner has emerged, (s)he'll tack back to the center faster than you can say "DLC".

Posted by Mixner | January 6, 2008 11:41 PM

Re Andrew's comment "Do you honestly thinks she would have 'picked' war with Iraq for no reason, like Bush?"
--------------
1) Oh hell yes.

For the same reason Bush did.

Because some fucking billionaires --who are strong supporters of Israel -- saw Hussein as a threat to Israel. Whores in both parties tripped over each other in the rush to buy political donations from those billionaires -- by wasting 3800+ American lives in defense of Israel.

2) Several Hillary supporters here seem totally IGNORANT of where Hillary's money is coming from --and what she's been willing to do to get it.

3) The Democratic Party's biggest donor in 2000-2002 was an ISRAELI billionaire named Haim
Saban -- who chipped in close to $14 Million.

Haim 's never been vague about what his goals are -- he himself stated that he's a one-issue guy and that issue is Israel.

It was Haim who set up a think tank at Brookings whose "Directors" --Kenneth Pollack and Marty Indyk -- were beating the drums for war on Iraq in 2002.

Telling us that Hussein was a threat and needed to be taken out immediately. Read Pollack's "The Threatening Storm" to see a lot of ghost stories about how Saddam was working feverishly to build nuclear bombs and was mostly like on the verge of success.

4) Another of the Israel Lobby's billionaires was S Daniel Abraham --who blew Howard Dean's PResidential campaign out of the water with a barrage of attack ads in Iowa, after Dean said the US needed to be even-handed in the Israel-Palestinian dispute.

5) Instead of shunning this disloyal scum, Hillary has gone out of her way to bury her nose up their ass. Citations available on request. Haim kickstarted Hillary's campaign by raising $1 Million for her early in 2007 -- and has bought the Spanish TV network Univision.

Posted by Don Williams | January 6, 2008 11:50 PM

Hack,

Obama appears to be enough against the Iraq war that he will make some efforts to get the troops out.

You're changing your story. You claimed that Obama "appears to be completely against the Iraq war." That's nonsense. He definitely wants to get the troops out, but how badly he wants them out, and how strongly he would push for it, remains to be seen. His record on Iraq is mixed. He defended Kerry and Edwards against their anti-war critics, arguing that there was room for disagreement. He said that he himself might have voted in favor of the invasion if he had been a congressman and had access to classified intelligence reports. He has repeatedly voted in favor of continued war funding, and he voted against Kerry's proposal to remove most combat troops from Iraq by July of last year. That is not the record of someone who is "completely against the war" and is even less consistent with rabid anti-war zealots such as yourself.

And of course, if he becomes President, he can always pull the old Clinton "The circumstances have changed, so my position has changed too" gambit to justify prolonging the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq. In fact, if he becomes president, I expect that's probably what he'll do.

Posted by Mixner | January 6, 2008 11:56 PM

Not only would Hillary had invaded Iraq if she had been President 4 years ago , but thousands of our sons will be dying in IRAN eight months after she's elected President.

Because her puppetmaster Haim Saban
sees Iran as an unacceptable threat to Israel. See
his Dec 2006 interview with Haaretz at http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/798292.html .

See Hillary at the Saban Center at http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=%22Haim+Saban%22+%22Hillary+Clinton%22&fr=yfp-t-501&u=home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp%3FndmViewId%3Dnews_view%26newsId%3D20061211005411%26newsLang%3Den&w=%22haim+saban%22+%22hillary+clinton%22&d=InTakbXiPzS_&icp=1&.intl=us

Posted by Don Williams | January 6, 2008 11:58 PM

When I say Obama is "completely" against the war, I mean that he was against starting it from the get-go, as opposed to Clinton and Edwards.

He's been weak on pulling out or not funding the war (given his election considerations, that doesn't surprise me), but I haven't seen any indication that he would not make some effort to withdraw troops on a timetable.

As I said, though, he might well change his mind on becoming President. You might be right about that. I never denied that.

What you're not right about is your notion that Obama is completely distant from the base on the topic of Iraq - which is the point being discussed.

Like I said, don't embarrass yourself further.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 7, 2008 12:04 AM

Let's take Hillary's statement at face value: in the fall of 2002, she didn't support invading Iraq. In that light, I have no choice but to see her vote for the Iraq War resolution as a historic lapse of judgement. She didn't want a war, but somehow ended up voting to authorize it. I guess she just got played. When it comes to the nitty gritty of American politics, I guess she's no George W. Bush.

Hillary Clinton, by her own admission, is such a terrible Senator that she sometimes finds herself voting for policies that are the exact opposite of what she intends. Why, exactly, should I vote for her for President?

Posted by MikeS | January 7, 2008 12:04 AM

PS Re Haim Saban's shills -- who were darkly warning us of Saddam Hussein's "WMDS" in 2002, note that Kenneth Pollack was on Bill Clinton's National Security Council and Marty Indyk --with long time ties to AIPAC -- was on Clinton's NSC and served as Clinton's ambassador to Israel.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Indyk .

To understand why Bill Clinton would hire such inept intellects, read Haim Saban's boasts in the Haaretz interview above re how President Clinton fetched Haim soft drinks whenever Haim visited the White House.

Posted by Don Williams | January 7, 2008 12:07 AM

When I say Obama is "completely" against the war, I mean that he was against starting it from the get-go, as opposed to Clinton and Edwards.

So when you say "completely," you actually mean "initially." Got it. Any other bizarre redefinitions of ordinary words we should know about?

What you're not right about is your notion that Obama is completely distant from the base on the topic of Iraq - which is the point being discussed.

He's completely distant from you on Iraq. But then, pretty much all sane people are completely distant from the ranting and raving of "Richard Steven Hack."

Posted by Mixner | January 7, 2008 12:15 AM

This raises an interesting point, about the last time the leaders of a top world power have been this totally corrupt, especially with regard to absolutely central national security/foreign policy issues. I'm not a historian, but offhand I can't think of as blatant a situation regarding Britain, Imperial Germany, Napoleonic France, etc.

Many of the leaders certainly did stupid and dangerous things, but I've never heard claims that e.g. Russia supported Serbia in the Balkans because key Russian courtiers had been bribed by the Serbs. It's really not a healthy state of affairs for a major country.

And the long history of bribery on relatively minor issues is a little different. For example, it's been widely alleged that Truman was paid $2M in cash in exchange for recognizing Israel (with George Marshall his Secretary of State nearly resigning in protest), but the Mid East wasn't nearly as crucial then as it is today, and no one ever claimed that Truman was paid a bribe to fight the Korean War, or that Johnson was paid money to send 500,000 American troops to Vietnam. Similarly, some recent French presidents have supposedly been bribed by small African countries, but mostly for small things which didn't really matter much one way or other other.

One thing I do know from history is that when democracies and their elected leaders become totally corrupt---as in the late Roman Republic---very unpleasant things often follow. I guess maybe it's bad luck or something...

Posted by RKU | January 7, 2008 12:27 AM

1) Mixner is trying to muddy the waters by confusing two different issues.

IF you have troops engaged on the battlefield, you don't want them running out of ammunition, going hungery, or dying from lack of medical care or transport.

And once the US is engaged in a war -- in which 3800 men have died -- it is politically hard to pull out of that war so long as the Commander in Chief does everything to block a withdrawal and has the support of 48? Republican Senators.

2) I think the Democrats should have fought Bush harder on a withdrawal.

But to suggest someone having difficulty fixing this mess is as guilty as the person who voted to get us into this unnecessary war is a gross distortion.

Posted by Don Williams | January 7, 2008 12:32 AM

"He's completely distant from you on Iraq."

But he's not completely distant from the base on Iraq - which, again, is the point being discussed.

Really, the embarrassment is becoming enormous for you, Mixner. Your reduction to the usual ad hominems merely emphasizes the fact.

Go back to advocating torture of small animals and birds.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 7, 2008 12:33 AM

Hillary Clinton Will Take Any Position In Order To Get Elected

Senator Clinton (D-NY) voted for passage of the bill in the Senate authorizing President Bush to invade Iraq. Last evening at a Hew Hampshire debate she says she will withdraw American troops, if elected president, immediately after January 23, 2009. What happened between the senate vote and today is that the "War in Iraq" has become very unpopular with the American public, and more important with the American electorate. Supporting the war is not good for votes; hence the change in position for Senator Clinton. Any "ordinary American" (those Americans who vote for those Extra-ordinary Americans and put them in office) can plainly see the flip-flop in position on the war that Senator Clinton has taken.

Is this an indication that Clinton has no idea of what is going on in the world now or at the time of the vote? Or is this an indication that she will "go along to get along" as she has clearly demonstrated with her "yes" vote? I believe both hypothetical questions must be answered in the affirmative.

Most of the blabber that comes out of any candidate's mouth during an election campaign for public office, at the national, state, county, or local level, is just that: blabber. the most famous one in a recent presidential campaign was: "Read my lips! No new taxes!" Most of the things candidates promise to do cannot be done for several reasons. Even as president he or she will not have the power or the support of Congress to do the things he or she promised. Or the candidate has no knowledge of the entire situation, history, or legal solutions of an issue.

The so-called "Missile Gap" comes to mind during the Nixon/Kennedy campaign. National security concerns prevented the truth of the matter to see the light of day during the campaign, but it is doubtful whether Kennedy and his advisors knew the truth in the first place. To set the record straight there was indeed a "missile gap" between the United Sates and the Soviet Union: The United States had more missiles than the Soviets - with their finely-tuned spy network - ever knew or imagined. This was the second shock President Kennedy experienced when he took office.

In conclusion, whatever a candidate says, promises to do, or when he or she claims to have “experience” in an area he or she has no idea whatsoever about, just keep in mind: a candidate will say or claim anything to get elected. It is up to us ordinary Americans to see through the fog and I suppose vote for the best liar or actor. This way we will all know we chose the best of the lot.

Posted by JamesKB | January 7, 2008 12:34 AM

This is my main complaint about both Obama and Clinton: both of them babbling about foreign policy vis-a-vis Iran and Pakistan without either one uttering one single intelligent statement about the exact situation in either country.

Both of them making blanket pronouncements like "Iran is a threat" without specifying to whom, how, why, what is the level of precise knowledge they have of the situation, and what they will actually do about it.

Both of them proclaiming the situation in Pakistan to be a "problem" without specifying, again, to whom, how, why, and what they actually know about the exact situation, or what they would recommend doing about it.

Which makes both of them ignorant politicians willing to say anything to get elected.

The Republicans are, of course, far worse - they actually make up lies about the respective situations and then suggest courses of action that will make the situations infinitely worse.

But that doesn't mean Obama and Clinton are somehow "better". There are no second chances to get US foreign policy right. If either gets elected and starts another war in the wrong place, things could get exponentially worse than they are now for the US economy (indeed the world economy) and the US military - not to mention the civilians in the countries they go to war with (and those civilians are never an issue in US political calculations.)

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 7, 2008 12:44 AM

Wow... some real lunatics came out about two-thirds of the way down this thread.

Anyway, my take is that HRC simply can't bluntly state what she's trying to get across in a subtextual way: she voted that way because she thinks Presidents should be rubber-stamped by Congress when it comes to military action. Period. She's alluded to this in the past, I think, and John Kerry was a bit more blunt IIRC (possibly gender issues, power/ambition, etc., come into play here, or maybe not) in saying that he voted for it because he would have wanted the same deference as POTUS. I assume that what she's trying to get across, and the longer-term case she was trying to support, was that Presidents need to be relatively free of Congressional constraint so they can Look Tough; since she wanted to be seen as Tough when president, during the interim she wanted to be the kind of Senator that a President needs as backup.

Posted by latts | January 7, 2008 1:53 AM

Latts, that's an incredibly convoluted way to say she wants to be seen as a hawk - as opposed to what? Actually being a hawk?

Sorry, can't buy that one.

She IS a hawk when being a hawk is profitable. She's not a hawk when not being one is profitable - which is rarely the case in the US today. People with money to bribe politicians with aren't bribing them to stay out of war.

Hillary voted as she did because people with money told her to - specifically AIPAC and probably a few war profiteering corporations we haven't heard specifics about.

People with money gave money to Bill to pardon Marc Rich - and Marc Rich got pardoned.

That's all you have to know about the Clintons.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 7, 2008 3:33 AM

Undoubtedly Sen. Clinton supported the AUMF resolution based on her political calculation, which turned out in the event to be mistaken, that a vote against would be a badge of "softness" that would hurt her campaign this year. Nevertheless, it's quite unhistorical to view the issues as open and shut in 2002. If you took Bush's rhetoric at face value, the point of the AUMF and the troop buildup in Kuwait was to put pressure on Saddam to disclose and disarm. Voting against it would have deprived that pressure of its credibility. It's doubtful that Saddam would have opened up to Blix and el Baradei to the extent he did without a credible threat of force against him. The biggest problem was that, in the wake of 9/11, people like Sen. Clinton underestimated Bush's bad faith, not to mention the bad faith and incompetence of the senior levels at DOD, and also overestimated the staying power of Bush's post-9/11 popularity. It's hard to fault her for this last given the 2004 election results. Buyers' remorse did not set in until 2005.

What Ken said: given the reports of Blix and el Baradei showing that Iraq was a threat to nobody, of course Sen. Clinton would not have invaded, had she been in charge.

This is not to excuse her lack of leadership over the least three years in extricating the U.S. from this calamity.

Posted by gordonminor | January 7, 2008 7:16 AM

RSH, of course it's convoluted, but it's a bit more complicated than standard hawkishness-- it was a gender dog whistle meant to let people know that hard power was something she wholeheartedly supported.

Posted by latts | January 7, 2008 7:37 AM

Re Richard's comment "People with money gave money to Bill to pardon Marc Rich - and Marc Rich got pardoned.

That's all you have to know about the Clintons."
------------
Oh , it's LOTS more comical than that.

Salon published a rather hilarious serious of emails that were unearthed by a House subcommittee investigating the Marc Rich pardon.
Showing how the Government of Israel and its US supporters were frantically trying to get a pardon for Rich.

(Although Rudi Giulani could give you an additional view--he was the US Attorney who got rolled)

See http://dir.salon.com/story/politics/feature/2001/02/13/email/?pn=1

A few excerpts:
(NOTE: "POTUS" = President of the US Bill Clinton )
--------------------

"E-mails and documents turned up by the House Subcommittee on Government Reform in its investigation of the controversial Marc Rich pardon shed a fascinating spotlight on the intersections of money, power and influence in Washington, New York, Israel and the up-for-sale wing of the Democratic Party."
-----------
"Beth

I am told that Barak also discussed the Marc Rich matter with the POTUS.[President Bill Clinton ]

JQ "
------------
"From: Avner Azulay Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 4:44 PM To: Kathleen Behan Cc: Robert Fink Subject: teloecon to potus

Would it still be useful to have another VIP place an additional call to Potus to support the petition. I could try asking the Speaker of the Knesset(Parlement) Avraham Burg who was the guest speaker at the "Marc Rich Annual Seminar" which opened tonight ... Burg is on very friendly terms with Hilary and knows potus from previous contacts. Pse advise/comments. Thanks & regards-Avner"
-----------
"From: Rich Foundation 12/25/2000 04:54:25 AM To: Jack Quinn Cc: Kathleen Behan, Robert Fink

Shimon Peres confirms that he talked to potus on Monday Dec 11th who "took note" of his intervention. FYI.

From: Jack Quinn 12/25/2000 04:33:01 PM To: Marc Rich CC: Robert Fink, Kathleen Behan Subject Elie Wiesel

I talked to him today. He says that he brought up the topic at the WH on Mondat Dec 12th, he refused to disclose who he met. He was told of the difficulties lying ahead in dealing with it (he would explain it only in a face to face meeting) and hopes that they can be surmounted (end quote).
----------
"From: Fink, Robert NY Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 5:25 PM To: Jack Quinn Cc: Marc Rich, Avner Azulay, Gershon Kekst, Kitty Behan, Mike Green

Of all the options we discussed, the only one that seems to have real potential for making a difference is the HRC [note: HRC = Hillary Rodnam Clinton ] option and even that has peril if not handled correctly ... As for contacting Rudy, that seems to be too fraught with peril, and I am against it unless someone has some inside information which would strongly suggest he is willing to stay on the side lines and we only want confirmation ... Frankly, I think we benefit from not having the existence of the petition known ...

- - - - - - - - - - - -

From: Avner Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2000 8:26 AM To: Quinn, Jack; Fink, Robert NY Cc: Rich, Marc; behan kathleen Subject: Chuck Schumer

I have been advised that HRC shall feel more at ease if she is joined by her elder senator of NY who also represents the jewish population. The private request from DR shall not be sufficient. It seems that this shall be a pre requisite from her formal position."
---------
"From: gkekst Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2000 5:20 PM To: Fink, Robert NY Subject: Chuck Schumer

Good point. Can quinn tell us who is close enough to lean on schumer?? I am certainly willing to call him but have no real clout. Jack might be able to tell us quickly who the top contributors are ... maybe Bernard Schwartz ??

Gershon"
------------
"Roughly two weeks before the end of Clinton's presidency, more big guns are being recruited.

From: Avner Azulay Sent: January 02, 2001, 12:42 PM To: Robert Fink, Jack Quinn, Kathleen Brehan

... I met with A. Burg (The Speaker of the House). He shall see if he can recruit Israel Singer, Edgar Bronfman and Elie Wiesel ... Has anyone an idea how to reach VernonJ?

You should know that MR spoke with DR. Her impression-from Beth is that HRC shall try to be protective of her husband and stay out of potential trrouble."
------------
"From: Fink, Robert NY Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 4:40 PM To: Avner Cc: Marc Rich, Jack Quinn

I just got off the phone with Jack who had just gotten off the phone with the WH counsel. He will send an email update, but I can tell you that it does not sound too late for these calls. JQ specifically dwelled on the high level and deep support MR was getting from Israel as a ground for consideration. So do not let up. Bob."
---------
"Speaker of the Knesset Abraham Burg sends a letter on Rich's behalf to Clinton on Jan. 9, 2001. On Friday, Jan. 12, Rich meets with Israeli Prime Minister Barak.

From: Avner Azulay Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 5:16 pm To: Jack Quinn, Marc Rich, Robert Fink, Kathleen Behan Subject: telecons to potus

Following mr's mtg with the pm the latter called potus this week. Potus said he is very much aware of the case, "that he is looking into it and that he saw 2 fat books which were prepared by these people." Potus sounded positive but maede no concrete promise.

Rabin has a telecon date with potus on Monday"
---------

Hee hee hee.
People might want to look in the archives and see exactly how a mediocre governor of Arkansas with a history of ethical problems and sexual scandals pulled ahead of Medal of Honor winner Senator Bob Kerrey, Al Gore, and other Democratic candidates in the 1994 primaries.

Posted by Don Williams | January 7, 2008 9:02 AM

Wow, this blog's threads are taking a nose-dive in the quality department. Buncha people who think Hillary would have invaded Iraq. Funny. Pathetic. But not very reality-based.

Anyway, we've been down this road before with Matt a zillion times now, like a classic frustration dream. But Mark @ 10:19 PM got it right: The original sin is not having voted for authorization, but not having raised a ruckus at the turn of 2003 and the rush to war.

As for naivete, how does a progressive blogger who supported the actual invasion go around casting stones at folks who might have voted for the authorization under the impression that they were enabling a smart president to engage in brinksmanship?

This is only getting stupider....

Posted by elle loco | January 7, 2008 9:26 AM

"Burg is on very friendly terms with Hilary"

That's interesting - just how "friendly" is "friendly"?

Do the Zionists have Hillary ensnared in a "honey trap"?

Found this on the Web:

"Israeli service Mossad is considered to be the leader in the field of sex espionage. It has Arab-speaking female agents , holding Canadian and American passports, women work in Palestine and in other neighboring Arab states."

Presumably they have male agents working the female side, too.

Given how desperate Hillary is for males to pay attention to her, this isn't that far-fetched.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 7, 2008 8:35 PM