Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"The inability or unwillingness of Clinton and her circle to give an accurate account of what she

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-22-07 12:14 AM
Original message
"The inability or unwillingness of Clinton and her circle to give an accurate account of what she
and her allies were up to in 2002 and 2003 really bothers me."


Early War Critics of the World Unite!
21 Dec 2007 05:46 pm

Kevin Drum makes an argument worth responding to regarding Hillary Clinton's foreign policy views, but that'll have to wait for tomorrow. Instead, let me note this post by Ambassador Joe Wilson in support of Clinton. Clearly, securing the support of some prominent war opponents like Wilson has, for Clinton, been an important part of the effort to defuse anger over her position on Iraq. And it really is to her credit that she has the support of several such figures. That said, claims like this from Wilson don't really fly:

Many of the most prominent early opponents of the war, including former General Wes Clark and former ambassador to the United National Richard Holbrooke support Senator Clinton for President, as do I.


Needless to say, Holbrooke didn't oppose the war at all. He was a fairly prominent advocate for war, not as influential as Kenneth Pollack, but part of the group of former Clinton administration officials who helped sell the war to Democratic politicians and citizens. The inability or unwillingness of Clinton and her circle to give an accurate account of what she and her allies were up to in 2002 and 2003 really bothers me. I'm willing to forgive people for their errors, but I'd like to know what Clinton et. al. think the moral of the story is (contrast her handling of this issue to the deft way in which she's plausibly argued that her participation in the failed health reform effort of the 1990s makes her uniquely prepared to grasp the pitfalls and find the path to progress) and what they've learned.

Instead, you keep hearing that she was actually opposed to the war! Or if she wasn't, maybe Bill was! Or maybe Dick Holbrooke was! Or, or, or, or ... who knows? It's an odd way to behave and it makes it hard to clear the air. John Edwards has, by contrast, acknowledged error in a straightforward way and then laid out a compelling vision of American engagement with the world that clearly reflects a new, post-Iraq understanding of how the country should conduct itself on the world stage.

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/12/early_war_critics_of_the_world.php

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-22-07 12:36 AM
Response to Original message
1. I guess he's not voting for Hillary.
Does he at least say up front who he IS fronting for?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lvx35 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-22-07 01:04 AM
Response to Original message
2. Dennis Kucinich has, by contrast, not voted for the war at all. nt :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-22-07 11:20 AM
Response to Original message
3. Kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MGKrebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-22-07 11:52 AM
Response to Original message
4. Excerpts from HRC's floor speech 10/10/2002:
"Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster..... So Mr. President... a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option."

"Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it...But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto, on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act."

"I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998."

"I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial."

"Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible."

"Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation."

"I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them."

"And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am."

So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed."




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rudy23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-22-07 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. "it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President"
"...and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort."

I know hindsight is 20/20 and all, but, wow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Onlooker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-22-07 12:11 PM
Response to Original message
5. She's a woman
A few months back there was an article in the New York Times saying that the reason Hillary is unwilling to apologize for her vote on Iraq was that the argument against her would turn even more sexist than words like shrill and cackling. If she backed down, people would say that women aren't strong enough or decisive enough to make the tough decisions. I think it is pretty obvious that her initial support for the war had to do with what was going on in her state, where people were especially nervous and angry. It was a bad move on her part, but she has come around to have a position similar enough to those of Edwards and Obama.

The same article suggested that the Hillary campaign was trying to use the style that Maggie Thatcher used, i.e., that of the Iron Lady.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-22-07 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. Thathcher huh..
.... and folks why we call her Bush lite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MGKrebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-22-07 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. Or it could be that her convictions have been vindicated.
Edited on Sat Dec-22-07 01:08 PM by MGKrebs
She believes that strong diplomacy can avoid conflict. It worked in this case, as we all know that Saddam offered to step down right before the invasion. Bush turned him down.


It's just mystifying to me that people can say in one breath that Bush was going to do what he did no matter what anybody said, and in the next blame anybody else but Bush for what has happened.


edit: Hillary's IWR vote was not so much based on the misleading information being provided by the administration as it was about her belief in diplomacy and her perception of the responsibilities of the office of the presidency. There is still nothing to apologize for in that regard. I would even say that Edwards' apology is dissatisfying to me, because it means he based his support on something other than his principles. He based it on what someone told him to do, which is an uncomfortably repetitive occurrence in his career.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
creeksneakers2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-22-07 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Great point about double standard
that says Bush does anything he wants but then blames everybody but Bush for what happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-22-07 12:44 PM
Response to Original message
7. They were trying to get UN inspectors
back in Iraq and reduce the case for an invasion, build more resistance to it internationally. Particularly because the Bush admin was pooh poohing the UN, it was important to gather more new data.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smiley_glad_hands Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-23-07 02:09 AM
Response to Original message
11. The General has always been against the war. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 11:12 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC