Clinton gets cranky as a question about Dems and Iraq hits close to home

According to Tim Grieve of Salon.com:

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/05/26/clintons/index.html?source=war_room.rss


Bill, Hillary and Iraq

We didn't think much of this week's New York Times piece on the state of Bill and Hillary's marriage, but Washington Post politics blogger Chis Cillizza has found some more interesting news to report concerning the relationship of the former president and the senator who might become one.

At a meeting of a group of wealthy political donors last weekend, Cillizza says, Bill Clinton got a little testy when one member of the group -- later identified as Oakland, Calif., civil rights attorney Guy Saperstein -- asked him why more Democrats hadn't come forward to say that they made a mistake in voting to authorize the use of force in Iraq. The question hits close to home for Clinton: His wife voted for the use-of-force authorization back in October 2002, and she has steered clear of some of her colleagues' calls for a timetable leading to the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

We don't know exactly what was said during the Saperstein-Clinton exchange, but it apparently grew ugly enough that Clinton subsequently "transmitted" an apology to Saperstein. In a letter back to the president, Saperstein says that the apology wasn't necessary -- "Iraq is a contentious issue, and it is no surprise that elbows occasionally will be thrown" -- but that the questions he raised must be addressed.

Saperstein says he asked Clinton if it's credible for him or anyone else to argue today that "the problems of a war in Iraq, and/or discerning President Bush's true intentions in seeking the Iraq resolution, were not knowable in October 2002." He says that Clinton responded by saying that Democrats need to look forward, not back, on Iraq.

Saperstein doesn't disagree, but he also says it's fair for Democrats to remember how members of Congress voted on Iraq in considering whether they have the leadership skills necessary to serve as president. "I am not suggesting we should judge anyone solely on one vote, but this was the single most important vote anyone currently in Congress ever made, and we all will be paying for it for many years, maybe our entire lifetimes," Saperstein writes. After describing the toll the war has taken on America, both at home and abroad, Saperstein asks: "Are voters supposed to forget how we got into this mess, its long-term costs, or not measure leadership by who got it wrong?"

...

As politically smart as the Clintons usually are, sometimes they are just plain dumb. Voting yes on Iraq War was a politically expedient decision--and cowardly at that. Now they have to live with the consequences. I just don't think they are going to be able to go back to the WH in 08.

<PARAPHRASING> If we win the war, it will make us look terrible for opposing it. If the war is a failure, we all can suffer in shame together.

In other words, no one knew what was going to happen and they put all their chips on the US military.

You (or Donahue) meant that's what the damn dumb Dems who voted for IWR gambled on.

Damn dumb Dems!

He meant the country, all of us. I really get the sense that when he talks about the country, he's not just talking about people who agree with his politics. I really find that refreshing. He has a moral sense of what the whole country is, what our whole obligations are as a community, as a society. When he says we counted only on the military, he means the government, the people, and the president. As a whole we all thought the military could do it all, when all they could do is create military solutions. Since Iraq is fundamentally not a military problem, we're continuing to see new and harsher problems appear every day.

That will never make sense to me.

military as the entire government. I think that's a different country you're talking about. Yes, we all must suffer the shame of what's been done in our names, just as the Germans had to suffer and the Romans before them. But, I did not do this war. I didn't support it and I didn't vote for it. The people who did vote for this war need to step up and ask forgiveness and stop trying to justify their actions. They failed us. The failed the world.

Bill Clinton, himself, has made many mistakes, failing to act in Rwanda being the biggest. He admitted his errors and we were able to move on. I don't understand why it's so hard for his wife to do the same. How hard is it to say, "You know, we were wrong to make war on Iraq. I'm sorry I voted for the use of force. I was wrong to trust the judgement of this president. I believed what he and his administration were telling me. Many things they have said have proven to be false. The problem now is, we have broken Iraq and we must do everything we can to fix it. Forgive me." How hard is that? How hard is that?

I was a big Hillary fan, but I must admit, I'm feeling a little shaky about her now. Why won't she say it? I don't get it. Is it Murdoch's money? I understand "playing the middle," but you know what? I'm the middle, (ok, slightly left of middle), and she's losing me.

She has straddled that damn fence so long she can not move her legs for fear of falling off that damn fence.

If we were wrong and Iraqis ended up not minding so much about their neighbors and family members getting killed and their oil swiped and the Ba'athists turned out to not want to fight our troops on the sly and were instead perfectly willing to quit being murderous bastards, then yes, us war-opposers would look pretty damn near-sighted.

But as it turns out, we were right. Iraq is a big ungodly mess and yet we still have nothing to celebrate. Whether we favored the war or not, blood is on the hands of all Americans. This is done by our government in our name with our tax dollars to promote our country's capacity to control Iraq's oil. Whatever benefits come to the country from this war come to me too. Blood is on my hands, no matter how many letters I wrote, how many pickets I held, how many doors I've knocked on, nor how many checks I've written to progressive candidates.

The only upside to opposing the war is the abilty to say "I was right." And that's nothing compared to all we've lost.

voted their conscience have nothing to be ashamed of.

I've seen her speak in person about the conflict and she is damn happy about it. Do all the rationalizing about it you want, but she doesn't regret it for a second. She just does the rhetorical technical criticisms that most of the mainstream Dems do.

Anyone who has studied History KNEW what would happen.

With her hawkish stance on Iran, I made up my mind that I could never vote for Hillary. Forget her support for Iraq, there is no excuse for her to be trying to trump Bush on who's more hawkish about invading Iran.

Since this is such a horrific war (what war isn't?) and a Democrat that would like to take the white House in 2008 would get all the blame, imo, because they voted for the war.

... as well it should.

In remembering some DU history I recall how many of us called, wrote, e-mailed and marched in the streets in opposition of invading Iraq. We pleaded and begged somebody in Congress to listen to our voices. As usual they didn't. I hope it bites them all in the ass.

were Democrats who voted against the Iraq funding bill.
There are even those who openly admit that their vote for the Iraq funding bill was a mistake.
Hillary Clinton falls into none of those categories.
I would not want to see her as the Democratic candidate for President in '08
I would not vote for her for Senator from NY again.

and the blue dress was another.

Saperstein is dead on!!

This let's get past it, don't look back shit is NOT GOING TO FLY and Hillary has made her bed

Gore/Feingold is a clean ticket.

strong on Defense. She and Bill pander to the middle of the road Americans in hopes of garnering their support. The Left Wing of Dems are solidly against her becoming Pres. because her policies are Corp. complicit. I sure hope that she doesn't run and if she does that she is defeated in the Primaries. I have nothing against her personaly. I do not subscibe to her political stance.

...she panders to the right. She's still trying to win the impeachment vote. It some ways, it's not very healthy for her to be seeking this nomination.

She's in a position such that she can never just stand for something on principle. She made that very clear from the start of her term as a Senator. Everything she does has to be a calculation. This is not good for her, for the Democrats or for the country.

It won't matter how clean the candidates are. For us to succeed, we need to be prepared for the smear machine, and have a clear, strong, unified message, otherwise nothing will matter.


Back to 2006 now. :hide:

pre-emptive war. It was the pre-emptive war excuse that Gore railed against. He would have supported an invasion if Iraq was really a threat and did favor continuing to keep Saddam in check, but he opposed the pre-emptive war that Bush was pushing on Congress and the nation. If Gore was in the senate, he would have voted against IWR, just like he went against the Dem tide in 1991 to vote in favor of Gulf War I. Unlike the prima-donnas who voted for IWR because they were afraid to look weak on defense and wanted to bolster their fantasies of being President, Gore uses his brain to make rational decisions.

I knew. Many people here knew.

How did we know? Did we have some incredible psychic power?

No.

We read everything we could find about the Iraq and the issues surrounding. We read about some of the CIA stating that the intelligence was questionable.

In sum, we considered the other side of the issue. Something every single politician and journalist should have done.

And, we have been right on all counts.

It is called objectivity.

or his gang.

Well--gee, maybe election 2000 taught us that?

:think:

people demonstrated world-wide against the impending invasion. (I was one of the 100,000+ in Los Angeles.) What did we 30 million know that Hillary couldn't be bothered to find out?

in 1995, Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan. He was debriefed by Jordanian and American intel officers and said that, as the person in charge of Iraq's WMD programs, he had ordered all stockpiles destroyed right after the ceasefire that ended Desert Storm. His statement was thought credible at the time, but conveniently forgotten after 9/11.

Hell, in January, 2001, Colin Powell said he thought Iraq had no WMD threat.

Hillary will never get my vote, unless she publicly recants her pro-war vote(s) and says, in plain English, "I was wrong, I apologize, please forgive me."

can you believe the nerve of that guy.

"We shouldn't dwell on the negatives of past trade deals, but instead look forward to future opportunities." So I said, "In other words, ignore your past fuck-ups and look forward to more of your colossal fuck-ups in the future."

He is smart enough to know it was trumped-up on lies.

Why doesn't he care about the needless death and destruction?

If damned dumb Democrats would stop letting him get away with saying it was a vote for war, then maybe we could hold the SOB accountable for planning this war despite telling the American people he wasn't, which would lead right into why he would lie about the intelligence and cherry-pick what came from the CIA. Bush wanted this war from the get-go and if we don't prove that, the rest of this lousy pre-emptive war and reshaping the globe will never become clear to the American people. It all starts with the fact that Bush said it WAS NOT a vote for war.

naive to think that Busholini wasn't going to invade Iraq?

What matters is what the American people were told and this president told us that he had no intention of going to war. That's what he said. Trying to explain to people of the extent of his lies, without that caveat, is impossible. That's the problem we've had for 3 years now.

Too bad we can't get that out in the open or can we?:shrug:

That doesn't excuse those who went along with it. Not at all.

No matter how hard they try to spin it otherwise.

"Are voters supposed to forget how we got into this mess, its long-term costs, or not measure leadership by who got it wrong?"

According to some Rabbit Holers..yes.

I will not be voting for anyone for president in 2008 who voted to support or openly supported this war at any time.

If that means voting third party, so be it. I don't want to do that, I really don't. But I am not messing around on this issue. I was against the war in Iraq from the first rattling of the sabres.

its long-term costs, or not measure leadership by who got it wrong?"


this statement says it all regarding talking about the dem leadership.

however it would be remiss of me if i didn't say -- WIN lose or draw -- this war was immoral and illegal -- even if it had gone as smoothly as cinderellas foot sliding into her glass slipper.

there is the hint in the air -- if all had gone smoothly -- that would have justified the illegal invasion of iraq.

for that ILLEGAL INVASION. They will rue the day they did....FOREVER! Dumb asses. I knew the cabal was lying. If I knew they were lying, why didn't they??? They KNEW it was a lie and were covering their own freakin' asses so they wouldn't lose elections. They weren't concerned about illegally invading Iraq. They were concerned about THEMSELVES AND ONLY THEMSELVES. They were more worried about being painted as "unpatriotic", "if you're not with us, you're against us" and "if you don't support the war, you don't support the troops." ALL BULLSHIT, BTW. The Dems were gutless wonders THEN and they're gutless wonders NOW. Hillary should just sit this one out. She made a HUGE error when she cast that freakin' vote...IMCPO.

That is why they voted for war. Keep the funders happy. No, not the soccer mom who might contribute the $40, but the big boys who keep the game going. some of these men contribute a million bucks to the Dem Party (and then give some to the Repugs, too). They know people they don't want to offend.

the Iraqi people and the families of servicpeople sent to fight a war for empire.

Let's start with Bill. Continuation of Sanctions kill hundreds of thousands. Bombed Baghdad. Signed bill calling for regime change.

Hillary. Her record is clear, and stays out there in opposition to withdraw of troops.
People suffer, Hillary stakes out the "middle ground", and makes the funders of future happy, and for some reason, a few clueless "liberals" still support her nonetheless.

learn to throw it back in their faces?

They were NOT given all the facts, information was cherry-picked, and
they're still waiting to see the Phase II paperwork on the run-up to war.

How can/could informed decisions be made if important info was lacking?
Those that voted for IWR may have at that point had more faith that this
admin wouldn't lie us into the war, in which case as we now know they were wrong.

:shrug:

best they have. And I agree, had they an ounce of sense they would be using that angle against the murderous cabal and it's illegitimate little puppet. That they don't gives one serious pause as to whom they answer.

on edit: And every drop of blood spilled in the course of this evil, every child dead increases their complicity and their criminal indifference to human life, International Law, and Human Rights.

We grow 'em feisty here. :bounce:

Don't question how it started, just know that we are enjoying the fruits.