Hillary on Iraq

[ProSense]

Hillary on Iraq

From stalwart hawk to get out fast.

Thursday, February 8, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST

• April 20, 2004. Mrs. Clinton tells Larry King: "I don't regret giving the President the authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade." Asked whether she thinks she was "fooled," she replies: "The consensus was the same, from the Clinton Administration to the Bush Administration. It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared about the weapons of mass destruction."

• October 2005. Antiwar fervor on the left is picking up, and activist Cindy Sheehan compares her to Rush Limbaugh after Mrs. Clinton tells the Village Voice: "My bottom line is that I don't want their sons to die in vain. . . . I don't believe it's smart to set a date for withdrawal . . . I don't think it's the right time to withdraw."

• November 2005. Mrs. Clinton posts a letter to constituents that marks her first dovish turn. "If Congress had been asked , based on what we know now, we never would have agreed," she writes. But invoking retired General Eric Shinseki's estimate of more American troops necessary to pacify Iraq, she demands not withdrawal but a new plan: "It is time for the President to stop serving up platitudes and present us with a plan for finishing this war with success and honor--not a rigid timetable that terrorists can exploit, but a public plan for winning and concluding the war."

***********
(• June 22, 2006. Mrs. Clinton votes against Kerry-Feingold amendment calling for a deadline for withdrawal -- ProSense edit)
***********

• August 3, 2006. Mrs. Clinton calls for Donald Rumsfeld to resign as Defense Secretary, asking for "new leadership that would give us a fighting chance to turn the situation around before it's too late."

Snip...

All politicians change their minds about something at some point, but what's troubling about Mrs. Clinton's record on Iraq is that it tends to follow, rather than lead, public opinion. When the war was first debated, and she couldn't easily walk away from her husband's record against Saddam, she was a solid, even eloquent, hawk. Then for a time she laid low and avoided the antiwar excesses of John Kerry and others.

more...

[The Magistrate]

1. What The Wall Street Journal Writer Complains Of, Ma'am

Is the competent practice of the political art. The fellow might as well complain of a blacksmith's swinging hammers....

"Where are the people? I must hurry there and lead them!"

[ProSense]

3. It doesn't seem like a complaint.

In fact, the article seems to be making the case that Clinton is for "out now," when her position is actually "she promises that, if elected, she will end the war quickly."

It's also curious that the vote on Kerry-Feingold was skipped in the time line.

Capping troops, not cutting funding for the surge, cutting funding for the Iraqi government at some point, none of these have an impact on withdrawal or represent "out now."

It'll be interesting to see if she supports the binding resolutions being introduced in Congress.

[The Magistrate]

4. What You Describe As Her Position, Ma'am

Is about as close to 'out now' as is practicable, in the actual political circumstances obtaining. The filibuster in the Senate guarantees no revocation of funding is going to occur, and the votes necessary for that will endure over the next year, and into the campaign. The administration is not going to suddenly come over all reasonable and realistic, and do what is best for the country, and even for its own party.

Calling out for something that is not going to occur and cannot be made to happen is viewed by the great bulk of people as weakness, not strength. Stating you will do something you can do is taken by most people as strength, and an indication the person who does it can be relied on.

U.S. soldiers are still going to be in Iraq next year, and through the campaign and right up to Inauguration Day. Put bluntly, that is why whoever the Republicans nominate is going to lose: this is their war, and the people know it, and will not be distracted from it.

[ProSense]

5. Does that

preclude attempts to try to end it now rather than later? In a year, rather than three?

Does that preclude supporting binding resolutions because it's their war?

[The Magistrate]

6. Not At All, Ma'am

It means that a candidate for President will get the best, the widest supportive response among the people of the country, by saying "When I am President, I will end this thing. You can count on it."

Democratic Representatives and Senators whose ambitions for next year extend no further than those posts should certainly propose actions to end the venture, and all Democrats should vote for them. The country should be treated to the sight of a small group of Republican Senators thwarting the people's will, and the administration's continual disregard for the people's will, and even denunciation of its expression as un-patriotic. The effect will be salutory, and of great benefit to the Democratic ticket November after next.

[ProSense]

7. Candidates can stand for "out now." Presidential candidate

Barrack Obama does.

[The Magistrate]

8. Again, Ma'am

For a Presidential candidate, "Out when I'm in" is the same as "out now". "Out now" is not going to occur. "Out when I'm in" promises a benefit, the fulfillment of a desire contingent on an action by the person addressed who wants the thing, namely a vote for the candidate who says "Out when I'm in."

[ProSense]

9. What about trying?

Are you suggesting that the candidates just say "out when I'm in," and leave it at that?

Are you saying that all efforts to end the war sooner rather than later will be futile, so the candidates need not bother?

[The Magistrate]

10. Candidates For President, Ma'am

Injure themselves by crying for the moon: people do not like that, regarding it as a mark of both frivolity and weakness, and the product and proof of poor judgement.

Efforts should certainly be made by the Congressional contingent. They will not succeed, of course, but the spectacle of the administration and its Republican rump in the Senate thwarting them will be of great political use.

[ProSense]

11. People do not want a wait and see approach to ending the carnage in Iraq n/t

[The Magistrate]

13. It Is Not A Wait And See Approach, Ma'am

It is a "recognize you need to vote out more Republicans to get it fixed" approached. This has the advantage of being both factual and practical. Because it remains a fact that the current administration is not going to end its signature venture. What is necessary is to fix absolutely in the popular mind the identification of this calamatous failure with the Republican Party as a whole, and fix it deep and firm enough it lasts for a generation, so that fifteen years from now people will be thinking, "Yeah, the Republicans, the ones who fucked up in Iraq."

[ProSense]

14. I disagree.

It is wait and see if Hillary Clinton gets elected and/or the Democrats pick up 8-10 seats in the Senate.

People want war to end. Everyone should be on board trying to achieve that now.

[The Magistrate]

15. And That Cannot Be Achieved, Ma'am

Unless a Democrat is elected President and the Party picks up a goodly number of seats in the Senate. Trying, even trying ever so hard, will achieve nothing otherwise. No reason not to raise a great fuss, of course, but best to understand the parameters going in. The main use of the effort is precisely its failure....

[karynnj]

26. I would rather have a candidate

who said what the best thing to is at this moment in time. The ISG recommened ideas very close to Kerry's 2004 and 2005 suggestions - and many of these are now the view of most people. At some point, Bush may shift and adopt one of these exit scanarios - claiming it was his.

[illinoisprogressive]

2. I don't care for Clinton, but, I think she is somewhat being a typical pol

in following the mood of the country. To stay so pro war would be suicide. But, I do agree it is troubling for her to be a follower rather than a leader. I don't know if it's due to being so surrounded by consultants and polling everything or because she doesn't have the instincts.

[Andromeda]

12. Clinton has excellent political instincts...

It's probably this quality in her that irks so many people. She is not a follower; she is cautious. All candidates have consultants and polling is here to stay so we might as well accept it.

[blm]

16. She IS a follower - she didn't LEAD on any of these issues. She followed WAY BEHIND

while those who led on issues took the hits for it.

And she NEVER ONCE came to the fore to defend them or hit back WITH them - never ONCE. When the calls for Rumsfeld to go in 2003 and 2004, she stayed closer to Bush over her party's nominee.

Deliberately, I'm sure, as she had no interest in Bush being held accountable before election day.

[mtnsnake]

17. Hillary is a leader when it comes to VOCALIZING the issues. So are Dean & Clark

That's why she, along with Howard Dean or General Clark, are always the first to tell jerks like Rumsfeld off to his face while the other politicians send emails that never go anywhere.

Hillary has the guts. So do Dean and Clark. If Obama learns from Hillary's leadership, I think he can overtake her in the Primaries.

[politicasista]

18. So is the person you always hate on n/t

[blm]

19. Baloney - Kerry, Dean, Clark all said Rumsfeld should go to TV cameras in 2003-4.

Hillary waited till long AFTER the election to say the same. Hillary WOULD NOT show up on camera to support any of their calls, and even to support Kerry's THITD CALL for Rumsfeld to go as the NOMINEE of the party.

Biden and she pulled the same crap and you're trying to spray Lysol om that crap to make it smell better.

[mtnsnake]

21. Just like I said, Hillary is the only one who told Rumsfeld to his face.

Dean and Clark had strong words for Rummy, too. What's your idol do...sends out useless emails about Rummy. Lot of good that did.

Hillary probably had more to do with Rumsfeld getting the can than all of Kerry's emails combined. When she talks, people listen.

[flpoljunkie]

23. And she did this when even the R's were ready for him to go! HRC, not a leader!

[blm]

29. Hillary sided with BUSH in 2003-4 when Dem nominee called for Rumsfeld to GO.

Hillary waited until LONG AFTER it was OBVIOUS to even most Republicans that Rumsfeld had to go, and THEN she made her grandstand call for Rumsfeld to go - only AFTER it was obvious to everyone - that is not leading. She is a FRAUD, not a leader.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mtnsnake]

22. Nah, I can't do that

Can't put them on ignore, that is. There's always something one can learn, even from "psychologically stunted thinkers". What it is, I haven't discovered yet, although it's fun to keep trying. :evilgrin:

[welshTerrier2]

24. cartoon anyone?

i don't know about being worth a thousand words but it certainly makes a point.

http://content.cartoonbox.slate.com/?feature=c561b0630fb71a86d3bd70d59d11b94f

[karynnj]

27. nice one

[blm]

30. That's it in ONE PICTURE.

The opposition to so much of BushInc has gone on for years, and those who took on the toughest battles during those years were clubbed from behind by Tonya Harding's goons to make it easier for her to jump ahead.

I think she will find the parade uninterested in her weak gesturing at this point.

[AtomicKitten]

25. The WSJ - Editorial Board no less - is a RW source.

I realize you don't like HRC, but this kind of resourcing is on the verge of assaultive. I was under the impression DU had rules about this sort of thing particularly around election time.

It would be more appropriate (and truthful) if you started a thread entitled "I hate Hillary Clinton."

[Clarkie1]

28. The consensus was NOT same! She disgusts me!

KING: You called Iraq the overriding issue. You voted to go there or not?

KENNEDY: No. The best vote I cast in the United States Senate was...

KING: The best?

KENNEDY: The best vote, best vote I cast in the United States Senate (INAUDIBLE).

KING: In your life?

KENNEDY: Absolutely.

KING: Was not to go to Iraq?

KENNEDY: Yes, not to go to Iraq.

KING: Why did you vote against?

KENNEDY: Well, I'm on the Armed Services Committee and I was inclined to support the administration when we started the hearings in the Armed Services Committee. And, it was enormously interesting to me that those that had been -- that were in the armed forces that had served in combat were universally opposed to going.

I mean we had Wes Clark testify in opposition to going to war at that time. You had General Zinni. You had General (INAUDIBLE). You had General Nash. You had the series of different military officials, a number of whom had been involved in the Gulf I War, others involved in Kosovo and had distinguished records in Vietnam, battle-hardened combat military figures. And, virtually all of them said no, this is not going to work and they virtually identified...

KING: And that's what moved you?

KENNEDY: And that really was -- influenced me to the greatest degree. And the second point that influenced me was in the time that we were having the briefings and these were classified. They've been declassified now. Secretary Rumsfeld came up and said "There are weapons of mass destruction north, south, east and west of Baghdad." This was his testimony in the Armed Services Committee.

And at that time Senator Levin, who is an enormously gifted, talented member of the Armed Services Committee said, "Well, we're now providing this information to the inspectors aren't we?" This is just before the war. "Oh, yes, we're providing that." "But are they finding anything?" "No."

Because the answer was because they're moving things, because when we tell the team they're all infiltrated by Saddam's people and they're leaking that so that's the reason we're not finding anything.

They started giving all the places where we said there were places and they still couldn't find any. And at the end of now, history will show we never gave any information to the inspection team at all.

But I kept saying, "Well, if they're not finding any of the weapons of mass destruction, where is the imminent threat to the United States security?" It didn't make sense.

There were probably eight Senators on the Friday before the Thursday we voted on it. It got up to 23. I think if that had gone on another -- we had waited another ten days, I think you may have had a different story.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/20/lkl.01.html