Clinton Devised Both Pro-war and Anti-war Candidacy

[Cheney Killed Bambi]

Clinton Evolved on Iraq, But Never Challenged Prevailing Assumptions

If Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) doesn’t clinch the Democratic nomination this evening, there will be no shortage of reasons why: the force of enthusiasm for a transformative politics embodied by Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), for example, or dislike of her campaign’s bare-knuckle tactics in the last four weeks. But it may be that 10 minutes in Hollywood on Thursday could prove to be her Waterloo—if not now, then perhaps in November.

At the CNN debate last week, Clinton again explained her Iraq position. She claimed that her original support for the war wasn’t, in fact, support for the war, but was instead a vote cast in October 2002 to avoid war—granting President George W. Bush an authority that he "abused." She misrepresented an alternative proposal at the time as "subordinat whatever our judgment might be going forward to the United Nations Security Council."

Rather than concede that her support for the war was a mistake, on Thursday Clinton launched into an elaborate re-litigation of her reasons for backing the war (contradicting her first point) before rejecting the idea that she was naive to trust Bush. All this came, somehow, in the service of pledging, with caveats, to bring "nearly all" U.S. troops home from Iraq "within a year" of her election. If there was a consistent thread, it was that Clinton believes herself to have always been right on Iraq—both when she was for the war and now that she is against it.

None of this should be surprising when considering Clinton’s evolution on Iraq. Indeed, Clinton set herself up to run for president as both a pro-war and an anti-war candidate—depending on the contingencies of the war and the politics of the moment.

http://www.washingtonindependent.com/view/clinton-maneuvers

[Cheney Killed Bambi]

1. kick

[ursi]

2. this is why I miss John Edwards in these stupid debates ...

he would have called her down on that.

[Iktomiwicasa]

3. k&r

[arewenotdemo]

4. Good article, but no mention of her firm and open-ended commitment in 2005

to the continued American occupation of Iraq: "We've been in Korea for 50 years. We're still in Okinawa." Essentially, identical to McCain's current position.

No mention of her absolutely craven indictment of Iraqis for not taking advantage of the "opportunity" our invasion had provided them, which for some reason she expects can occur while under foreign occupation.

And no mention of her total and absolute lack of remorse for her complicity for the war/occupation and the death and destruction it has caused on all sides.

[Radical Activist]

5. The last three paragraphs explain why she has no chance against McCain

None.
Good read. She doesn't belong in the White House.