No Apology Needed ... from Hillary on the war.

[Hamlette]

Far be it from me to get in the middle of a liberal purge, but would anybody mind if I pointed out that the calls for Hillary Clinton to apologize for her support of the Iraq war are almost entirely bogus? I mean, have the people calling for her apology actually read the speeches she delivered before the war? Have they read her remarks during the war resolution debate, when she specifically rejected a pre-emptive, unilateral attack on Saddam? Did they read the passages in which she called for a longer U.N. inspections regime and declared, “I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial”?

The Iraq war debate began in earnest in September 2002. At that point Clinton was saying in public what Colin Powell was saying in private: emphasizing the need to work through the U.N. and build a broad coalition to enforce inspections. . . . She voted yes in order to give Powell bipartisan leverage at the U.N.

This is how she’s always explained that vote, and I confess that until now, I’ve regarded her explanation as a transparent political dodge. Didn’t everyone know this was a war resolution? But now, having investigated her public comments, I think diplomatic leverage really was on her mind. I also know, from a third person, that she was spending a lot of time with Powell and wanted to help.

Clinton’s biggest breach with the liberal wing actually opened up later, in the fall of 2003. Most liberals went into full opposition, wanting to see Bush disgraced. Clinton — while an early critic of the troop levels, the postwar plans and all the rest — tried to stay constructive. She wanted to see America and Iraq succeed, even if Bush was not disgraced.

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/02/15/opinion/15brooks.html?hp (behind the wall)

I remember us arguing whether it was reasonable to have a nuanced position on the Iraq resolution.

I hate to quote Brooks in support of Hillary but it does sort of poke holes in the "she's too polarizing" argument, an argument I've always found wrong.

[geiger]

1. It's just a phony bullshit question period. She did what she did, people can like it or not

And it's time we all move on to what happens next.

It's journalists stupidly trying to create a story, when, insanely, they have PLENTY of other real things to talk about.

It's exasperating, that this is happening so early in the cycle. At this rate, I'll be tuning out a month from now.

[sandnsea]

2. What did she do after?

What did she do to oppose the actual invasion? What did she say when Code Pink was in her office? The war is not that vote. Hillary did not say anything againt Bush or the invasion when it mattered. She's still using the same sad 9/11 excuse she used then.

[Taxloss]

3. Well ...

... I hope you brought a bag of marshmallows because I sense that many flames may be on their way.

Personally, thanks for giving a pro-Hillary perspective. But I'm strongly inclined to sympathise with those for whom any war support is a dealbreaker. For a start, we all saw how Kerry was hobbled right away by the flip-flop charge. The facts of the matter, the nuance of what was supported when and against what, do not matter to the RWers crafting the attacks. '04 made it clear that for a Dem to run on a platform that was any more than mildly critical of the Iraq War, they would have to have been anti-war from the outset. repubs know that limits the field, that's why they do it. IMO it's the Dem leadership's own fault for backing the war in the first place, but it's too late to rake over that now.

[EndElectoral]

4. She abrogated her responsiblity..at least she could apologize..it shows Bush Stubborness!

[buckybadger2007]

16. That's exactly how I feel

She comes off too political. Whether or not it is 'right' for her to apologize, I think she is putting herself in a bad light.

[RiverStone]

28. 21 DEM Senators, 1 Indie, and 1 rethug voted...

Against the IWR in October of 2002.

So did 133 House Reps and in spirit, millions of people around the world in protest. How did all these people know Shrub was going to take us into an immoral and reckless war of aggression and Hillary did not?!

I believe Hillary knew that as well, but voted for political expediency above personal conviction.

At least John Edwards said -"I was wrong."

HRC's pat response of - "There are no do-overs" will be very worn out by the first primary. Her calculation's are way off on this and I believe the longer she waits to say those same three words, the more it will haunt her. That is, if she is willing to admit she was wrong. And IMHO---she was indeed was very WRONG!

[SaveElmer]

5. Right on target...

However this has been pointed out by myself and a few others on many occasions...it is likely you are gonna get flamed...

But take comfort in the knowledge that you are correct!!!

K&R

[Alamom]

32. 40%. A lot of people( on the outside) feel the same.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/2007-02-13-2008-poll.htm


USA TODAY/Gallup


Feb 9-11/2007

Hillary Rodham Clinton 40 %

Barack Obama 21 %

Al Gore 14 %

John Edwards 13 %

Bill Richardson 4 %

Wesley Clark 1 %

Christopher Dodd 1 %

Joe Biden 1 %

Dennis Kucinich * * *

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. Is she still talking about the "failed insurgency"?

Now that it's politically correct to be against the war she voted for and her vote is proving (deservedly) to threaten her campaign she's now hedging her bets and decrying the running of the war while refusing to do anything to stop it.

The 655,000 dead Iraqis and 3100 dead GI's are in non-nuanced graves.

[Stephanie]

17. Her M.O. has been to criticise the WAY the war was executed, not the war itself.

She criticizes Bush for "mismanaging" the war, for doing a poor job of invading and conquering Iraq. He was inefficient! She will not criticize the lies and the LIARS that got us into this illegal, immoral war in the first place.

[TahitiNut]

7. Enablers and codependents always have 'good' reasons.

I have merely one rhetorical question: "How did that vote work out for you? Did you achieve your objective?"

:eyes:

There are always a LEGION of rationalizations for being 'pragmatic' - which almost always means doing something other than "the Right Thing." The apologists for "the ends justify the means" are forever explaining how they didn't foresee the consequences ... yet the 'pragmatic' ethic DEMANDS of its proponents that they DO foresee those consequences. Yet those same advocates unblushingly return to the same pretentious posture of perfect foresight with their very next act.

Sorry. I don't buy into that shit. Not for even a second.

[sniffa]

10. ...

:applause:

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. That's a good question to ask, here and elsewhere

Pragmatism does demand competence. I may ask that of others in the future, If you don't mind me borrowing it.

[Solly Mack]

26. ....

SNAP

:applause:

[redqueen]

27. Thank you...

Very well said. :thumbsup:

[patrice]

8. There are contrarians for whom it is a BS question.

And Democratic candidate partisans who use this question to detract from HC and agrandize their own candidate.

And there ARE Hillary Haters, from both parties, who are quite simply crazy.

And then there are those, such as I, who have sincere trust issues concerning the gestalt of the campaign/electoral and legislative processes that can and does produce CYA corporatist votes. Senators and Representatives can characterize things however they want after the fact. Even though it isn't necessarily true of a given vote, none of them has adequately owned up to the fact that this can and does happen. HC has a powerful Jewish constituency, maybe that is why she has become a figure-head, "fairly" or not, representing our problems with ALL of the IWR Yeas.

It just seems we have absolutely nothing but buck-passing. One big circle of people saying "I screwed up, because so-and-so _________." It would be refreshing for someone to tell me why they were convinced * was going to legitimately do as he said he would, when so many others considered it way too high a probability that he wouldn't.

And if they weren't convinced about Bush's UN gambit, if it really was closer in their minds to a 50:50 probability that it was a sham, like sooooo many other shams, what benefit were they looking for from the risk to our lives.

[Double T]

9. It is time to move on...........

'WE' have an election to win and revisiting this kind of fodder is destructive to that cause. The OP is absolutely right. bush provided fraudulent evidence as the reason for going to 'war', MOST bought into the fabricated false evidence, THEN LATER the evidence was proved to be totally untrue; NO apologies or excuses are needed or required. The fact that some are calling for a public apology makes me wonder about their REAL motivations; providing the rethugs with MORE 'swift boat' video clips??

[patrice]

12. I don't need an apology. I need to understand how these things happen.

You say it is peripheral. There are many who think it is essential.

We need to understand what actually happened, so we have half a chance of avoiding it in the future.

e.g. We saw the phony crap Powell took to the U.N. Why did HC et al think the final gambit was going to be for real?

[leeroysphitz]

11. Our sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers aren't

being killed and maimed in a foreign land that was no threat to this country based on Senator Clinton's rhetoric.

It's the vote that was a mistake and she can apologize for it or not but I don't plan to reward her little "mistake" with my vote in the primaries and hopefully I won't be forced to hold my nose for her in the general election either.

[MilesColtrane]

14. If you give a monkey a gun and he kills somebody with it...

the least you could do is apologize for your bad decision.
It's the decent thing to do.

[Stephanie]

15. You cite NEO-CON David Brooks in support of Hillary???

Say no more. You realize he's out of the Weekly Standard, under William Kristol, head of PNAC, right? You do know that Hillary is the first choice of Republicans as our nominee. They look at her and see another Democratic loss. But carry on, if that's the best you can do to defend her. Maybe Karl Rove has an essay you could quote, too.

[quinnox]

18. there are some who are ardently never going to let this go

but I think Hillary has said it plainly enough what her position is regarding the Iraq conflict and the history that led up to it for anyone who has listened to her speeches lately. Then it is a question of whether they believe she is sincere or not. That is a respectable point of view.

On the other hand there are those who for one reason or another seem to have a raging hate for Hillary and they could never be pleased. So they are not important in terms of trying to convince them or expecting support from them. To be honest I think it is a tiny percentage of the potential support for Hillary and she will get overwhelming help and money from the vast majority of Democrats out there. She is an extremely well-liked, if not beloved figure, among the average Democrat. Some of this has to do with Bill Clinton of course and those years are looked upon ever more fondly the deeper we get into the Bush administration.

[Stephanie]

19. Really? What IS her position?

I'd really like to know.

[quinnox]

20. you can go to her site

and find out but in a nutshell. Here is the leading quote on the front page right now - "Knowing what we know now," Hillary said, "we would never have voted to give this president authority at all". That is plain as day, she is saying her vote was a mistake, doesn't take much reading between the lines to see that. Then she has also said she would not have invaded Iraq if she had been president in 2002 recently.

[Stephanie]

22. She will NOT say her vote was a mistake, and that statement tells me nothing.

She has consistently refused to say so. And "knowing what we know now" is a huge cop-out. Ted Kennedy knew better. Paul Wellstone knew better. Dennis Kucinich, Barbara Boxer. 23 senators knew what a crock they were being served. Hillary serves Hillary. If she were serving New York State she would have listened to the MILLION of us who marched in the street opposing this war based on lies.

Are you a constituent? I dare you to call Hillary's office and get her position on ANYTHING. Ask what her position is on the war, on the resolution against the surge, on Iran, on gay marriage, on anything. They WILL NOT GIVE IT. She is so busy playing both sides of the fence she has no idea where she stands. No core beliefs, no principles. I'm sick to death of Hillary.

[GeorgeGist]

21. Actions speak louder than ...

words. You really should ask yourself where Hilary has been the last 4 years when her campaign slogan is

Let the conversation begin

[KG]

23. that's her campaign slogan? how cutting-edge!

:eyes:

[JackRiddler]

25. Like a plastic spoon!

"Let the conversation begin..."

Translation:

"I won't actually stand for anything in the open until I've determined what it is that you want to hear."

[Leopolds Ghost]

30. Reminds me of that old commercial jingle

Let the competition beware!
Let the com-pe-ti-tion beware!
Jerry's Ford...makes it clear...
Let the competition beware!

[JackRiddler]

24. No apology is possible

Those who spoke in qualification as they cast their vote have no more excuse than those who celebrated the coming destruction of the Iraqi nation and act of genocide on the Iraqi people.

They knew all the talk about "leverage at the UN" was rhetoric. They knew that the vote was whether to authorize the US to invade Iraq or not -- and that an authorization would automatically lead to the invasion that the members of the Bush cabal had announced they intended long before they even assumed office. They knew the regime was lying about WMDs and lying about the connectin to 9/11.

If Hillary and Powell each sought to cover that with a fig leaf of legalisms, it merely adds hypocrisy to a list that already includes aiding and abetting a supreme violation of both the US Constitution and international law, with intent to launch a war of aggression.

By granting authorization, the Congress abandoned (once again) its constitutional power to declare (or not to declare) war.

Certainly there are no valid excuses for this behavior, especially not from anyone who is equivocating even today, and of course an "apology" would be rather absurd. When she surrenders her personal fortune to a relief charity for Iraqi children, she'll at least be on the way to saving her own soul.

If you're not about immediately cutting off the funding for this criminal exercise and bringing the troops home, then you are conceding that there was ever any legitimacy to it.

All Hillary and the other defilers of the Constitution can legitimately do to make up for their crime is to resign. En masse.

Unlike those of you who are not from New York, I actually voted for this person. Once. Never again. I prefer imperialist warmakers who do not pretend to be democrats or advocates of peace, or secretly my friend ("Let the play hour where you pretend that Hillary is listening to you begin.")

[Stephanie]

33. Well said.

I voted for her too. I even campaigned for her, the first time around. I've been severely disappointd.

[Jonathan50]

29. Hillary either knew Bush was going to war with Iraq or she did not know.

If she knew Bush was going to war with Iraq then she is a liar and not worthy of our votes.

If she did not know Bush was going to war with Iraq then she is a moron and not worthy of our votes.

Personally I lean toward the former explanation since I don't think Hillary is a moron.

[earthlover]

31. Well said!

I tend to believe Hillary knew EXACTLY what she was doing when she voted to give Bush the authority, without further consultation with Congress, to wage war on Iraq if he deemed fit. If that is the case, she needs to apologize.

On the other hand, maybe Hillary did not have a clue what she was doing when she gave Bush the authority, without further consultation with Congress, to wage war on Iraq if he deemed fit. If that is the case, she still needs to apologize for dereliction of duty and piss poor judgement.

Do we want ANOTHER president with piss poor judgement and a tendency to follow what is politically expedient instead of what is right? Bush used 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq, do we need another candidate who uses 9/11 as a justification for following the direction of the worst president in history?

So is Hillary's battle cry that she was snowed by the worst president in history?