Hillary Goes Orwellian on Iraq

Hillary Clinton may fancy she opposes the war in Iraq, but she has a funny way of showing it. On Monday night in Austin, she had this to say about what the United States military has done over the past five years:

"We have given them the gift of freedom, the greatest gift you can give someone. Now it is really up to them to determine whether they will take that gift."

There was nothing accidental about this line. She delivered it in response to two Iraq veterans introduced at a town hall meeting at the Austin Convention Center by her friend and campaign surrogate Ted Danson. She liked the line enough that she delivered it again a couple of hours later, at a campaign-closing rally at a basketball arena in south Austin.

"The gift of freedom" is, of course, a curious way to describe an unprovoked invasion and occupation causing hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths and leaving just about every aspect of life chaotic and fraught with daily dangers. To then lay responsibility for the mess on the Iraqis -- we did our bit, now you do yours -- is the worst kind of dishonesty, a complete abdication of moral principles. It's the sort of thing George Bush has said to justify his decision both to launch the invasion in the first place and then stay the course -- a course Hillary Clinton has spent many months telling primary and caucus voters she thinks was misconceived from the start.

Why, then, is she taking on the president's rhetorical tropes? Could it be she didn't -- and doesn't -- oppose the Iraq war quite as much as she's been letting on?

George Orwell rightly warned us about the way politicians use words like "freedom" when such usage begs more questions than it answers. "Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way," he wrote in his famous essay Politics and the English Language. "That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different."

Clinton's audience certainly thought that what she was doing was standing four-square behind the veterans. That was they way they took it, and applauded her accordingly. Perhaps, though, before they make their choices tomorrow, the voters of Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont should reread her words and ask themselves what the hell she really meant.

Comments

[Stillman]

Senator Clinton has never apologized for her vote for the war with Iraq, and she has never admitted it was a mistake. The reason is simple: if she is nominated, she intends to campaign on it in the fall. She will move to the right and portray herself as every bit as hawkish as Bush, Rumsfeld and McCain. This has ALWAYS been her plan, all the way back to 2002 when she voted for the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq" resolution.

[TheRationalLeft]

She didn't apologize for it, because it would portray her as weak, especially in a general election, which she thought she would win without a twitch. As for admitting whether it was a mistake or not, she actually did. Of course there is a clear demarcation between a mistake - which suggests a geopolitical strategic mistake - and saying that the war was illegal and principally wrong as Gravel and Kucinich did.

The truth is, Hillary will do and say anything to get elected. That's how the Clinton machine works and always worked. She has no principles, other than being a war hawk.

While Obama also didn't admit that the invasion was illegal under the UN charter, at least his advisers aren't as hawkish as that of Hillary's and should he win, they won't pull him as much to the right as would Clinton's advisers. And the composition of one's cabinet is ultimately the deciding factor at predicting what positions a candidate will actually take once in office.

[marsgeek]

Dead on point Stillman.
She made a political calculation in 2002.
That is what her experience told her to do.

[VicPerry]

Yes it's just terrible how the press makes Hillary say all those dumb things. They must have it in for her.

[Frank Dwyer - Huffpost Blogger]

Is Hillary Clinton a pro-war, pro-Bush, neocon, proud of her responsibility for the Iraq war and ready on Day One to lead better-managed do-over in Iran?

No, certainly not, I take her at her word, not at all, absolutely not. As far as I know.

[YellerDawg]

I think you've gone Orwellian.­..or Freudian..­.or Kool-Aidian. Sheesh! How many angels can sit on the head of a pin? You can keep arguing about whether we should have gone into Iraq until the cows come home. We adults have to deal with the situation as it is. Hillary's assessment of the current situation is right on target. Tortured allusions to Orwell don't change the situation on the ground in Iraq. And may I say that you tortured the Orwell connection to death? You beat it, whipped it, quartered it, and waterboarded it, but you still couldn't get much useful information out of it.

[LoRiseAntlers]

How many weak analogies can you make to avoid the fact that the woman is claiming George Bush has brought freedom to the Iraqis?

We adults,as you put,realize that the United States has committed one of the egregious acts of illegal,un­provoked,a­nd presumptive war in history,all based on the lies promulgated by some of the most incompeten­t,fascisti­c hacks in this nation's history.

[Thad]

"You can keep arguing about whether we should have gone into Iraq until the cows come home. We adults have to deal with the situation as it is."

Yeah, George Bush used that one after Katrina. Remind me how that worked out for him again?

PS: If a word appears in a headline, it's not an allusion, it's a direct reference.

[YellerDawg]

I suggest you get out your literature textbook and look up the definition of allusion, Thad. I'll bet you missed that question on your English I final.

[Viper]

Its only because of votes like hers we have an Iraq to argue over and a country too poor to rebuild its own infrastructure!


Again, she cant admit it was a mistake. Well if it was not a mistake... then you support it as justified.

Regards

[msfiskvletterman]

3/4/08
10:31am
Alexandria, VA

How about Orwell's "1984"---see any connection there? I do.

Can't make a list for you right now because I'm babysitting my grandson.

[YellerDawg]

His point is that Hillary is using Orwellian language. Orwellian is a term that gets thrown around when people want to impress others with their knowledge. Few people actually read any Orwell, however. Would you describe Obama's tale about the Canadian NAFTA wink wink, nudge nudge as Orwellian? Not every political statement deserves to be called Orwellian.

[TAC]

"You can keep arguing about whether we should have gone into Iraq until the cows come home. We adults have to deal with the situation as it is."

There is NO argument. Should have never happened. "Adults" know you don't choose the ones that committed this crime to deal with it now...

[alexcharner]

How many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis has Hillary Clinton's cynical vote supplied with "freedom". Why doesn't anyone ask her about her support of the war through 2006? The war on which she staked her ability to run!

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/3/174153/7363/722/468109

[RISEUPAMERICA]

oh i guess this is another fine example of how the press just has to "make" anything into something for the sake of filling space on the page.

we've all focused on things that are NON issues far too long......­..do us all a favor and start reporting on real issues , issues that matter to Americans.

[Thad]

...Want to explain how Hillary Clinton's militarism is not an issue?

[JohnFromCensornati]

RUA is referring to the fact that Obama is a Republican "plant". lol
That's the real issue.

[falgiano]

yep. I agree with Thad here. Its a big deal