Hillary Clinton Votes for War Again

Yesterday, by a vote of 76-22, the Senate passed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment in support of military actions against Iran. This is the second such endorsement of the president by a senate majority in just three months. In July, the Lieberman amendment to "confront Iran" passed with the far stronger majority of 97-0.

The original draft of Kyl-Lieberman had asked U.S. forces to "combat, contain, and roll back" the Iranian menace within Iraq. But the words "roll back" were all too plainly a coded endorsement of hot pursuit into Iran; and the senators did not want to go quite so far. To assure a larger majority the language was accordingly trimmed and blurred to say "that it should be the policy of the United States to stop inside Iraq the violent activities and destabilizing influence of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies."

The inclusion of Hezbollah deserves some notice. It is part of a larger attempt, already apparent in the Lebanon war of 2006, to manufacture an "amalgam" of all the enemies of Israel and the United States throughout the region, and to treat them all as one enemy. Those who believe in the amalgam will come to agree that many more wars by the United States and Israel are needed to crush this enemy.

More provocative is a secondary detail of the amendment, which received less notice from the mainstream media. Kyl-Lieberman approves the listing of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard of Iran as a "foreign terrorist organization." Now, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard is the largest branch of the Iranian military. By granting Vice President Cheney's wish (a distant dream in 2005) to put the Iranian guard on the U.S. terrorist list, the Senate has classified the army of Iran as an army of terrorists. The president, therefore, as he follows out the Cheney plan has all the support he requires for asserting in his next speech to an army or veterans group that Iran is a nation of terrorists.

It was said during the Vietnam War that "a dead Vietnamese is a Viet Cong." It will assuage the conscience for U.S. bombers of Iran to know that a dead Iranian is a terrorist. The Senate, by this classification, has absolved the bombers in advance.

Hillary Clinton voted in favor of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment to press the army toward war with Iran. This was an important step, for her, and a vote as closely considered as her vote to authorize the bombing and occupation of Iraq.

Here are the senators who voted against Kyl-Lieberman:

Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Byrd (D-WV) Cantwell (D-WA) Dodd (D-CT) Feingold (D-WI) Hagel (R-NE) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Leahy (D-VT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lugar (R-IN) McCaskill (D-MO) Sanders (I-VT) Tester (D-MT) Webb (D-VA) Wyden (D-OR)

John McCain and Barack Obama did not vote.

It is a remarkable fact that the war meditated against Iran, like the war on Iraq, is sought most keenly by a vice president and president who went further than most of their generation to avoid serving their country in Vietnam. The fact becomes the more remarkable in view of the contempt shown by both men for those who did not cheer and avoid, but opposed the Vietnam war by conscientious dissent. The same is true across the range of non-combatant neoconservative war architects and propagandists. Psychological compensation of an astonishing kind (to say no more) is at work in this display of rashness disguised as courage in the later careers of our war leaders behind the lines. For several years now, the mainstream press and media have said as little as possible about it.

Two votes against Kyl-Lieberman were issued from veterans with considerable experience and firsthand knowledge of war, Chuck Hagel and Jim Webb. If these two men were now to sharpen their dissidence, if they could make their reasons articulate and see the present as a time that calls them to the sustained work of opposition-- we might have the beginnings of a potent resistance which will never come from Harry Reid.

What of the absence of Barack Obama? In a speech in Iowa on September 12, he addressed by anticipation the matter before the Senate in Kyl-Lieberman: "We hear eerie echoes of the run-up to the war in Iraq in the way that the President and Vice President talk about Iran. They conflate Iran and al Qaeda. They issue veiled threats. They suggest that the time for diplomacy and pressure is running out when we haven't even tried direct diplomacy. Well George Bush and Dick Cheney must hear--loud and clear--from the American people and the Congress: you don't have our support, and you don't have our authorization for another war."

It is baffling that a man who spoke those words two weeks ago could not find the time or the resolve to cast his vote in a conspicuous test for authorizing war on Iran. This seems to be one more demonstration of Obama's tendency never to take a step forward without a step to the side. As for his own message about Iran, it has not been "loud and clear," but muffled, wavering, experimental.

With Hillary Clinton, we know where we stand. Yesterday she voted to bring the country a serious step closer to war against Iran. And she did so for the same reason that she voted to authorize the war on Iraq. She thinks the next war is going to happen. She hopes the worst of its short-term effects on America will have died down before the election. She suspects the media and voters will show more trust for a candidate who supported than for one who opposed the war. She wants a ponderous establishment of American troops and super-bases to remain in the Middle East for years to come. If she wins the presidency, she will inherit the command of that army and those bases, and she believes she can manage their affairs more prudently than George W. Bush.

Hillary Clinton is consistent. Every move is calculated, her actual intentions are masked, but the total drift is easy to comprehend. It is not so with Obama. How can he expect anyone to back a man who will not back himself?

Comments

[Waitaminute]

I want vote for any candidate, who voted to give bush dictorial powers to invade Irag. It appears the same ones who voted with him then and said "if i knew then, what i know now", voted to give bush more power to invade Iran.

Have you noticed, how many dems (AROUND 30) voted for this and the move-on ad (AROUND 26)? They are telling us to kiss their asses. I am all for putting my foot up theirs.

They are traitors!!!!

[linkunlovr]

You are right! Kucinich is the only candidate who had the vision to vote and speak against the war from the getgo. It sickened me at the debate to hear the three annointed by the media
candidates unable to promise troops would be out of Iraq by 2013! kUCINICH WILL HAVE THEM OUT 3 MONTHS AFTER HIS INAUGUERATION. After the debate Chris Mathws interviewed Richardson and said "It was amazing you were the only candidate promising to end our involvement in Iraq!" He just ignores Kucinich like all the other media whores. Thank god there is the internet and other ways the people can get to hear the truth. Kucinich is also the only one not owned by the insurance companies and so he can propose real not for profit health care instead of forcing insuracne on everyone.

[toomuchtolose]

How can we get a groundswell for Kucinich that can't be ignored? The sad fact is that he could
have 99% of Democrats preferring him to any other candidate, but the media would never tell us anything except that Kucinich is unelectable, a vote for Kucinich is a wasted vote, he will split the ticket --- DANGER, DANGER, DANGER. How can we unite and be able to confirm that we are a big enough, strong enough group of voters to VOTE KUCINICH INTO OFFICE? How do we get past the obstacles put up by the media? We owe it to this country and to every country on the planet to put someone in office who can turn our (?) government around so that we have representatives who understand that we want to get out of Iraq and stay away from Iran and never again invade and occupy a county that did nothing to us. If we don't help ourselves out of this mess, who will do it for us?

[RuthieM]

"Here we go again." Another Clinton vote for attack. Another subject for her to flipflop on depending where the wind will blow. I believe Obama stated that he missed that vote because he was in New Hampshire but stated outright that he would've voted against it. Why wasn't that in your article here?

[SGGrossman]

I believe Mrs. Clinton committed what should be a fatal error to her candidacy by voting for the Lieberman-Kyl amendment -- a vote in which she showed exactly the same faulty judgment as she showed previously, when she voted to authorize Bush's invasion of Iraq.

A comparison of tapes would show her making exactly the same arguments about Iraq before that vote, as she did this week about Iran. She was disasterously wrong on Iraq, and dangerously wrong again now.

I believe it is vital that voters understand the significance of that vote. It demonstrates so much of why Mrs. Clinton is not an acceptable candidate for president. One way to put it: On the most important votes of her life, she got the same life-and-death question wrong -- twice.

[villastrangiato]

Alright Hillary! To coin a phrase made popular by our Vietnam war hero (at least in his own mind anyway) Decider-In-Chief, Let's Roll!!!

I can't imagine China, Russia, and Japan just sitting back and watching another major middle east oil supplier sustain another unprovoked preemptive military attack by the US or it's partner in crime - Israel. And after Iran, then what - do we invade Pakistan on the possibility that a good chunk of its population might turn against its tinpot dictator and staunch pro - western ally ?

[wangmo]

The Clintons have great good reasons for their particular campaign strategy..­.they are tip-toeing through a mine-field of psychopath Corporatists who've already spent millions to character-­assassinat­e all Progressive politicians. The Clintons KNOW more than anyone in America just how monstrous the Republifascists are, and are doing actually a brilliant set of moves to retake back power from the coup that stole our Republic, in the ONLY way it can be done (since not only are they up against the Corporatist Police State Globalist Neocons who have no intention of giving up their power and goal of Global domination, but are also up against a large segment of our population that has been victim of the multi-million propaganda machine in operation for 35 years, 15 years of that with heavy focused targeting of destruction of the Clintons, funded by the Neocons to destroy Progressive politicians and their supporters--those poor well-meaning Republican folks who were MADE TO BELIEVE it "patriotic" to support CheneyCo.

Read between the lines of the Clinton campaign, kids!!! And BUCKLE UP! We're in for a Ride to take our Government back from the Corporatist Monsters, and Hill and Bill are driving a Corporatist Limo they're stealing!! WHAAA-HOOOOOOOOO!!! Cover their backs, gang, and VOTE FOR HILLARY '08 or the Neocon PNAC and Newt-(Sack of it)-Gingrich's Contract ON America gets finalized, and WHAM—it’s over—America is dead.

Too bad most Americans can't see the passionate dedicated true patriot gungho commitment to our country that Hillary Clinton's life of Public Service truly is, instead of falling in with the Rush Limbaugh reichwingers who’ve been propagandized to think they “choose” to see Hillary's strength as merely raw meaningless personal ambition. I see her for the highly knowledgeable and skilled great person she is. And I'm glad I see it.

[BalancedEgg]

Well thought out and stated. To win the game, you have to know how to play. America is so saturated with the good-vs-evil paradigm that it becomes difficult to remember that things are rarely as they seem in politics. The Clintons have taken their lumps and survived the initiations. They are also well versed in the structure of international corporations and politics. If ever the addage "you can only change the system from the inside" applied, it is here and now. Hopefully, if Clinton & CO. win, they will have the good sense to bring the idealism and intelligence of Kucinich, Obama, Gore and Edwards into the cabinet. In reality, we need them all.

[juangault]

Good versus evil?? Try future versus past. Why can't this nation get past the dynasties of Clinton and Bush? Clinton will bring the Walton's, and the Chang's to the cabinet. I bet a lot of Republican money is sliding her way today, to beat back more suitable candidates that would have a better chance against the pig and hippo heave-ho of tomorrow. I think Obama and Richardson should just run on the Green Party platform and give up entirely on main K street.

[vicissitude]

My God Bromwich, how long did you have to sit and twist the facts to come up with this complete distortion of what the vote means for Hillary?

Hillary is consistent alright, consistently wrong!!

Even John Edwards called her out in the debate on this saying she has not learned she cannot trust this President. Hillary has failed to learn from her mistakes and you write this piece as if she is a person with convictions?

Hillary is a warmongerer, she yells and screams on the campaign trail about it's not her fault we are in this war as her only mistake was to trust the President but she goes and does it again?

Hillary yells and screams about how this is Bush's war, and that he is the one with the failed strategy but she votes to relinquish Congresses authority to him AGAIN?

Give me a break Bromwich. Hillary is WRONG and whatever experience she has it is not to be relied on because she has demonstrated poor judgment over and over and over.

BTW, Obama was not in the Senate because Reid told him this was not going to come up for a vote that day...so Reid is the one who didn't keep his word.

Why aren't you praising Biden and Dodd for their votes?

Perhaps, you are a warmonger like Hillary, nothing but someone in a Hillaryhaze could support Hillary voting for this resolution.

Or perhaps, you simply have poor judgment, like Hillary.

You are consistently wrong just like her, to have written this exceptionally poor analysis of what her vote means. OOPs...wai­t a minute...y­ou basically said she was doing this to be politically expedient and cast herself as a 'tough warhawk' in the general.

So you simply went along with that poor judgment and wrote a piece in support of Hillary as that was politically expedient for you...neit­her you nor Hillary care about this country nor the lives that are being risked for political expediency.

As long as Hillary is consistent it doesn't matter if she is wrong to you.
Incredible.

Unbleiveable.

[Kendo Nagasaki]

I don't think we can take that risk, Wangmo.

[GenXLiberal]

Bullseye! The public doesn't understand just how politics really works. The Clintons understand how to beat the Republicons at their own game. What's wrong with Clinton having ambition? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard! You don't think all the other candidates don't? LOL, she sees what Rove and company are trying to do. You don't think that once she takes the white house their won't be payback against the GOP?! There are ways of beating the system, but the rules are so tight, that only the players who follow them get access to power.You all know that. A good man like Gravel or Kuccinich (SIC- sorry tired) won't ever get in until these very rules are revised. When will we invest in education again, the stupidity of our electorate is staggering!

[Balloonman]

wangmo
What in the world are you talking about? Bill Clinton is a right center Democrat centrist and as near a Republican as you can get. Hillary has hung in next to her mate from the start of his limosine Arkansas Governor backseat adultery affairs, endured, and been grooming herself to the realities of how to play dirty politics since, well not maybe since she was a kid, but practically speaking, yes. Sure, she work's the democrat platform, is of that party, engages it actively, her business model, even likely core feels its platform, the principle of we the people for the people, but is like a 'relgious' activist who uses their religion to build a cathedral to themself on the body of . . . ambition calculated in the good book's doctrine promoted alright, but underwritten in THE DONATION IS THE THING. Cancelling out much of the soul of the real thing.

[wangmo]

Taking the Eagle View of the Clinton Campaign strategy makes sense to us anti-war Progressives when you factor in the fact that Clinton could NEVER get elected in this red state/Rush Limbaugh spoon-fed country of ours UNLESS she wears a more Hawkish attire to the platform. Clinton is the ONLY candidate capable of truly bringing back our Republic because she knows FIRST HAND just how evil and powerful and ruthless the Neocons are. She wasn’t kidding when she said she’s “our girl” when it comes to dealing with these soulless beasts who’ve taken over our country.

[wangmo]

Makes me sad that my Progressive cohorts can't take a soaring spin with the Eagle view looking down at the Clinton strategy-to-get- elected, and understand WHY she has to position herself as she is. Please don't get suckered into NOT supporting her because you're not understanding the campaign strategy that must be in play to get her elected in a Red State hawkish climate of fear across America that can’t help but subliminally assume a Woman leader doesn’t have the “ovaries” to wage war if necessary to protect our country.

She's got tremendous knowledge and talent and experience, and that coupled with Bill's brilliance, clout, and respect globally, we MUST vote Hillary Clinton in as our next President, because the Clintons’ collective knowledge, expertise, and global clout and respect make Hillary the ONLY candidate actually qualified and suitably personally motivated to slam the crap out of the mess the Republifascists have made of our country.

[SensibleAmerican]

Thanks Wangmo and come on here to comment more often. It is a refreshing change from the usual far-left-s­ocialist-c­acophony!

[peaceandfreedom]

Hey Senseless--

I've figured out what Democratic Party it is that you want and espouse;

Not the party of those churlish, nasty, hippy left wingers with all their social programs for the poor and fairness and justice for everyone--

But a return to the good old days: You know those days of the Southern Democrat, keepin' the "people" down on the plantation. No worries about "rights" or "freedoms" or even fair voting. You know what I'm talking about, don't you. Kind of like Texas and Jena today, but only everywhere.

Yup, yer a Southern Democrat circa 1950.

[cave17]

wangmo, even though Hillary waddles like a neocon and quacks like a neocon, and has in fact performed consistently as a neocon and war supporter - you somehow have a psychic insight as to what her real, master plan is. Does your "anti-war" Manchurian Candidate have any credentials to prove your blind faith? Just because the Right hate her for their own perverse reasons does not elevate her to something she's never been and never will be.

[davidly]

Ha, Manchurian Candidate. Love it.

And if wangmo is still reading: Isn't it just as likely that the GOP's passionate hate for all things Hillary is just a ruse to motivate "her base" and keep one of their own in office? And is your "we MUST vote Hillary Clinton" bit an attempt at post-hypnotic suggestion, more Manchurian magic?

By the way: The word "understanding" is a feel-good liberal thing and not to be used in the present continuous.

[NYDamien]

Yes, thank you from me too. It's more than sad when I see so many of my fellow progressivs falling for the disgusting right wing propaganda. Even a nice man like David Bromwich isn't immune to the multi million dollar disinformation campaign foistd on us by the goose steppers. His descriptive nonsense, "Every move is calculated," tells us what? That she's smart? That she knows how the game is played? That she wants to win? If Gore and/or Kerry were "calculating" we wouldn't be living the nightmare we have now.
Here are the facts: Senator Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic Candidate for President of The United States. Every smart ass comment by us Democrats now, denigrating and vilifying her character is being chronicled by by the Republican hate machine and will be used to elect that wretched Rudy, who wants to be a Supersized Bush.
Please! Don't play their game.

[leogorcey]

Do I really have to settle for a President who is going to use the Oval Office as a psychiatrist's office where she can work out her problems with Bill. Look what our current President is doing in using the Oval Office as a place where he can work out his problems with his dad.

Let's face something: the Republicans are finished in '08. Their candidates are laughable. Any of the democratic candidates running could beat any one of them. Why this neurotic haradin and her Bubba Frat Boy?

[Mike5000]

Ah yes Wangmo. The brilliant "Trust Hillary because she's lying" argument. Thank you for sharing.

[Levittown]

The Republicans fear her the most. If she wins they will not be able to shred fast enough. Cheney will move to Duboi and Bush will surtround his ranch with barbed wire. They know they did wrong and won't be able to look any voter in the eye. Even their own.

[leogorcey]

The Republicans couldn't beat their way out of the proverbial paperbag. They are done for '08. They are afraid of all the democratic candidates because their own are such unintentional stand-up comics spouting tired old jokes at the local honky-tonk. My question is: after years of suffering with a neurotic frat boy working out his family problems do we have to suffer another war (in Iran this time) so another neutotic can work out their family problems?

[splashy]

Hillary is part of the "cells" of religious folks that infest DC with right wing religious fanatics. Read about it in Mother Jones:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillarys-prayer.html

Because of that, I don't trust her. She is likely to do the same idiotic things the other right wing religious nut do.

[Kendo Nagasaki]

Anyone who lies to get ahead does not have my trust or respect.

Hillary is a liar and lacks integrity. She dances around every important issue with non answers.

Basically she is a silver tongued carpetbagger.

[ANewVoice]

Clinton is Bush III.

If the Democrats are foolish enough to annoint her as their candidate, then this will assure a Republican president for at least another term.

I do not understand what people like about this harpy. She is so disingenous, so willing to sell out to the highest bidder. So experienced at failure. I honestly do not get it.

Vote ABC

[JusticiaParaTodos]

Clinton's vote should come as NO surprise to anyone! Obama's cowardice should surprise no one as well. It is ironic that these two candidates both loved by the big business controlled media continue to defy the will of the people by either supporting war directly or indirectly!

Dennis Kucinich has my vote. While I am not a republican, Ron Paul has my respect because he is opposition to Bush's imperialism and the neo-con tendencies of his party! Something Hillary and Obama lack the intestinal fortitude to do!

[charliemudcat]

My understanding re: Obama's lack of a vote is that he was told this vote was not going to come up. Surprisingly, it did. Wonder why? But I'm certain he would have voted agains it. He's just not going to cry foul because he knows that sometimes this is part of the stupid game they play.

[Sidewhispers]

Hillary is even slicker than Bill. She reeks of more of the same. When are we going to stop listening to the self-serving dissemblings of these heavily-fi­nanced-by-­private-in­terests shysters?
Hill is so slick, when she realizes her hawkishness is hurting her popularity, she and Bill will have pillow talks to get back in the good graces of the people. Don't fall for it. We cannot afford perpetual Clintons, Bushes and wars in this country any more.
Let's seriously start looking at the less financially endowed by the lobbys. Biden, Edwards in particular.

[scooperss]

I see a lot of people on here like Kucinich. I do too and it bugs me when I also see you say "but he doesn't stand a chance".

Listen to c-span in the mornings when people call in on *open phone* time and see how many agree about Kucinich and Ron Paul.

That's how I've heard the most about both of these guys. Call in yourselves if you get the chance and promote him. There are more people like you than you might imagine.

[IntegrityIntact]

I lost my confidence in Hillary. Already as the frontrunner in the Dem Pres race she's behaving uppity. She can't answer a goddamn question directly and chastised moderator Tim Russert the other day in the NH debate like he was a reporter in a press conference, trying to back her into a corner.

And then, the big one. She votes to give defacto authority to the WAR Machine in office. Sorry, but Hill you're out, Edwards you're out and you too, Obama.

This country needs a true, fierce leader--NOW. Not campaigning, high-ambitioned politicians merely concerned about maintaining front-runner status. I predict the second tier Dem Pres candidates will surge in the coming year before the nomination is won.

[heykids]

You hit the nail on the head with this one, everyone who is one the fence as to who to vote for in these primaries should see this summary of Hillary's vote for war and Obama's denial of this most important vote.

[JoAnnCr]

I like what John Edwards said at the Dartmouth debate that he would never give George Bush that kind of responsibility again. Why does Clinton trust Bush?

[Bozwellian]

(any wonder what Faustian sort of backroom deal HAS been made...Geo­rge junior reluctantly allows that his dear Poppy considers Bill "son-like"­...Junior is KNOWN for taking HIS time in revenge..L­OL, how perfect to get Hillary as the first (and last for sometime depending on the depth of her failuring.­..) ..Hillary will get left holding the baggage for the disasters Bushi leaves behind for cleanupping as there IS no EZ cleanup solution and the consequences ARE gonna' hurt no matter what...But sticking the Clintons with it, LOL, he walks away never having been held accountable and with sweet revenge of the ultimate sort as well..This time Poppy did not have to clean up after him exatly which has been the case in too many other biz interests but then again, perhaps Poppy's hand IS in this as well for he too was "hurt" when Bill caused him to fail to get that second term and grudged many a hard feeling and the Bushies are not ones to "let bygones BE bygones"..­.they just wait or create opportune momentito's !!!)

[SensibleAmerican]

Edwards is not in the Senate and if he ran again he would lose in his own State!

So, sure he won't give Bush that authority again, because he cannot! It is really easy to sit at the sidelines and cheer! But when it came to an actual vote as a Senator, he did "trust" Bush! Ofcourse, he apologized and it's all good now!

[doug108]

Hilary is not the candidate of the future. She's a guarantee that this country will face more of the same, ad infinitum. If we want real change, we're going to have to find a candidate that isn't, as Obama called her, Bush-Cheney light. I think our candidates are just as useless as the GOP's, and our country is going to be a whole lot worse off because of it. What do we have to do to convince Al Gore to back out of whatever deal he made with the Clintons and do what's right for this country and run for president?

[coolaid]

Those who still support Hillary, should really think whether or not they want more of the same. These often quoted lines from the Who are a haunting reminder of what is at stake in this election:

"We'll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals that they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgement of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again"