London Calling: Memo to Hillary Supporters -- Tell It Like It Really Is

I have a favor to ask of some of you Hillary Clinton supporters, particularly the females among you. And you are legion.

For once, I'd just like to hear one of you say something along these lines:

"Yes, I know Hillary was wrong to vote for the Iraq war. But I'm going to overlook that because she's a woman, and so am I. And it's time we had a woman president in the U.S."

I suspect that a lot of women, most of them committed Democrats, feel precisely that way. But they won't admit it, at least not the ones I talk to.

I understand why Ms. Clinton has decided not to come clean on why she voted for the war, and why she feels she can't apologize.

To disclose the former would reveal the kind of political calculation she'd rather not be known for, but is. And when candidates apologize, that can be seen as a sign of "weakness."

But I would hope that some of her fans could be honest enough to say what really happened in the Iraq vote. And why they still support her, despite hating the war.

But rather than do that, Hillary's supporters subject us to these absurd verbal contortions in trying to justify their candidate casting the same vote as the Republicans she's running against.

(And please, stop with the semantic, hair-splitting canard about the difference between voting for authorization and voting for the war. That's a ridiculous argument, always was.)

Hilary's supporters won't acknowledge that, in voting for the war, their candidate was still pandering to her New York constituency, well after the 9/11 attacks.

They won't admit that, like Cheney, Hillary has linked the Iraq war to 9/11, as recently as earlier this year.

And they try to paint her as a "victim" of bad intelligence, the exact same way the White House does with President Bush.

Think about that for a minute, in light of what we've just heard from Bill Clinton.

On the one hand, Hillary's campaign likes to point to her being more experienced than Barack Obama, because of her time as the First Spouse. But when it serves her political purposes, they'd rather we ignore what she learned during her time in the White House.

Hillary wants us to disregard, for instance, that it was her husband's administration that decided in the late 1990s that the Iraq sanctions were working and that there was no longer any need to keep the weapons inspectors there, to play cat and mouse with Saddam Hussein.

Remember those tedious eleventh hour ultimatums NATO gave Saddam, pulling the bombers back at the last minute when the dictator finally agreed to let the inspectors do their jobs? I do, because I was there covering them.

It was on her husband's watch that the US and NATO chose, wisely, to change tack. The new policy was to pull the inspectors out and simply bomb Iraq, in a limited but effective way, every time Saddam stepped out of line by building a new radar facility or breaching the no-fly zone.

And the policy was working.

Hillary Clinton's supporters love to tell us how much smarter she is than George Bush. No argument there.

But now we're supposed to believe that she swallowed the intelligence nonsense that Bush was peddling to Congress, on how dangerous Saddam had suddenly become, even though she knew, first hand from her days in the White House, how impotent Iraq really was.

None of it adds up.

Girls, we know, and so do you, that Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq war in order to position herself for the 2008 campaign. And it's tough to argue, politically, with her decision, given the way the Democratic race looks today.

But there's another aspect to this -- the moral question. And Hillary Clinton is on the wrong side of one of the most important moral issues of our time. For reasons of ambition and political expedience, she made the wrong call.

Tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis have died in a war she helped start. Thousands of American soldiers have been sacrificed, tens of thousands more maimed.

The congressional vote, of which she was a part, helped lead to the biggest strategic disaster in the modern history of U.S. foreign policy.

Despite all of that, millions of Americans are going to support her, simply because they feel it's time America had a woman president.

Well, the least they can do is admit that. To say it frankly, and honestly, in a way we longer expect of our politicians.

Or is that too much to ask?

Comments

[gtt]

Good post. Too many voters each election vote against their interests. Primary voters who vote for Hillary Clinton are supporting a Democrat who most likely can not win the general elections. Most every national pollster finds her negatives near 50%. She energizes the otherwise demoralized republican base and will certainly drag down other down ballot candidates. I consider myself a male feminist. Woman should see that to lose the presidental election will cost us the Supreme Court for a generation. There our cry must be .. "Hillary for the Supreme Court; Edwards for President" Yes, win the White House so we can put Hillary on the Supreme Court... She can only vote up or down on those cases. She will vote right..can not trianglate from the bench.

[researcher]

bases in iraq after 2013 she is an imperialist she is running on the wrong ticket. one can only hope a third party comes in and takes the 2008 elections away from the demos. rather have an honest not afraid to admit it warmonger repub in office than a lying imperialist demo.

[ikkytito]

Total war against Islamofascism and Newt is out of the race. LMAO. Bet Newt is kicking himself in the ass. Because thats what an attack on Iran means. Total war against the Muslim World. Wouldn't surprise me if the Mullahs in Saudia din't engineer a revolt against the King. Plus Musharaf in Pakistan-hmmm nuclear weapons there. War hysteria has a life of its own. Unintended consequences. Has everyone lost their friggin minds? Oh well I'm old -so what have fun kids. It's only your life and civilization at stake. hahahaha

[BuyMoreAmmo]

Great post, ikky!
At 64 I don't feel old but it is old and I fear you're spot on the money with "..have fun kids, it's only your life and civilization at stake."

Are we doomed to a Hillary/Rudy ticket this early in the game? Why did Hagle get out....who or what got to him?

[snidesnickers]

Democratic primary voters, especially women voters, need to ask themselves a serious question: What states will Hillary win that Al Gore or John Kerry did`nt? I think the answer is none, and she could very well lose states like Pennsylvania and Michigan. The Democrats have an opportunity to win in states they haven`t won in years like Tennessee, Arkansas,
Kentucky,Ohio, Florida, Virginia and West Virginia. States in the west are also strong possibilities such as Montana, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona and Nevada. Hillary won`t win any of these states and with her at the top of the ticket she will drag down Democratic chances of big gains in both the House and Senate. She will also energize the Republican voters like no other Democrat candidate would in a "we gotta stop Hillary" frenzy. Even if she does win it will be four or eight more years of gridlock because Republicans will try to block anything she tries to do just because it`s Hillary proposing it.
These are serious issues that Demacrats need to think about before the voting starts!

[SensibleAmerican]

Your state-wide analysis is so beyond laughable that I would strongly recommend you to simply start actually reading and doing research!

The most touted prediction is that under Hillary's stewardship the Blues will only increase and the Repugnants will be reduced to being a party of the South

The places you can start are the voting trends amongst Hispanics and then move on to what's happening amonst the socially conservative Afro-Americans who helped put Bush over the top in Ohio in 2004!

Seriously, READ!

[snidesnickers]

Again I pose the question: What states will Hillary win that Al Gore and John Kerry did`nt? I would prefer specifics as opposed to ad hominem attacks on my "state-wide analysis".

[cuthbertallgood]

African-American is the accepted term. Afro-American is pretty much just for Michael Richards these days. If you think that a 2% vote put Bush in office, well, no wonder you want to vote for Hillary.
I like this line: 'the most touted prediction' touted means promoted, not trusted you know. I assume those doing the touting are Hillary's people. So, 'tout' means to push or promote. Afro is a haircut. What elese? Oh....
Did you know the food is good at Sylvia's?

[TankerRat]

Depends on whose material you're reading sensible. A lot of states are indeed trending "blue" BUT with the Hill and Billary show on the ticket they'll revert to "red" faster than snot on a hockey rink. It's not so much R's vs D's as it is the utter VOID in leadership. Hillary's negatives mount with each passing day. The R's are simply laying in the weeds. I'm going with snicker's on this one.

[StillAmused]

If your adult relative asks for authority to drive your car, promising to drive carefully, then ties one on and takes out an entire family in a minivan while speeding, did YOU "authorize" vehicular homicide?

It remains the 'dirty little secret' of the Iraq vote that Congress foolishly assumed it was conveying implicit authority to a president with clean hands, no ulterior agenda and the character not to seize it as a free pass to invade Iraq.

It is disappointing and frustrating that Hillary Clinton (and ALL candidates who voted 'aye') have failed to make this point, rather than struggling to finesse their reasons for voting as they did and, in the process, validating an invalid premise.

[dogman44]

Much of this country's citizenry knew Bush did not have clean hands. There are well documented
books on him and his family's selfish and corrupt past. Am I to believe nobody in the congress or senate was aware of this history?
We need a complete housecleaning. Throw all the bastards out and let's start over.

[BARRISTER]

Hurrah dogman44, lets bring it on!

[StillAmused]

Notwithstanding what "much of this country's citizenry knew" about the Bush family history (and I challenge the proposition that it was all that 'much' at the time... even today, I'm willing to bet the vast majority remain ignorant of that history or dismiss it as over-the-top legend), are you suggesting that the United States Congress and the American people should have ASSUMED that the President Of The United States was overtly LYING in a matter of WAR? In the wake of 9/11? Given the mood of the country?

Sorry... I don't think ANYONE was prepared for the degree to which this administration has been willing to lie, conflate, misrepresent and KILL in pursuit of its agenda, whether ideological or corporate.

No excuses suggested, but those in Congress who were taken in by Bush and Co. were travelling in good company... about 73% of the American public at the time.

Which bastard's house gets cleaned first?

[scooperss]

All the candidates that voted aye and then used the *I didn't know * excuse have lost ALL credibility if they voted for the lieberman/kyl amendment On Iran. That includes hillary.

[ikkytito]

Hillary has lost my support on this latest cave-in. It's just plain irresponsible to help set up the rationale for an attack on Iran. The CHAOS in Iraq isn't enough? Multiply the carnage in Iraq by 1000. WTF are those people smoking? Ok I get it-total victory over the forces of evil. Somebody better start confronting Hillary on her irresponsible behavior. I was hopeful-because she seems competant. This warmongering machine has reached the point of no return-prepare yourself for the collapse of world order. In this age of empowerment-an age when even a rag-tag beaten Country like Iraq can frustrate the great military machine of the USA-Imagine several other countries-with help from enemies of America can do. Has our leadership lost its mind? I don't think anyone can stop them from their own self-destruction. A New World will be born from this chaos. I suspect it will take a nuclear detonation-and wholesale destruction.

[deminmo]

ikky, I unfortunately agree. And I do worry about what if any future is ahead for babies being born today.

[STParker]

I think that a lot of Hillary supporters defend her because they initially supported the Iraq war as well. Defending her foolishness mitigates their foolishness as well. After all, even within the Democratic party there are more than a few johnny-come-latelies in the anti-war camp.

[CarmanK]

Hillary Clinton is a Senator from NY. Her constituency was in shock about 9/11 and they wanted her to support the war. Many no matter how "enlightened" felt it was justified because Iraq had WMD. Not only that, the president of US (a sleaze, how much of one was in question) was telling the nation about Iraq WMD and people wanted to believe him. He is our President. He was supported by Colin Powell in this effort, who we thought was a very honorable man. I do not blame Hillary for voting to give the President the power to act, after he promised to exhaust diplomacy. And no I have not made up my mind about Hillary.

[VicPerry]

How can you write a whole column on her and not mention her vote on Iran the other day? It's like deja vu all over again -

[Pat]

I'm a disillusioned ex-Hillary fan. It happened early, 1993, when my heart was broken watching the botched health insurance fiasco.

I heard her touting how education had been her platform when she was first lady of Arkansas. Arkansas went from 48th to 49th in the nation under her watch. Now she is a hawk on the war, and may be instrumental in getting us into another war with Iran.

Hillary fans, WHY? What has she done so great that you would vote for her? Please be specific, because I really want to know.

[Kendo Nagasaki]

Hillary claims she has been battling the insurance companies over healthcare the last 15 years.

And losing.

She will continue to lose.

Hillary only cares about Hillary.

[TankerRat]

You got that right Kendo!!!!

[jimsey]

This post is exactly right. But there is more. Hillary was also AWOL throughout this on warrantless wiretaps and curtailment of civil liberties, at a time when Gore and Feingold were outfront and very loudly condemning same. Instead she did photo ops with Republicans promoting anti-flag burning laws and restrictions on 'objectionable' dvds.

[SensibleAmerican]

That's easy! Ofcourse I can see why such a big deal is being made out of Hillary's vote! A side swipe at her as usual but that's OK, we all have our moments of hypocrisy!

Now for the rationale for her vote. Recently Sydney Blumenthal had 2 CIA offciers confirm earlier reports that Tenet told Bush in so many words that Iraq did not have WMDs and the intelligence they had was quite to the contrary. He was told to zip it! Fudged intelligence was given to the Senate arms committe, members of Congress and even MI6 (read the Downing Street Memos)

Till 1998, the UN Inspectors had not yet ascertained that Saddam Hussein ahd completely gotten rid of the chemical and biological weapons and/or he did not have the capability to run a clandestine operation

Ofcourse, you want us to side-step the fact that the first order of business was to let the Inspectors in and do their job. But you see, that was indeed the very first part of the vote! Barely 5 months after the vote Bush had them leave! Barely 3 months after the vote our forces were ready to go in!

And yes, we were attacked in the worst manner possible just a year before the vote! Keeping all these facts into consideration, it is very likely that a person would vote the way Hillary did! As a fact of matter, all the Senators running for President right now and who were in the Senate at the time voted the same way!

[scooperss]

And that's why I won't voted for any of the senators who voted yes. We don't need a president who doesn't bother to read/confirm facts.

[Kendo Nagasaki]

Saudis were responsible for 911

Or do you conveniently forget ?

[jimsey]

Absolutely not. There were many of us who new the war to be an immoral contrivance before it happened, along with many Democratic US Senators who were not running for president. Which is why I agree with those who would not vote for a democrat who supported the war.

Don't forget that by the time Powell gave his speech, it was clear there was no nuclear threat (even his speech had only a minor reference to potential nuclear threats and El Baradai had already dismissed it). BEFORE the war, part of an NIE was released saying that the only threat the potential chemical and biological agents posed was if the US attacked Iraq, in which case they would use them in the close proximity required of such weapons, else they would not.

Further, BEFORE the war the aluminum tubes and Niger uranium distortions had been exposed. It was already clear that the war was based on falsehoods and Gore and Feingold, among others, said so much publicly. Any Demorcat of integrity would, and did, oppose the war.

[leftLibertarian]

A Clinton presidency would be a disaster akin to the Baby Bush presidency. She'd lead us into another war for no reason and bleed the country dry.
She's a bald face liar, and like every professional politician can never give a direct yes or no to a simple question.

[snidesnickers]

Hillary,s campaign motto should be: I will equivocate, triangulate and obfuscate and I will refuse to take a "line in the sand" principled stand on any issue except my refusal to actually take a stand on any principled issue!

[SensibleAmerican]

I can see that such a post is red meat for the far-left-wide-eyed-nader-loving herd! Nevertheless, that vote was not about activism or empt rhetoric. That was a vote taken after careful consideration of the intelligence available. THAT intelligence was cooked and cherry picked

So, yes you can scream at the rain but it take s alot to actually walk in her shoes. None that I see raving and ranting here have even an iota of political know-how nor the wisdom. It is easy to rant and froth at the mouths!

[cuthbertallgood]

So if I don't like Hillary I am a poopy doody head?
Nadar is the biggest political shill in the US. I dislike him very much. Hillary I used to like but not anymore.
Sorry buddy, but I've been at this since we took down Nixon. Hillary was part of that too! Were you?
I love all you DLC supporters though! So Rovian! You can not make a point in favor of your choice so you declare that anyone making another choice is unqualified, immoral, wild eyed, immature. You say everyone here who does not like your choice has not an iota of political know how....some of the posters here actually hold offices, won in elections. Hillary has won just one election in her short political career. Just one.
I can't imagine that you think anyone would come to your way of thinking through insults and hyperbole. Is that what they teach down at Clinton headquarters, or is it your own style? To me it is off putting, and frankly the supporters of the DLC Twins all engage in that sort of attack. Not much to say for Hlll and Johnny except they were wrong when being right counted. With nothing positive to say, all you do is call people names.
Oh and I never do this, but when you want to say others are not as smart as you, maybe spelling words like 'empty' and 'rhetoric' and 'mouth' correctly might be in order. All the hyphens and bad spelling make you look like you are frothing at the mouth and ranting like someone who does not like Hillary! It makes you seem like a wild eyed far right type. It takes a lot. not take s alot. The rest of your frenzied syntax I'll leave as testament to your calm, quiet, considered suport of your DLC masters.

[BuyMoreAmmo]

....and speaking of ranting and raving and frothing at the mouth....

[deminmo]

Sensible, in the case of the Iraq (and soon to be Iran war) "intellegence" is an oxymoron.

[jimsey]

I can see that such a post is red meat for the far-left-wide-eyed-nader-loving herd!

That's uncalled for. The original post made many good points. You can respond for/against without name calling, particularly making unsupported allegations that anyone who thinks Hillary is wrong must be a 'far left Naderite'. The reasons many here do not support Hillary have been made plain.

[Rhydderch69]

Forget the war vote; how about something so simple as picking Yankees or Cubs?

If it is important, you don't waffle, and if it's not important, the decision's not hard.

[deminmo]

Cubs to win it all!!!!

[Democrab]

Sox

[clevelandchick]

Um...no. I'm a woman and I have never looked at Hillary as my choice because she is a hawk and the fact she has intimated to groups she'd be willing to throw Choice under the bus to get elected. She's also in the pocket of the insurance lobby to the tune of 6 million. No way any woman in this nation should be stupid enough to believe Hillary isn't taking care of those guys before she even spends a second on the people.

It's insulting to be told I'd vote for a woman even if I did not believe she was right for the job. And I think you are wrong in your assumptions. I'd love for a great woman to run. Somebody like Debbie Wasserman Schulz or even Barbara Boxer.

I do not know one woman who wants Hillary and you know why? Because they believe she'll keep troops in Iraq and invade Iran.

I live in the heartland. I don't know where the women you know come from but not that I know is really wild about HRC. Not one.

[BuyMoreAmmo]

It doesn't matter to me if they stand or squat to pee so long as they have the cajones of Cindy Sheehan....now there's a woman not afraid of little boy george wanker bush, aka Chimpy McFlightsuit.

[TankerRat]

And she do indeed have a pair Ammo.

[kimk3]

I'm sick of the whole gender issue with Hillary. She voted for the war -- not everyone did -- and she keeps voting for it. I'd like to see her entire voting record from the senate but I am not aware of her voting for anything that's even vaguely progressive. I think she's a hawk. If she's the best the Dems have to offer, it's pathetic. She has no intention of ending Iraq and I believe she would bomb Iran, too.

[WolfLarsen]

I believe you are right kim. She may be even more of a reactionary because she will want to prove that she is tough, when what the world really needs is someone intelligent and sane. She has both of those traits but she may calculate that is is more important to show a tough side than a peaceful side. Tough is strength. Peace is weakness. What a screwed up world we live in.

[Kendo Nagasaki]

Hillary is as much a pacifist as iron lady Margaret Thatcher.