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

[lafrance]

Maybe they won't admit it because they have no answer for why, after all the contorting, she just voted to give Bush a war with Iran.

[Larry of Corrales]

Any respect I may have had for Hillary disappeared a couple of days ago when she voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment which could pave the way for Bush to launch a massive bombing attack on Iran. As we all know he is just crazy enough to do this and Hillary voted to let him.

[SensibleAmerican]

See what I mean?! Ignorance is bliss! PLEASE elaborate on how it was an "amendment" and how it "paves the way for Bush" to do anything?!

[BuyMoreAmmo]

Bush doesn't need pavement to do anything..­.he'll do, as VP Snarly said to Wolfie Blitzer, "whatever we damn well please."

[cognate]

I'm not so sure Hilary is on the wrong side of history.

What the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians, and their American proxies are doing to the Iraqis and will soon be doing to the Iranians is just another instance of might makes right.

Only a couple of centuries ago Americans had no moral compunctions against slaughtering, ethnically cleansing, stealing the land and building reservation-prisons for the Indians. Now we all watch pious shows on public television about how it was all wrong.

Only well after the Muslims have been ground into the dirt will we hear how it was all wrong.

On the other hand perhaps the Muslims are not as helpless as the Indians were. They can always mount a suicide attack here and there.

[Rhydderch69]

Meh. You neglect the importance of smallpox.

[cognate]

What? I don't recall us runnin' no clinics for them stricken Injuns. Besides, they were better dead.

[deminmo]

And the Trail of Tears was a real event. Land was at a premium, minerals in the mountains, game to hunt and Indians in the way. My Great Grandmother was full blood Cherokee, and was a child who happened to survive the blood trail.

How does this tie in with the subject...­think about it.

[WhenIWasYoung]

Thank god someone here said it.

[maxstar]

I am a man and I am voting for Clinton because I think she would be great for the country--and she can win. I doubt that Barak Hussein Obama could win New York. It made absolutley no difference if she voted for, or against the war. The Republicans were going to have their war. No Democrat could stop it. No Democrat could even embarass him. That is not how it works. The press would have destroyed Clinton and bloodied her enough that she could never run for president.

I am glad that we are finally able to have a candidate who is calculating enough to vote for things that can get a Democrat in the White House in 2008. I am sure she voted for the stupid sable rattling bill against Iran last week for the same reason. America needs a competant leader in the White House in 2008.

[davidly]

Hillary Herd alert!!!!

[davidly]

This is no other than the herd member formerly--or may still--known as SensibleAmerican. Don't be fooled.

[SensibleAmerican]

Exactly maxstar! Is it a coincidence that I see a flood of pro Barack Hussein posts showing up at the same time his paid banners show up on this site?!

The other day one woman gave her reason for BHO to be President: he made her cry. Another thought he should be commander-in-chief because she had a Meg Ryan moment (Harry met Sally) when she saw him!

Can you imagine such puerile herd mentality and reasons being given to elect Barack Hussein?! Laughable at best and ofcourse pathetic to put it succintly!

[Kendo Nagasaki]

Competent by all means, but how about integrity ?

[TankerRat]

Kendo- Where have you seen a politician with integrity? Zero balance, no have, nada, my friend.

[nomobull]

no more excuses for the dems the republicans started it but you could have stopped it not helped

[FearlessFreep]

Hillary now seems the inevitable winner of the Democratic nomination, just as Ted Kennedy seemed in the fall of 1979.

"Ralph, I was wrrrrrrrrn­nnnnnngggg­g..."--Fon­zie

[Dem02020]

If Sen. Clinton should apologize for voting yes on the Iraq invasion resolution four years ago...

Then I think George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell and the entire Republican Congressional delegation­...

...should all collectively commit ritual suicide over the matter, at Arlington National Cemetery or perhaps in front of Walter Reed Hospital.

[dogman44]

And the coniving Clintons should be right there with them!

[klondiker]

Great post - and I agree completely. But, I will use it to make one point about society.

We ourselves have created a society in which a woman who wants to run for president must appear strong and hawkish. We criticize Hillary for putting her personal ambitions ahead in voting for the war, but we ourselves have created the conditions in which such a vote was necessary in order that she keep alive her chances to run.

Could Hillary have been totally selfless and not voted for the war? Sure. But, then she would have to count herself out of the game. And, so, rather than sitting out, she's chosen to play the game. And playing the game means making difficult choices.

So, essentially, we create the game, and then we criticize women for playing it.

[WolfLarsen]

I don't agree that we created the game but we have done nothing to change it. You are right. We do not reward people for standing on principle. We do not hold our representatives to their pledges. They created the game. We are the ones that play it by electing the very people we will condemn after they break their promises. They have played us for saps for years and we never hold them accountable. Can you blame them for treating us with disdain?

[WolfLarsen]

Good post klondiker.

[SensibleAmerican]

Klondiker is right and it is not just about the gender issue! Virtually ALL the so-called pundits and "journalists" in the traditional media helped the White House with its Iraq spin! Now? They are the same crowd blaming the Dems for waffling on this issue!

Have you noticed how most of them will not still go for the jugular and/or go after the Repugnants? They are afraid to be labeled part of the Liberal Media! They were cowering then and are cowering now!

So Bush and his rubber stamp right wing choir create a mess but you see, the Dems are not doing anything! LOL

[TurnThePageATL]

Yeah, Of course Integrity matters.

[OJCsr]

Hey people,

Let's get it straight. The Resolution (at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html) said

"...The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq. ..."

Nowhere does it call for a war with Iraq. Bush was determined and this gave him some appearance of support, but he would have gone with or without it. However, the Congress did not by this vote directly authorize, let alone declare, war, invasion, occupation and mess.

Joe

[DasBoot]

OJCsr: Of course the resolution calls for war with Iraq. Everybody knew this at the time. It's the context that counts. The resolution made it unnecessary for Bush to get another vote before starting the war. Congress voluntarily surrendered its war powers. By default it left everything to the executive. To me that is the definition of dereliction of duty.

I don't think there is any big secret about Hillary Clinton's (and most of the other 28 Democratic votes) in 2002: They all expected a quick victory and wanted to be on the winning team. It was an ice cold political calculation. And it backfired. At least John Kerry admitted that much.

Maybe Bush would have gone to war either way. But at least the Democrats could have made a stand and declared: Not in our name.

Equally disturbing is Hillary's vote for the Lieberman/Kyl amendment. This really pisses me off. To me that equals a big middle finger in the face of the anti-war movement that has done so much to support Democratic candidates. Why is Hillary getting away with it?

[Rhydderch69]

Well stated, Das Boot.

The only thing I'd add is that we saw this whole charade before, in August, 1964.

And we're seeing it again with Lieberman-Kyl.

Fool them once, shame on you. Fool them twice, shame on them.

[ikkytito]

I think the war hysteria after 911 created the conditions necessary to further the agenda of the right. It's fascism plain and simple. Militarism + Super Patriotism + Corporate Greed = Fascism. Sorry Guys thats a textbook definition.

[bethinCary]

Thats' an easy one---becasue she takes AIPAC money. That's why she voted for K-L.

[Kendo Nagasaki]

In Bush mind:

Defend = preemptive war.

[BuyMoreAmmo]

I stand corrected. VP Snarly didn't tell Wolfie Blitzer "We'll do what we damn well please." I think he left out the word "damn."

[mommadona]

"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.""

And.....yo­u are......a­......man.­...stating this?

You see - women are much more sophisticated than men. We vote for the PERSON....­not the sex

As it SHOULD be.
There.
Now, run along, little man,
and talk to those beefy bruisers over there
waving around that gun and flag.
THAT'S who you should be
very, very scared of.

[CriminallySane]

He's also right, as it happens.

And your self-proclaimed delusions of female superiority fall flat. While individual women may well be more (or less) sophisticated than individual men, top make the blanket assertion on behalf of one side of the gender divide or the other is sexism to an equal degree.

[Mojane]

I'm a woman. I, too, will vote for THE PERSON, which is why she won't get my vote. Don't know one woman who would vote for her, and they in turn don't know anyone who would vote for her. Each of us would like to see a woman in the WH, but not Hillary. Now, run along, girl.

[CosaBella]

I guess you don't know that many women. I really don't care that you're a woman who want vote for Hillary. You coud be a woman voting for a Giuliani.

What difference does it make?

[kybo88]

Why is it that you always use the title of a Clash album for the title of your posts.

[Doofus]

'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.'

I'm not a 'fan', but I'm prepared to vote for her. Perhaps that counts.

You seem to think you know 'what really happened'. My *opinion* is that some Demos
in Congress who had ambitions to be President understood that in order to be President, you have to be able to take the nation to war, and as a Senator who would be President, you have to be able to vote accordingly.

29 Demo Senators voted in favor of the 'Authorization to Use Force', 21 against.
Maybe we ought to get 29 further explanations.

Were all 29 thinking about 2008, I wonder.

Yes, the war was a colossal Repo mistake, one which the Demos in Congress could not have prevented.

[olephart]

"Demos in Congress who had ambitions to be President understood that in order to be President, you have to be able to take the nation to war,"


George Bush demonstrated that any idiot can take the Nation to War. It takes a far better leader to keep the Nation out of War. This is what separates the superior candidates from the mediocre and truly abysmal.

[Doofus]

Technically, any idiot President, who can get a majority
of idiots in Congress to support him, can take US to war.

[Rule Of Law]

Doof--

Not so sure...

Still waiting for a ruling on this whole filibuster thing, but it sound like 41 votes is enough to bring everything to a pretty dead stop...?

My math says: 29 turncoat Dems plus 21 patriots, equals more than enough to have stopped it.

[Doofus]

That would be one of those 'vote to terminate
cloture' deals, which the War Authorization
vote was not. Point taken however. October
2002 was a time when there were 50 Demos
in the Senate, and with Jim Jeffords as
an Independent, there was 'technically'
a Demo majority. At least Tom Daschle
was majority leader. But then, all
it took was for a single Demo to
break ranks (Lieberman) and it
was all over. So it went...

[Rhydderch69]

It was, as one of Hillary's opponents has pointed out, "a dumb war."

No question, as president you have to be able take the nation to war. But yes, I believe we do need 29 explanations for taking the nation into a war whose outcome was predictable -- i.e. the winner would be Iran and the Taliban

[Doofus]

By the way, I certainly do NOT agree with
Hillary Clinton's vote for the War Authorization bill.
I think that however 'politically well motivated'
it may have been, it was most unwise.

And that would also apply to the THIRTY
idiotic Demo Senators who voted for the
Kyle-Lieberman amendment the other day.

[criggs]

I find it interesting, doofus, that, while you forthrightly acknowledge that you oppose the war, and are agreeable, apparently, to characterizing yourself as a woman who still supports Hillary, or at least is "prepared to vote for her", nevertheless nowhere in your message do you explain

WHY

you still support her.

[FogBelter]

Mr GIzbert, I think it is a mistake to cede the vote of American women to Hillary Clinton, individuals are far more complicated then the various sub groups they are associated with. I don't believe that African Americans will issue a unified vote for Obama either based on his race.

I hear far more criticism of Clinton from woman than I hear praise. To assume that all American woman are truly emancipated and long for a representative of their sex as the next President based on her being a woman alone is to overlook the myriad of motivations for an individual's vote.

In addition, to assume that a majority of woman, of both parties, will vote for Hillary, by extension assumes that a majority of men of both parties won't ... so where does that leave her?

Whatever Hillary's stance is on any issue, including her smarmy stance on Iraq, is irrelevent if she assumes she has the American Woman's vote in the bag ... that is a far too simplistic analysis of the American electorate.

[jeffmorgan]

I don't think he meant to be absolutist here; he just said "a lot of women." I see though that he generalized from these women to "Hillary supporters­." Either way though, what he describes is a significant component of her current support, while we could argue how significant. Otherwise we wouldn't be seeing such a gender gap in polls.

I would like to think though that this is just a 'soft issue' that is only effectual in the absence of greater determining factors.

Personally until I see evidence to the contrary I'll assume that those women Gizbert describes aren't really into politics and aren't into all the ins and outs. That's quite normal to me, and they shouldn't be blamed for not thinking about issues they aren't thinking about at the moment.

[FogBelter]

Well reasoned and I appreciate your feedback. I tend to bristle at generalities when I don't see any concrete evidence to support it.

[literate]

I wish the women who blindly support HRC simply because she is a woman would consider a point my son (who is serving in Iraq) astutely made in a recent e-mail: The idea that a first female president was nominated "just because her husband was President is a little sad... and having 24 consecutive years of either a Bush or a Clinton in the White House would be an unfortunate commentary on the state of our democracy.­" Bill Clinton stated that "judgment and values" is more than experience, and I'm not so sure Hillary looks so good in that regard either. Obama, in contrast, does.

[dogman44]

Agreed. Too many years of Clintoon, shrub bullshit. I miss you Molly!

[BuyMoreAmmo]

Dog, I miss Molly too...wish she could have hung around for 01-20-09 to see this joke of a president leave office....­she wouldn't certainly have had a field day with this lackluster field of candidates­....didn't she coin the term "Shrub" Bush? Folks like Kucinich and Sheehan constantly remind me of Molly Ivins....a­ll three have/had a pair!