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

[shrinqrap]

The nomination of Hillary Clinton as the Democratic presidential nominee would guarantee a Republican victory.

What a cruel twist of fate, that just as the time is ripe for our country to accept the idea of a woman as President, the only candidate my party seems able to nominate is a mediocre thoroughly unremarkable yet conniving, compromised second-tier Senator.

There are so many strong, independent women leaders in our country - and we choose Mrs. Clinton.

[Kendo Nagasaki]

Hillary's nomination would be a Republican victory either way, whether she wins or loses the Presidential election.

You are being sandbagged.

[mommyatty]

My understanding is that the women most likely to read this article in fact, do not support Hillary. I think David Brooks got it right in a recent NYT article. Hillary is not campaigning to us; she is campaigning to the middle, a large percentage of which support the war.

[RealBlackGirl]

This article speaks the truth. I hope this article gives the rest of the pundits and journalist the courage to begin to question her campaign. The reality is that her presidency would be more about Bill restoring his image beyond the impeachment than it would be about making us better.

[NavyMom]

This is exactly why I won't support her. And yes she is better than Bush (which seems to be her theme song)-but so is anyone !

[LastLiberalRepublican]

When are we as a society coming to grips with how inherently wrong it would be to vote for Hillary? There is no question that her husband is a charismatic and intriguing speaker, albeit a seriously flawed individual. However, my belief is that voting for her is a de facto breech of the 22nd. Amendment to the Constitution, in that electing her would restore a former President to the White House. We do not need to do this.

No more dynasties!

This Republican wants to vote for Al Gore.

[nunzia]

If she had not cast that vote, the msm - which has been complicit in smearing the Clintons for years - would have pulverized her. At the time, the great majority of the populace (idiots, one and all) were eating out of Bush's hand, idolizing that moron, and eager to "get back for 9/11". Took most of them 6 years to figure out that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, despite the efforts of those of us who tried to say so. An intelligent, informed, consicentious and responsible citizenry would get better pols, would get representatives who can vote their conscience with integrity and not be condemned for it. Americans don't deserve better. In this country you pay a price for integrity. Ask Al Gore, Gene McCarthy - yes, and even John Kerry.

[STParker]

I'd like to think that I would stand up for what was right even if that meant that my political fortunes suffered.
I do think that Gore and Kerry at least suffered somewhat from not standing up and fighting the good fight. Yes, they were better than nothing, but they could have fought harder and the lesson to be taken from them is not to give-up but to fight harder still.

[Tiger]

Her calculated vote is responsible for the needless loss of thousand of lives. Perhaps the majority of Americans deserve this mess but what about those who've paid the ultimate price? Did they deserve to die? I would rather be condemed than to have that on my conscience. It doesn't seem to bother Hillary a bit. Unlike many uninformed Americans, Hillary Clinton knew exactly what she was doing. After all that has transpired she's once again chosen (Lieberman-Kyle) to vote to move the US confrontation with Iran to the next level. I for one will not excuse her nor will I vote for her. Integrity matters.

[Jazz42]

I agree with everything that were written in this post.
Thank you,
Mr Gizbert

[olephart]

Many of Hillary's avid supporters are like Bush's 29 percenters and refuse to be confused by the facts. Her recent vote for the Lieberman - Kyl resolution is a case in point. Like her vote for War with Iraq, she voted to give Bush authorization to attack Iran. Of all her faults, stupidity is not one of them. It is therefore intrinsically obvious to even the most casual observer that she is pro War, pro Military/Industrial Complex, pro Wall Street, pro big Insurance, big Pharma, "Free Trade" and every other Republican issue there is. Hillary is a Republican and if she gets the nomination we'll have our choice between tweedle dum and tweedle dee.

[toronto]

Olephart has it right. Hillary may offer a few different routines, but she and Bush are both cheerleaders for the American empire.

[BuyMoreAmmo]

Make that a choice between tweedle dum and tweedle dummer....

[OtayPanky]

Richard Gizbert writes: 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.

===

It reminds me of nothing so much as the jury nullification in the OJ trial - and the split in public opinion about his guilt that was 100% race based.

At that time, the black community had a brief, passionate fling with him as a wronged innocent man. Of course, today they have repudiated that stance en masse.

Billary 2.0 is an essentiallY AMORAL political force on the landscape. Usually, the female voter is DEEPLY moral - but this time, as you say - they are looking away from the blackened heart of Billary 2.0 in droves.

An appalling spectacle - really and truly.

[oldpotsmuggler]

You are wrong on only one fundamental point, but it is a gigantic one. Neither Hillary nor any Democrat did a single thing to enable the Invasion of Iraq. That became a done deal the day that the Supreme Court put BUSHCO back in the Whitehouse. The various BUSHCO enterprises, interests, and alliances have pulled an additional multi-trillion dollar profit out of that single action. Bullshit walks, money talks and in piles of cash that large it literally screams ATTACK IRAQ.

There were details that needed to be addressed, but the war machine was set in motion in Jan., 2001.

[WorkingClass]

Your point is well taken there old pot. Iraq was dead meat the day the court appointed Bush. He knew then what he was going to do. I have no reason to believe the congress was in on 9/11. And after that day the Dems were truly powerless.

But they are not powerless now. Now we know they are traitors. Especially Hillary who is voting with Cheney and Lieberman to start a world war. I don't know whether Hillary’s gender is an asset or a liability. What are the feminists saying? They don't seem eager to defend Nancy.

[PADDYWHACK]

old pot,you're right the motivation was money,I hope the Bushes can explain that to our boys in wheelchairs,and my cat is smarter than Bush.I still believe HRC should've voted no but she did the same on Iran.Why is all this arab blood needed to legitimise these people.

[BuyMoreAmmo]

Uhhhh, is it out of line to mention the Zionist connection­...? I thought so.

[VicPerry]

oldpotsmuggler, what the world doesn't need now is more excuses for the democrats to not have acted. so what if "the war machine was set in motion," the proper response to that was to resist it. And I see that the same excuses are still alive and well, and in a few years we can all comfort ourselves that the democrats didn't "really" support attacking Iran...

[oldpotsmuggler]

I was addressing the very narrow point raised by the author. You are certainly right that this country needs to pursue peace at ALMOST any cost.