(By Joe Drymala and Ryan J. Davis)
The Story Behind "Chickenhawks For Hillary"
Remember these words?
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members..."
What about these:
"[i]f left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Scary stuff--positively Cheney-esque in its evocation of nuclear and biological nightmare scenarios. There is even a reference to the evildoers themselves: those ubiquitous Al Qaeda members, presumably nestled securely in one of Saddam's palaces, laughing it up with Uday and Qusay as we go about our business, ignorant of their infernal schemes.
This wasn't Dick Cheney talking, though. Or George Bush. Or Condoleezza Rice or Colin Powell. It wasn't the daily two-minute hate from the likes of Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly. These words were spoken by a candidate who may very well be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008: Hillary Clinton, on the floor of the U.S. Senate, on October 10, 2002.
Hillary Clinton's support of the war was no technicality, and talking about it isn't mere hair-splitting. It's not about harping on one particular vote that she still won't apologize for, or playing Russert-style "gotcha" with fear-mongering quotes from days of yore. George Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq; that much is clear. But without bipartisan support, or the support of the Washington foreign policy establishment (and with it, the D.C. media elite), the run-up to the invasion would have been very, very different. Maybe we would have had a real debate over the merits of the invasion. Maybe the intelligence would have been properly analyzed. Maybe a forthright discussion of the possible costs of the war would have taken place. We'll never know, though, because the "serious" foreign policy experts, the press, and virtually all Democratic leaders were actively telling war opponents to please shut up already.
(To see a great example of Clinton's attitude toward the views of war opponents, take a look at this video of her speaking to a group of activists from the group Code Pink on March 6, 2003.)
Clinton's role in the invasion was unique. She'd been in the Senate for less than two years, but was understandably more famous and more visible than any other member. She was also respected as an intelligent, capable politician who'd won her Senate seat largely on her own merits. She was a star. And she became the most high-profile Democrat leading the march to war.
Had she done the opposite--forcefully opposed the invasion, as a few courageous Senators chose to do--the Bush administration would have had a much bigger hurdle to cross in terms of convincing the press and the public that invasion was the most prudent course of action. Would she have taken heat for it? Of course. Would she have put herself out of the running for the presidency? Possibly. But she wasn't president yet. She was a Senator, our Senator, the Senator from New York, for whom both of us pulled the lever in 2000, and she let us down, and consequently war opponents had no real voice in Washington. And now, our worst nightmares about Iraq have come true.
I have no doubt that Clinton, along with a vast majority of Americans, now regards the war as a spectacularly bad idea. History will surely record it as such. But some of us thought it was a bad idea in 2001, and in 2002, and in 2003 (to paraphrase another presidential candidate). And even today, Clinton still won't say she was wrong to vote for the war. She won't join the other major candidates in refusing to vote for funding without a deadline for withdrawal. She may be trying to appear tough for the general election, concerned that as a female candidate, she needs to err on the side of hawkishness. That's a poor excuse, though, if it's true (not to mention a seriously amoral calculation), and if it's not, then we have no choice but to believe her support of the war was genuine. Either way, Democrats can do better when it comes to the person we choose to lead our party.
We created "Chickenhawks For Hillary" because we were angry, and are angry still, at the fact that the press has largely given her a pass on her full-throated advocacy of the Iraq war. We hope the ad will help remind people that she is not only complicit in the invasion, but probably more complicit than any other Democrat on the national stage.
The distinctions between the candidates in Iraq have been somewhat blurred by the media, but Hillary Clinton set herself apart from the rest of the pack with her words and actions over the past five years. She may issue carefully-worded statements on the campaign trail bemoaning the management of the war, but the time for her to take a stand against the war was before the invasion, when it counted. For whatever reason, she chose not to. She may one day be president, but she's already missed her historic opportunity to be a leader.
Follow Ryan J. Davis on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ryannewyork
back in 2001. As of Nov 2004, he had infamously
voted 'for the war before he'd voted against
it'. Both later expressed regret for their October
2001 vote which enabled Bush to go to war.
As far as their stance on the war is concerned,
there is little difference between Clinton & Kerry,
but a huge difference now beween Republican
& Democratic candidates.
Both discarded the views of the base, and Hillary will lose just like Kerry did for the same reason.
Hillary won't end the war.
Please elaborate the huge differences with the GOP position.
Voters had a choice in 2004 between war starting Bush and war voting Kerry.
The DLC and their establishment cronies are scheming to once again prevent voters from having a real choice.
Hillary plans to keep 60,000 troops in Iraq if elected yet she say's she'll end the war. Semantics about "combat troops" are ignored by the corporate media as SOP.
Full withdrawal is ending the war.
Hillary isn't fit to lead this country.
I'd even dispute she won her seat on her own merits... Bills coattails and DLC funding had far more to do with her win than any inherent qualities.
Lieberman and Edwards were vying for who'd hawk the war more:
1. Senator Edwards Calls for Overthrow of Iraq Dictator, September 12, 2002.
2. Edwards Co-sponsors Lieberman's war resolution, Oct 2002
3. Edwards continues the march for war, March 15, 2003
All three of Hillary, Edwards and Lieberman voted for the IWR and voted against the Levin amendment.
Links for the readers here:
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2007/9/20/182522/842/30#c30
the war-enabling bill, they could have stopped
it, as they DID have a majority at the time.
A one vote majority, counting independent Jim
Jeffords. Not counting Barack Obama, as he was
NOT yet in the Senate, lest we forget.
Unfortunately, that wasn't to be & once a few
broke ranks, it was all over, & quite a few more joined in.
In other words, it doesn't make any sense to single out HRC.
Far better to blame Joe Lieberman (as usual), I think.
He might be happy to take one for the team, for once.
The political problem is, or was, that it's
necessary for would-be Presidents to show that
they have 'what it takes' to take the country
to war, when 'necessary'. Seems very shaky
now, but only a year after 9/11, it wasn't at
all obvious. An unpleasant truth, but so be it.
Do you really believe after all this time that Bush would not have attacked Iraq no matter what the public, the UN, or Democratic politicians said?