Hillary's War
Benazir Bhutto was standing in an open car in the military city of Rawalpindi when the shrapnel sliced into her. That was just over a day ago. Violence has engulfed the region and we're waiting for the next chapter in this ever-worsening dilemma.
It would be cynical to blame Hillary Clinton for Bhutto's assassination. She didn't pull the trigger, after all. Nonetheless, she voted to authorize George W. Bush, George W. Bush!, to go to war in Iraq. It was a simple, obvious vote based on political calculations. There were still weapons inspectors in Iraq saying they needed more time.
Now we're looking at the rebirth of the Taliban in Afghanistan and a rapidly destabilizing Pakistan. The connections with our failed adventure in Iraq are beyond obvious. By losing focus and spreading our resources too thin we've turned a possible success in Afghanistan into a failure. That failure has spread to Pakistan (and New Orleans). To imagine a stable Afghanistan one just needs to imagine a world where America does not bomb Iraq, focusing on the task at hand instead of opening a war on two fronts with the entire Muslim world.
Hillary spokesman Jay Carson said yesterday in response to comments from the Obama campain, "This is a time to be focused on the tragedy of the situation, its implications for the U.S. and the world, and to be concerned for the people of Pakistan and the country's stability. No one should be politicizing this situation with baseless allegations." I know Jay Carson. We got drunk together in 2004 when he was working for Howard Dean and I was there when he took off his Dean pin and replaced it with a Miller High Life button in Wisconsin. Jay's easy to like and capable of spinning anything. But when Hillary talks about not making politics out of this tragedy, when she talks about looking forward, she's actually urging us not to learn from the past.
Hillary is simply not an acceptable candidate, and it becomes clearer by the day. Progressives don't want to abandon her completely because we think we might have to back her at some point in the near future when she's up against some monster like Rudy Guiliani (who once justified the war in Iraq by stating Saddam Hussein is a weapon of mass destruction, as if he was farting plutonium nuggets). Still, it's hard to believe that someone that voted for that war, and under the exact same circumstances would cast the same vote again, is capable of being president. We're not talking about any mistake, we're talking about the great mistake of our time. She might as well have voted to authorize the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand.
In the end, George would have taken us into Iraq even if our Democratic leaders had shown judgment and spine (some did). That lack of judgment probably cost us the White House in 2004 when it was possible to correct so many things. Hillary followed her vote by refusing to apologize and blaming our failure on the Iraqis. Barack Obama is probably the only candidate with a chance at turning this ship around. His impact on the world's perception of America would be immediate. I'm not going to join the bandwagon chanting this is the most important election of our generation. Unless this is your first year in electoral politics that election has already passed, and we blew it. This is the election where we vote yes or no on fixing our mistakes.
Read more reactions from HuffPost bloggers on Benazir Bhutto's assassination
Comments for this post are now closed
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Let's see - Hillary who refuses to say she will turn back bushie's expansion of executive powers; who refused to stand with Dodd against the flawed FISA bill; the supporter of the Iraq war.
Or Obama who used a homophobe to pander to parts of the Africa-American community; who refused to stand with Dodd against the flawed FISA bill.
Or Edwards who recognizes and admits to his error in voting for the Iraq war; who talks about core Democratic values like helping the poor, minimum wage, education, health care; who refuses to take corporate funds.
Now, which one WILL I vote for??!
This crap is worse than the Swift Boaters. Almost every Democrat in the Senate voted on a resolution that would allow Bush to bring evidence against Iraq to the Senate to authorize an attack. Instead, Bush violated the resolution and attacked.
Stop trying to frame Hillary as an assassin. It makes you look worse than any politician possibly could.
Since Senator Obama has been one of the paymasters of the war in Iraq it is irrelevant what he said or did prior to joining the US Senate. It is astounding that the Obamaists continue to peddle the false myth that he is anti-war. He is only against dumb wars. He is likely to start a clever one himself with Iran or Pakistan if elected to our presidency, God forbid.
We cannot take it that the invasion of Iraq, lead to the murder of Bhutto. Mistakes continue to be made in the reaction to the anti west revolution. There is a clash of ideologies, Bushia versus Shia, versus bin Ladenia, versus the usual commercial interests of war. Bhutto is one of many casualties of the revolution, and the US failure to understand that cause, combined with the Bush group's desire to make money through privatization. Mark John Hunter.
The vote was given after the Bush Administration invented and perverted the intelligence presented to Congress and the American people - intelligence that was twisted by the Bushies into lies, just like Powell's speech before the UN, and even then the vote by the Democrats was to give Bush credibility to get additional sanctions approved by the UN - not to invade Iraq.
Read the speech Hilary gave in Senate Session before the vote:
October 10, 2002
Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
As Delivered
http://cli
Please stop repeating Republican talking points!
Now I am not a big time Hillary Clinton fan but this is George Bush's war and Dick Cheney's war and Karl Rove's war and you get the idea.
It's their war and the rest of us are paying the price for their stupidity and hubris. The question is who among the Democrats is best suited to fix this mess before we join the trash heap of failed so-called super powers?
Impeachment - it's a word - look it up, applies to both Georgie and Dick.
Hillary did not vote for war. She voted for the war powers act. It's not the same thing. After the war powers act was passed, Sadaam backed down on everything. He immediately allowed the inspectors back in and allowed them to go where ever they wanted unannounced. He was also going to allow spy planes to fly over his country. The war powers act was a success. That should have been the end of the story. Bush, not Hillary, recalled the inspectors and invaded Iraq. If Hillary had been President, there wouldn't be a war. To deny this sequence of events is revisionist history.
Stephen Elliot,
HAVE YOU NO SHAME? Your post has reached a new low of depravity and tactlessness.
Not "OUR" mistakes. Maybe "your" mistakes.
Exactly, what will Sen. Obama do to fix YOUR MISTAKE, anyway?
How will he end the war in Iraq?
If elected, what would he do that Sen. Clinton would not do to end this war? As Senator, with an exactly equal vote to Sen. Clinton, what has he done that she hasn’t?
If he is so much more determined to end the war than Sen. Clinton is why hasn’t he done more already? Why hasn’t he used his great ability to work with people on the other side of the isle to stop funding the war? Why hasn’t he offered to support the members of the House who want to impeach this President?
You don’t answer these questions, because the answer is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
What would Sen. Obama do when a political assassination occurs while he is President? What would he do when a natural disaster occurs while he is President? What would he do to help the people living in poverty around the world AND IN THIS COUNTRY? What would he do when another civil war starts somewhere in the world? What would he do when the Congress refuses to pass legislation he needs to carry out his agenda?
There is no question about IF these things will happen during the next Presidency. The only question is WHEN.
The problem the Democratic Party has is not Sen. Clinton. The problem is YOU.
The problem is those who are willing to lie about another candidate to “win.” The problem is people who twist the least bit of information for the absolutely crassest of political motives. The problem is people who think elections are about THEM and not about truth and what is best for US, all of us.
As long as lightweight "analysts" keep posting the Crayola version of events surrounding the Joint Authorization, I'll keep posting THIS. Let's see which of us tires first...
>>
From Sen. Clinton's floor statement prior to her vote on the chronicall
"If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?
"So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option...
"Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible..
"A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort."
>>
"she voted to authorize George W. Bush, George W. Bush!, to go to war in Iraq. It was a simple, obvious vote based on political calculations. There were still weapons inspectors in Iraq saying they needed more time."
Huh?
It was George W. Bush -- BUSH, not Clinton -- who said military action would be "the last resort", yet, when Iraq finally disgorged a trailer-load of documents (whatever their veracity), he refused to evaluate them, declared the gesture insufficient, ordered out the inspectors and launched his invasion.
... but, please, proceed. You were saying...?
Hilary voted for this war and later voted against funding it.Another Kerry here!
She calls it G.Bush's war.Dising
Well, I dont support Mr Obama but here he got it right and Hilary got it wrong but Hilary goes around touting her foreign policy experience! Iraq or Iran?
Honestly is Hilary a Democrat or Republican?
Right on the money Stephen. WAKE UP DEMOCRATS FOR OUR COUNTRY...
This is in response to a post saying elect Hillary because she has experience and can protect us from those radical Islam extremists. Hillary can't even keep her serial adulterer husband contained, let alone run competent foreign relations with mid east countries. Her "foreign experience" is limited to voting in Congress to attack Iraq, giving Bush the green light to attack Iran and voting in 2006 to continue carpet bombing civilian areas in the mid east. That's really going to win her the hearts of mid easterners.
Hillary's experience is in taking big donations from Wall Street, pharma & military related companies. Look at her list of donators - it's full of them. They know who will give them what they want after the election. Hillary is NOT for the average working American.
Don't count on healthcare reform either - Hillary's plan is to make it mandatory for you to buy the corporations expensive health insurance, but she won't guarantee you a decent job to pay for that expensive mandated insurance.
Hillary and Bill have made approximately $50 million since George Bush has been in office. Who do you really think they really serve?
Hillary Clinton is the best Republican the RNC and DLC could want. She will never get my vote!
I find the entire logic insulting. This not HRC's War it's George Bush's and if you progressives want to keep linking the dems with the republicans you'll get what you deserve another loss for the democrats. Get over it already. HRC will not apologize for the vote, she stood on the Senate floor and urged no rush to war and that inspectors be brought in and that allies be consulted. She authorized force as a last resort to support the President as he was trying (or we thought he would try) to bring back the inspectors. She did not authorize a rush to war on cherry picked intelligence and to do it badly. David Brooks (who is not a big Clinton fan) even wrote a whole article saying the same. Times are complicated and we need a person who understands these countries and how the whole world connects together. HRC does and she will get us out of this. I'm sorry but Obama is going to be like raw meat going to the lions and if elected we're going to see what learning on the job means. The minute he had to go off his memorized speech he could hardly speak.... how is that going to work during difficult meetings with congress or leaders of hostile countries?
There are Democrats who still want to hold on to the belief that Hillary and Bill are on their side, but time after time the Clinton rhetoric has not matched the politics. Hillary abandoned Progressives a long time ago. From her DLC affiliation to her support for the war, Hillary has made it perfectly clear where she stands. And yet, there are some who still want to give her the benefit of the doubt.
It is often said that the first step is the hardest. A vote against Hillary is that first step for Progressives to send a message loud and clear throughout the Democratic ranks that Progressives are taking back our party. If we can defeat Clinton early in the primaries, it will be an emphatic rejection of the DLC and republican-light politics within the Democratic party. That vote will echo off the walls in Congress. It will be seen as a new beginning for our party and for the country. I urge everyone to take that first step.
I'm surprised you didn't go the whole 9 yards and also blame Hillary for the assasination of Archduke Franz Ferninand. And where was she on November 22, 1963 anyway?
All facetiousness aside, no amount of spin or tortured logic can change the fact that Barack Obama is a foreign policy lightweight with a very slim grasp of geopolitical realities.
Loading comments…
Posted December 28, 2007 | 02:03 PM (EST)