HILLARY CLINTON: IS SHE THE NEXT PRO-WAR DEMOCRAT TO FALL?

[Demeter]

Original Article at http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_randolph_060816_hillary_clinton_3a_is_.htm


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 16, 2006

HILLARY CLINTON: IS SHE THE NEXT PRO-WAR DEMOCRAT TO FALL?

By Randolph T. Holhut

DUMMERSTON, Vt. - Joe Lieberman's sorry hide has been nailed to the wall, and there is rejoicing in the land (except from the lobbyists, pundits and political hacks who make up the permanent occupation force of Washington). And while I am pleased to see a discredited, humiliated Lieberman forced to cast his lot in with his friends in the Republican Party, I won't be completely convinced that the revolution is here until Hillary Clinton's hide is nailed to the wall beside Joe's.

The conventional wisdom is that Lieberman lost because he consistently supported the Bush administration on the Iraq war. But that isn't the sole reason why Lieberman lost to Ned Lamont in the Connecticut Democratic Primary.

The Democratic Party's big problem is that people like Clinton, who also supported the invasion of Iraq, are trying to change the subject now that things have gone horribly wrong.

Clinton, Joe Biden, John Edwards and John Kerry - to name four prominent Democratic Senators with presidential aspirations - all voted in October 2002 to authorize President Bush to invade Iraq. Of the four, only Edwards, the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2004, has publicly apologized for his vote. He is no longer a senator and he supports a withdrawal of U.S. troops. Kerry, who ran for president in 2004, co-sponsored a Senate resolution with Russ Feingold, D-Wis., to set a timetable for a withdrawal. Kerry and Biden are both up for reelection to the Senate in 2008.

Biden and Clinton, who are on the short list to run for president for the Democrats in 2008, are more circumspect in their opposition to the war. They both rail against the incompetence of the Bush administration in its execution and hope no one remembers that they supported the war in the first place.

Authors Bio: Randolph T. Holhut has been a journalist in New England for more than 25 years. He edited "The George Seldes Reader" (Barricade Books). He can be reached at [e-mail].

[NYCGirl]

1. No. NT

[ShaneGR]

2. Chance of Hillary losing her Senate seat.....

Zero....

[jobycom]

3. Not that she's "pro war," but hey, why ruin a good swiftboating with facts

[sui generis]

7. swiftboating?

put up yer dukes kiddo.

:P

[DinahMoeHum]

4. This year: No. But I say she gets her comeuppance in 2008. . .

when she tries to run for POTUS. Unless she really changes her ways.

:kick:

[pnwmom]

24. Are you waiting for sackcloth and ashes?

Just wondering . . .

[sui generis]

5. she's much smarter than Joe

I doubt it.

But it's a bed of her own making, whatever happens, and however she has to twist and turn in it.

We elect political leaders to make good decisions on our behalf more often than we ourselves would do. We elect them to be right, in our name, and when they aren't we can be pretty forgiving if they made a dumb decision with the best information available at the time.

However, continuing to support a war based on proven lies is unconscionable. I hope she gets to grind her teeth on this for a while, and that she is capable of learning from the experience.

She's a good senator. I don't think she'd make a good president.

[blm]

6. IWR did not give Bush war powers - Gonzalez even admitted so under oath

last month. Bush VIOLATED the guidelines in the IWR and the WH and their mediawhores SOLD it as a vote for war to keep Bush from being held accountable when he cvolated it.

And Holhut isn't MUCH of a journalist. He gets alot wrong in this article.

[Buzz Clik]

8. So, is Lieberman gone? I don't think so...

The polls seem to indicate he's anything but gone.

[LaurenG]

9. Well

one can only hope, no more bushes or clinton's

[napi21]

10. OH MY> We're really grabbing at straws now aren't we?

Why is it so difficult for the media to understand that it wasn't ONLY Joe's por-Iraq stance that brought him down?

That 90% pro dem votes he is so prowd of HIDES the fact that the remaining 10% were votes he was WITH THE PUBS on many VERY IMPORTANT ISSUES!

I believe the Pubs backing Joe is going to drownd him in Nov because it proves how much of a Pub he really is!

Does this AH Holhut know of ANY Pub who ever supported Hillary?

[William769]

11. Hillary Clinton is not pro war!

Sheesh!

But she is of the opinion of having an exit strategy.

No matter how you try to frame it America fucked up Iraq. We can't just cut and run and thats her position. IMHO a sound one.

[RaleighNCDUer]

13. And why can't we cut and run?

We went in there preciptitously; why can't we leave the same way? We've had plenty of opportunities to get out. After capturing Saddam, after the first election, after the provisional government was in place...what the hell are we waiting for? For the fighting to stop? It won't stop as long as we are there. Our people are saying get out; thier people are saying get out; their politicians are saying get out - so why aren't we getting out? We need to abandon the 14 permanent bases that we are not building, set up a commission for reconstruction to pay for fixing what we broke, and get out. As long as we are there trying to rebuild (do you really believe we are?) they will keep blowing shit up. Nothing is going to stay rebuilt until we, meaning the military, Blackwater, Haliburton, our allies and accomplices, are gone.

So why not give the Iraqi people a break, and cut and run?

[Laughing Mirror]

14. Well then why did she vote for it?

She damn well is pro war, so you may as well quit your lies.

[William769]

15. Oy vey!

:eyes:

[Laughing Mirror]

16. Oy vey yourself

:+

[pnwmom]

19. She didn't vote for the war.

She voted to give Bush the authority to enforce the UN resolution, IF Hussein didn't cooperate. Hussein cooperated fully, but Bush IGNORED the conditions on the authority given to him by the Senate, and attacked Iraq anyway.

[barb162]

20. Thanks for that; It's amazing how many people keep

refusing to get this important distinction!

[patrice]

12. All Hillary needs to do is talk to us about her "win:win" vote on 114.

If things had gone well with the Invasion of Iraq, she would have "won", because she would be able to say "I voted for it".

But she also needs to tell us how she thought about the possibility that "if things go bad in Iraq I 'win' because I get to criticize this administration" ***without**** factoring in "if things go bad in Iraq, many Americans lose, because our troops will die and THAT should NOT be a 'win' for me".

She needs to explain how she made her decision to vote as she did, And I don't want to hear any of that (IMPOSSIBLE to calculate) "greater good" crap that Republicans peddal!

[pnwmom]

21. Here is Hillary Clinton's public statement on why she voted as she did.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/press/view/?id=555

SNIP

"In October 2002, I voted for the resolution to authorize the Administration to use force in Iraq. I voted for it on the basis of the evidence presented by the Administration, assurances they gave that they would first seek to resolve the issue of weapons of mass destruction peacefully through United Nations sponsored inspections, and the argument that the resolution was needed because Saddam Hussein never did anything to comply with his obligations that he was not forced to do. . . .

Based on the information that we have today, Congress never would have been asked to give the President authority to use force against Iraq. And if Congress had been asked, based on what we know now, we never would have agreed, given the lack of a long-term plan, paltry international support, the proven absence of weapons of mass destruction, and the reallocation of troops and resources that might have been used in Afghanistan to eliminate Bin Laden and al Qaeda, and fully uproot the Taliban.

Before I voted in 2002, the Administration publicly and privately assured me that they intended to use their authority to build international support in order to get the U.N. weapons inspectors back into Iraq, as articulated by the President in his Cincinnati speech on October 7th, 2002. As I said in my October 2002 floor statement, I took "the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a U.N. resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible."

Instead, the Bush Administration short-circuited the U.N. inspectors - the last line of defense against the possibility that our intelligence was false. The Administration also abandoned securing a larger international coalition, alienating many of those who had joined us in Afghanistan.

SNIP

[IndianaGreen]

17. No, but she should stay in the Senate for ever and ever!

A White House run on her part would be very polarizing, and will turn ugly.

[pnwmom]

22. The two parties ARE already polarized. Any campaign will turn ugly.

There is no candidate we could put forward who will not be subject to their lies, their vote stealing, and everything else.

What we need is a candidate who can fight. I don't know that Hillary's the best candidate, but I know we shouldn't be picking our candidate based on the idea that we can find a candidate who will be MORE popular AND LESS polarizing.

[yurbud]

18. probably won't lose her seat, but won't be president unless she gets her

head out of her ass.

[pnwmom]

23. Whatever that means.