Are We Really Going to Have Two Candidates That Voted for the Iraq War?

[ihavenobias]

Seventy percent of the country is against the Iraq War now. A great majority of American believe it was a mistake to go into Iraq in the first place. With a country that is this united against the war, are we really going to have two presidential candidates that voted for the Iraq War?

If Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic primary, both of the major party candidates will have been wrong on the war. Why??? Why on God's green earth would we do that?

Hillary's camp seems to believe that being wrong on the war only helps them. They are now touting her positions on "national security" as one of her advantages against Barack Obama. They claim that McCain can't call Senator Clinton weak on defense because she nearly agrees with him. Wow, what a terrible strategy!

Look at what senior strategist for the Clinton campaign, Mark Penn wrote:

Based on what they know of her and her experience, voters believe Hillary is fully ready to be commander in chief. She will be strong and right... The Republicans will not be able to play the national security card against Hillary Clinton, like they are now doing against Senator Obama, and that makes her a fundamentally stronger candidate against John McCain.

Are we really going to re-do 2004 where the Democrats argued that being a weaker kind of Republican is the best foreign policy tack. "We were for the war, but not quite as much as the Republicans." I can't think of a worse campaign strategy...

For the rest, click here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/are-we-really-going-to-ha_b_86689.html


PS---You can always The Young Turks at www.theyoungturks.com The primary show is Live 3-5 pm ET, with a Rolling Post Game 5-7 pm daily Monday-Friday. The RPG often contains political talk but also many non-political topics to lighten things up (and yes, that audio may not necessarily be work-safe).

Also, if you can't watch live, the 3-5pm portion of the show (politics) streams the rest of the day, all day right after the Post Game Show ends leading up to the initial show at 3pm.

[Ravy]

1. What tripe.

If the war is wrong because 70% of the people are against it, then it was *right* when it started, based on those same polls.

Many have changed their minds on the war. McCain wants to keep extending it for decades, Clinton wants to put an end to it. To equate those positions is a distortion.

[ihavenobias]

2. Why would you preface your own comment by admitting that it's tripe? ;)

But seriously, Hilary DOES often buy into Republican framing on issues, which is very troubling. It's the same mindset that leads to yes votes on Kyl-Lieberman, etc, or doesn't allow her to actually apologize for the bad IWR vote.

His point that we tried to propose watered down Republican policy in 2004 (and it completely backfired) is 100% right. If you actually listened to his show or watched some of the other clips, you'd know he has no doubt that we'd be much better off with Hillary in the WhiteHouse than McCain. But that's not the focus of this article.

PS---If you think he's just a "Hillary Hater" you're dead-wrong. While he has *substantive* reasons to have her as a distant second choice, he has defended her very strongly against baseless attacks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmM2j8P55SA&feature=related

[CherylK]

3. Yes!

Excellent post! You summed up exactly how I feel. Who really thinks Hillary wouldn't be better as president than the 100 year old Mccain? That is not the issue here.

[Ravy]

4. "for the last 10 or 15 years, the republicans have been the party of ideas"

The Democrats who voted for the IWR wanted to invade Iraq. The Democrats share 50% of the blame with republicans for the mess we are in.... etc, etc, etc.

I really don't care whether Obama or Hillary gets the nomination. I will support them.

But, if it wasn't for *OBAMA's* constant framing of the issues from the republican point of view in order to gain votes among Independents and republicans, he would hands-down be a more appealing candidate for me than Hillary. His democtratic and baby-boomer bashing makes him about even with her in my book.

[ihavenobias]

5. You've actually raised a good point

to some extent they've *both* used some degree of Republican framing. For example, the idea that we need "tax relief" as if taxes are an affliction that require "relief".

But it's a matter of importance. Hillary is using the Republican framing on issues of Iraq and Iran, which could have more immediate negative and more potentially disastrous consequences IMO. I think it's a result of her trying TOO hard to prove that she's tough.

As for saying the Republicans are the party of ideas, that's incredibly vague, and that's the beauty of it. It's that sort of vague thing (vague enough that it can't be used as a springboard to steer a specific issue in the wrong direction) that only helps Obama appeal to moderates and independents. If he can do what Reagan did in the sense that Reagan duped moderates, indes and many Dems into thinking he was for them when he CLEARLY was not, it would be brilliant (except in this case Obama would be duping Republicans into going along with a progressive agenda). THAT is where being an excellent politician comes into play and that is where speeches *do* matter.

[Ravy]

6. You are buying into a framing of the IWR vote that I do not accept.

I believe the IWR vote was the right one, but one that lead to disasterous consequences due to Bush.

A good many people saw the need to investigate claims that Iraq had WMD, and the sanctions there were killing hundreds of thousands of innocents. The IWR was an effort to go to the Security Council, put weapons inspectors back in, and back their actions with US Forces if he did not comply.

You don't have to use force for it to be an effective tool.

Saddam was complying. He was seeking a place he could exile to. The French just wanted six more weeks for the weapons inspectors to do their jobs, and were vilified for that. Bush invaded unnecessarily.

[ihavenobias]

7. Yeah, I don't think so

There were 77 yes votes which means *not everyone* agreed it was necessary. But the much more damning point is that there was an alternative resolution that could've been voted for instead that would've allowed the weapons inspectors more time.

If that had happened (as it should have), we never would've gotten into this. So just saying "everyone though it was right at the time" is incredibly dishonest, as is the idea that the only options were to either vote for that particular resolution or do nothing.

[Ravy]

8. I never said "everyone thought it was right at the time"... I said

that if you are looking at the polls now to determine that the vote was wrong, an examination of the polls back then would be more accurate as to whether the vote was right or not.

I am unfamiliar with any resolution that would have given the weapons inspectors more time-- but that is exactly what was needed. The big amendment, the Levin one, would have put the decision on whether US troops could go in at the command of the Security Council, which I don't agree with.

[ihavenobias]

9. Maybe *you* didn't say it but hasn't Hillary basically said as much? n/t

[Ravy]

10. I haven't heard anything like that.

I have heard some "everyone" or "every intelligence agency" thought he had WMD, but not specifically from her.

If there was a 25% chance he was developing WMD... even a 10% chance...perhaps even a remote chance... I think weapons inspectors should have been put in.

So there is the other side of the coin. If you *did not* vote for the IWR, you were taking a chance that this madman was developing them to use against us, and you were supporting sanctions that were killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children... that, of course, is tripe, too-- directed the other way.

I don't think anyone was really comfortable with the situation in Iraq, particularly post 9/11. The question, at the time, was what, if anything, to do about it. Some people had to actually take a stand where their stand would have profound consequences, and I think Hillary explained it well in her floor speech, at the time. So did John Kerry.

But, it doesn't fit on a bumpersticker so people let the crap fly because it takes you a long time to wipe it off.

[CherylK]

12. It sounds like you bought into the republican framing!

They use a lot of the same reasoning you are using. Maybe you don't mean it to sound that way but if I am being honest I have to tell you that it does sound that way.

[Ravy]

13. That was the framing of the Democrats who voted for the IWR.

They said it over and over in their floor speeches.

Republican framing is "Saddam was bad, we have to invade". Republicans are proud of the invasion, even to this day, and vilified the French for trying to delay it a few weeks for the weapons inspectors to complete their work.

But there was a third option between doing nothing and invading/occupying. It was called "let the weapons inspectors do their jobs". I think that was the prevalent Democratic mindset at the time.

[rustbeltcent]

15. Powell & Rice said Iraq not a threat / 2001

Powell speech at the United Nations, was unconvincing. The facts laid out were relatively minor and not grave.

But leading Dems like Hillary didn't make much noise and just went on with the show..

[madmom]

18. So how do you know who's being duped? ..

[rustbeltcent]

14. Why end it, if it was the right thing to do??

I didn't see Hillary coming around to the correct position on the war until it became overwhelmingly unpopular and she started her presidential campaign. In fact, she did everything she could to avoid talking about the entire war issue. Instead Hillary tried to divert attention "jobs" and national healthcare (easy Dem issues with no easy solutions).

Hillary still does not have the courage to say the war was a mistake from the beginning. Or the courage to say that Bush and Cheney LIED TO THE NATION AND CONGRESS..

Another example of Hillary Not Standing up to the Republicans..

[Ravy]

16. I think she has said that the war was a mistake.

But she refuses to say her vote was a mistake. I agree with her on both.

[ihavenobias]

17. The bottom line here

is that you need to read the source article that inspired all of this for more facts and context: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?bid=15&pid=284112

[zonmoy]

11. I am more interested in which of these two candidates will stop and reverse the march our country is

making to fascism.