NO ONE who supported the worst foreign policy decisions in U.S. history...

[mike_c]

...should be Secretary of State. I unequivocally oppose Hillary Clinton for that office. She is UTTERLY UNFIT. Senator Clinton has never missed an opportunity to support or fund Bush's illegal wars of aggression and the disgraceful foreign policy they serve.

[blonndee]

1. No SHIT!

I feel sick over this possibility. I guess we will have to wait and see, though. Frick.

[BootinUp]

2. She didn't support war.

I will not argue with you just stating the facts.

[mike_c]

8. your "facts" are a complete fiction....

Stop making shit up.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/23/7245

--snip--

Contempt for the Truth

In the months leading up to the Iraq war vote, Senator Clinton was briefed by a number of arms control specialists, former arms inspectors, strategic analysts, and others who informed her that the Bush administration's WMD claims were not to be taken seriously and that Iraq had achieved at least qualitative disarmament.

Despite this, in an apparent effort to discredit those questioning the administration's hyperbolic statements about Iraq's supposed military threat and to justify her vote to authorize the invasion, Senator Clinton insisted that Iraq's possession of chemical and biological weapons was "not in doubt" and was "undisputed." In reality, she knew there were serious doubts about Iraq's purported possession of such weapons at that time and, indeed, no such weapons were ever found.

Similarly, even after the International Atomic Energy Agency issued a report prior to the war vote that Iraq no longer had a nuclear program and despite the 2001 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that confirmed there was no evidence that such work on Iraq's nuclear program had resumed, Senator Clinton also defended her vote by claiming that, "If left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will . . . keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." In reality, Iraq had completely eliminated its nuclear program a full decade earlier.

Although top strategic analysts also correctly informed her that there were no apparent links between Saddam Hussein's secular nationalist regime and the radical Islamist al-Qaeda, Senator Clinton insisted that Saddam "has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members." This came despite a subsequent definitive report by the Department of Defense which noted that not only did no such link exist, but that no such link could have even been reasonably suggested based upon the evidence available at that time.

Clinton's supporters have defended her false pre-invasion allegations by citing the public summary of the 2002 NIE which appeared to confirm some of the Bush administration's claims. However, there were a number of reasons to have been skeptical of this summary: this NIE was compiled in a much shorter time frame than is normally provided for such documents and the report expressed far more certainty regarding Iraq's WMD capabilities than all the reports from the previous five years, despite the lack of additional data to justify such a shift. When the report was released, there was much stronger dissent within the intelligence community than about any other NIE in history and the longer classified version, which was available to every member of Congress, included these dissenting voices from within the intelligence community. It was also well-known through media reports at that time that the administration was applying enormous pressure on the intelligence agencies to put together a report emphasizing the alleged Iraqi threat.

lots more @link

[warren pease]

26. It's far more cynical than that. You're probably right she didn't support the invasion...

Supporting the mass insanity that Bush/PNAC's "full spectrum dominance" dumped on the world would have been simply dumb, and that's never a word I'd use to describe Ms. Clinton. Still, an honest but delusional vote is one thing.

The motives behind that vote make it considerably worse than pure idiocy, compounded by the consistently idiotic advice of the incompetent fools the dems employ as political strategists. It was based solely on the political calculus of self-advancement, just another marketing campaign with realpolitik trumping all other considerations. And never a thought to the death and carnage that vote helped authorize. Not that this is unusual for these megalomaniacs. But it's still inexcusable.

But wait; there's an explanation. She was conned.

Ms. Clinton was fooled into voting for the IWR, officially known as the Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, because she was told by various administration shills that they were just kidding, that it didn't actually mean what the title says it means and that she wasn't really voting to authorize the use of US armed forces against Iraq.

John Kerry was fooled by the same group of liars, although he later squirmed his way out of it and publicly admitted that he screwed up.

How is it possible that all these presumably smart, experienced, accomplished people keep getting snookered by an administration fronted by the stupidest man to ever occupy the White House?

Thing is, anybody who's been paying attention since the coup knew Bush was going to invade Iraq with or without congressional backing or an OK from the UN. Why didn't Kerry, Clinton and the rest of the allegedly democratic enablers/collaborators in the senate realize that?

And it's not as if they learned anything from the experience. The Kyl-Lieberman amendment condemning Iran for the same offenses trumped up against Iraq and declaring their elite military unit, the Revolutionary Guards, a terrorist organization passed the senate 76 - 22 and, yup, Ms. Clinton voted "yea" on that one, too. Kerry, at least, voted "No" that time.

This is an administration that has lied about virtually every single policy or action of even modest importance since grand theft election 2000 and the silent coup -- and been caught in most of those lies by one of the half-dozen or so remaining investigative reporters, bloggers, international media, independent US media and even, once in a great while, US mass media (when they're off their meds for half a day).

It seems the only people they're slick enough to fool are the democratic members of congress.


wp

[Kaleko]

29. Great post. Compelling summary.

Thanx.

[Skip Intro]

3. Do you oppose Kerry as well?

I don't really care if either becomes Obama's SOS. Just curious.

[Whoa20]

5. he'll find someway to be all for Kerry,

its the loser-martyr fetish

[mike_c]

10. yes I do....

And note that I voted for Cobb in 2004 primarily because of Kerry's support for the Iraq war.

No one who carried water for the neocon invasion of Iraq should be rewarded for their war crimes. Period.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

4. But who then do you pick?

Based on that criteria, nearly everyone in Congress is not qualified. I think this is called politics........... :shrug:
It shows the Repubs the Democratic Party is united doesn't it?

[mike_c]

17. my short list would start with Democrats who had the courage...

...to vote against the IWR.

I don't think most folks get it. Authorizing the war against Iraq was a war crime. Everyone who participated is culpable for the blood of hundreds of thousands. I don't want their bloodstained hands crafting U.S. foreign policy.

[TexasObserver]

6. That's silly. If she's the SOS, she's working for Obama.

Using the IWR as the determinant of who will be SOS is a big loser.

[mike_c]

16. sure, and Nuremberg was "a big loser" too....

Keeping the war criminals away from positions where they can do even more harm is "a big loser?"

[TexasObserver]

19. Thanks for proving your comments cannot be taken seriously.

You've just saved me the time to do it.

[mike_c]

20. how so...?

Do you think the U.S. invasion of Iraq was any less a crime against humanity than the Nazi invasion of Poland? International law and treaty are pretty clear on the criminal nature of the war against Iraq. Authorizing and abetting crimes-- especially heinous ones-- usually earns one at least co-conspirator status, if not worse. Unless, of course, one is a U.S. senator.

[stray cat]

7. Wow you have eliminated alot of people - at least most of the senate

and governors didn't vote but we should go back and check their records as well. What about Biden as VP or is that ok as long as he wasn't secretary of state. Kerry is clearly out as well. Russ Feingold voted no so he could be sec of state. Joe the Plumber didn't vote so he is available.

[islandmkl]

11. "Wow you have eliminated alot of people - at least most of the senate"...

other than a 'don't throw the baby out with the bath water' argument...what is the problem finding someone who had the sense to vote 'no' from the outset...especially if their track record bears a similar pattern...

[mike_c]

13. most shamed themselves and America by their willingness...

...to commit crimes against humanity. Ask them to undue the terrible damage they did in Iraq first. Maybe then I'll support them for SoS.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. K&R There's some decent people who could be SOS. Hillary isn't one of them.

[mediaman007]

12. We elected Obama to make these decisions. I'll trust him.

I don't recall seeing mike_c on the ballot. But I do respect your opinion.

[Generator]

15. Exactly

Who are we to question our leader.

[Generator]

14. Yeah but she's a woman

and she's earned it hasn't she? We must put her in there because she was number two in the election and she wants it really really bad. She who must be given her DUE! Forget her policy. It's all about making nice with your former foes-that's the Obama plan.

[Autumn]

18. Where does that leave Biden? Does that mean

he is UTTERLY UNFIT? I don't want Hillary as SOS either but I do trust Obama's judgment.

[mike_c]

21. my comments were not about the office of VP....

Let's save that for another thread, shall we?

[Autumn]

22. Hypocrite, you trashed her for her

vote. You would say the same thing about any post she might be considered for. No let's don't save that for another thread. That is what ignore is for.

[mike_c]

24. you seem desperate to change the focus of discussion to someone else....

Yes, I trashed her for her IWR vote. That vote-- and her frantic attempts to justify it for YEARS afterward-- will follow her for the rest of her career.

[Maven]

25. Oh, OK.

:rofl:

[Imperialism Inc.]

23. I've never been in favor of the Iraq war but I have no problem with Clinton

as Secretary of State. I think she would make a good one. As others pointed out by your standards we would have to kick Joe Biden out of the White House.

[JVS]

27. .

:fistbump:

[malaise]

28. Agree 100% n/t

[depakid]

30. I'd be inclined to except that

much of the rest of the world (in particular our allies) still LOVE the Clintons.

From their perspective (rather than ours) she'd be a welcome choice.

Kinda doubt it's going to happen- but then again, who knows?

[leftchick]

31. This is who I think would be PERFECT!

Susan Rice....

http://www.nysun.com/national/meet-obamas-tenacious-take-charge-dr-rice/70254/

Or

Gov. Richardson...

http://usforeignpolicy.about.com/od/2008presidentialrace/p/brichardson.htm


Hillary is too afflicted with AIPAC disease to think rationally.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

32. A lot of people seem to be overlooking the fact

that the SOS (whoever he or she is) will be carrying out the policies of PRESIDENT OBAMA not making their own decisions about whether or not to go to war or whom to classify as a terrorist organization. Sure, they'll have some input into the decision-making process (at least I hope) but it will be OBAMA not his SOS that will calling the shots. Who he picks as SOS is important but more in terms of their competence and general outlook on foreign relations and not so much their votes on one or two foreign policy issue in the past IMHO.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our fourth quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!