If you supported Hillary (like me) you shouldn't crack on Afghan policy too much

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

Just sayin'

I certainly didn't support Hillary because she's a relative hawk, but had no illusions on that score. I didn't think there was as much difference between she and Barack on War and Peace issues as was painted, but certainly didn't think she was Joan Baez or anything.

And we don't need to speculate what she would have done on Afghanistan because she's the Secretary of State and has been one of the hawkish voices throughout the deliberations. So we KNOW she was on the hawk side of Obama's eventual compromise position... meaining more hawkish than Obama.

Oppose the policy? Sure. That's fair. But without any implication that it could have been otherwise.

Kucinich supporters, go nuts. You're earned it. But former Hillary supporters ought to maintain some perspective on this thing.

[Oregone]

1. Wasn't she even more hawkish in the language and ideas she used?

I barely remember the primaries, but Obama seemed to appear hawk-lite next to her. Maybe its just revisionism, but that was something that turned me off to her.

[Cant trust em]

6. I remember when she was asked about Iran and nukes.

She said something like if they used nukes on us then we would be able to completely obliterate them.

I can't remember the exact quote, but it was somewhat shocking at the time.

[Captain Hilts]

8. Yes, she did. She was quoting US policy for the past several decades. nt

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

7. A lot of the differences were ginned up because it served both candidates

Hillary was okay with being painted as a hawk because she was getting Reagan Democrats. Obama was okay with the dove label because he was getting college kids and movement progressives.

But the actual policy differences were not huge.

[Captain Hilts]

9. BINGO. They were so very much alike. I liked them both. nt

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

14. Iow, both center-right.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

11. She practically had wings!

[gateley]

2. I'm waiting for "Who's Joan Baez?" nt

[Captain Hilts]

3. I completely agree. But I will also note that folks here were NOT receptive to the fact that

he told the New Yorker he wasn't sure how he would have voted on the Iraq War Resolution. They saw him as the peace candidate and Hillary as the war candidate. The line was never that clear.

[LakeSamish706]

4. This is exactly why I didn't support Hillary.... I wasn't expecting this from Obama...

but would have from Hillary. I know that he stated his views in his campaign about Afghanistan, but I was hopeful he would change his mind.

[Captain Hilts]

5. He had also said he wasn't sure how he would have voted on IWR had he been in the senate...

yet, this was the dividing line for many primary voters.

[Lord Helmet]

13. horseshit -- that obscure line came from a pro-Kerry interview

Obama was trying to support Kerry, not undermine him like the Clintons have a history of doing. You're just trying to smear him to cover for Hillary's dumb-ass yes vote on the IWR. Obama's speech below tells the real story:

Barack Obama's Stirring 2002 Speech Against the Iraq War

"I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.

I Don't Oppose All Wars

I don't oppose all wars. My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil.

I don't oppose all wars. After September 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.

Opposed to Dumb, Rash Wars

I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

On Saddam Hussein

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president.

You Want a Fight, President Bush?

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that...we vigorously enforce a nonproliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair."

[Cha]

21. I posted the same thing right after you did and check this

out from that Oct 2002 speech..


"So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the President today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?"

[Lord Helmet]

24. ^

:thumbsup:

[girl_interrupted]

26. Bill Clinton campaigned for Kerry in 2004 after having heart surgery

Bill Clinton went to Pa, a swing state, to campaign for Kerry, right after coronary bypass surgery. He could have used it as an excuse not to go. How did the Clintons undermine Kerry? They both campaigned for him. What took Kerry down, among other things, was not responding to the swift boaters quickly. But here's the thing... in 2008....Obama made a big deal about Hillary and Edwards voting for the IWR. "Poor judgment" Yet in 2004, knowing Kerry voted for it, Obama campaigned for him. And in 2008, who did Obama pick for VP? Joe Biden who also voted for IWR.

Can u get anymore confusing then that? Tell you the truth, given the state of our economy, I thought whether it was Obama or Hillary they would have reconsidered spending more money in Afghanistan, but that's not the way it's going. And that's too bad.

"Clinton Hits The Trail For Kerry" Thinner but as energetic as ever, former President Clinton returned to the campaign trail Monday hoping to galvanize the Democratic base behind Sen. John Kerry and remind undecided voters of more prosperous times.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/25/politics/main651333.shtml

[Lord Helmet]

30. Here's an example of the lack of support:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg

[dsc]

37. that tape was from 2006

that would be two years after 2004. Unless she went back in a time machine and made the comment it couldn't have undermined his 2004 run. Your post is stunning in its lack of honesty.

[Lord Helmet]

46. I never mentioned a specific time or date in my post

plus I linked to a youtube clip with the date prominently displayed. Another poster was talking about 2004 and you are conflating my post with theirs.

So I guess that makes your response (and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and not call it dishonest) stupid.

[dsc]

50. It was clear from the context of the posts that they were referring to 2004

not 2006. You then said, "Here was an example of her non support" (letting any reasonable reader to infer it was 2004). It was total, utter and complete dishonesty on your part.

[Lord Helmet]

51. horseshit ---

Let's review:

First mention of Clinton http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=33507&mesg_id=33552">here:

Obama was trying to support Kerry, not undermine him like the Clintons have a history of doing.

Note non-specific time frame on that.

My next post here:

Here's an example of the lack of support:

Again note no specific time frame of this example of Clinton undermining of Kerry, although the date is prominently displayed on the youtube clip.

So, you are wrong again which I believe qualifies as being entirely full of shit on this. Thanks for playing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=33507&mesg_id=34378">extra bonus post from karnnj on the subject

[karynnj]

43. Bill Clinton did that because Bill Clinton wanted to

The fact is that it is not what Clinton did in the fall in the way of campaigning, it was the sneaky, under radar things he did prior to then.

You make the issue campaigning in fall 2004. The lack of support that I and many others have spoken of - with no Kerry quotes to back us up - are based on our observations of negative things he and his allies did - not anything not done. Some are:

1) Releasing his autobiography in July 2004.Bill Clinton is reputed to be the sharpest politician of our generation - any high school kid could see why this is a bad idea in the run up to the election. As it was, June was a month when Kerry could get little coverage - as it was solid Reagan coverage for at least 3 weeks. Then Bill Clinton took a fair part of July - and all of us were treated to learning that the reason for Monica was "because I could". Now, frankly I could have happily lived my whole life not knowing that. This was a repeat of Bill Clinton having a confessional interview about getting his family back after Monica in the week before Gore's convention. You need to either challenge his political acumen or accept in both cases he had some need to fight off Gore or Kerry becoming the head of the party and President.

2) In the book, he has 2 strange pages where he writes of the 1996 MA Senate race. Kerry was the nominee almost 2 months before he finished editing his book - so you know that he reviewed this knowing Kerry was our candidate. The overall impression was that he liked Kerry's competitor more but wanted Kerry to win because of his knowledge on the environment and technology. He also mentioned Kerry's long term work with disadvantaged youth, noting there were no votes in it. Now, none of these 3 were big 2004 issues. Not mentioned were most of Kerry's strongest issues - foreign policy, terrorism (BCCI was already shut down), and healthcare, where Kerry had just written,with Kennedy, the precursor bill to S-CHIP based on the plan that had just passed in MA over Weld's veto! On foreign policy, he ignored that Kerry actually worked out an agreement that got Jesse Helms to allow his appointees to get hearings on SFRC which Helms headed, after Helms was holding them hostage because of a disagreement on programs. In the sections on Vietnam reconciliation, Clinton extends a huge amount of praise to McCain, nearly ignoring that our nominee was the chair of the committee and, per all accounts of those on the committee, did an incredible job and was the one person most responsible for its success. Now, I think most people, unlike me, looked up "Lewinsky" not "Kerry" in the index - but for people who read that nearly 1,000 page book those pages played into the Republican theme that he didn't accomplish much in the Senate.

3) There were Clinton and Clinton ally generated stories all through the period he was convalescing that Kerry's campaign was poorly run and that he was not listening to Clinton's advice. In fact, Kerry numbers went up when he concentrated on Iraq and the War on terror, rather than the economy as Clinton advised. These stories hurt.

4) In the wake of defeat, is when Clinton was the worst. That he praised Rove on the campaign he ran and made a point of saying he liked both Kerry and Bush within a week or two of the election hurt. Then there was the whisper campaign generated by Clinton allies that Kerry was not taking a place as just 1 of the 100 Senators and implying that he was at odds with Reid. The fact is that Kerry, by virtue of being the nominee, was a party leader - not the party leader, but a party leader - a status that the Clinton allies were denying. Clinton also had a conflict of interest as the last former President and the husband of HRC - this showed most when in 2005, he spoke of Kerry, a Democrat with far more national security credentials than almost any other Democrat, as weak on defense - rather than embracing Kerry's position on the war on terror. With the specter of Kerry running, he likely didn't want to hand that to Kerry. However, had the Democrats continued to keep that as their policy, the reaction of people like George Will that Kerry was right would have positioned us best on national security. The fact is that contrary to the list in BC's book, there was no Senator who understood more than the guy who wrote "The New War". The constant belittling Kerry and blaming Kerry for the SBVT by all the Clinton people was painful - and that did color my picture of the Clintons for the worse.

As to the campaigning, the question I would ask is who called whom. I seriously doubt the Kerry campaign begged him to campaign. By the time Clinton campaigned, Kerry alone had already had huge rallies - that broke all previous records. Of course Bill Clinton was a draw - but I seriously doubt the attendance had it just been Kerry would have been much less. I saw the entire thing on CSPAN and it was emotional - as the first time Clinton was out and he was good - but Kerry's speech was equally well received - judging from the applause. The media reports all spoke mostly of Clinton, because his being out was the news. In fact, either CNN or MSNBC cut away as soon as Clinton ended. So, newswise - I would guess it helped Kerry less than the local coverage of a just Kerry rally would have. Now, I've seen people post that Kerry would not have won PA without that rally. This is extremely unlikely - this was downtown Philadelphia - an area that ALWAYS is very Democratic. The African American turn out across the country was record breaking - even where Bill Clinton didn't go. There is no reason to think Philadelpia would be different. In Pittsburgh, it wasn't Clinton but THK who made a difference. I suspect that was the case in the affluent Philadelphia suburbs - as there were likely many independents that remembered her as their Senator's wife and as one ex-PA Republican in my area accepted Kerry as good because otherwise she wouldn't have married him.

[Cha]

15. This sealed it for me..Obama made this speech in Oct 2002..

<snip>

"What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the President today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?"

<more>
http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php

[Whisp]

20. omgawd!! that soundz just like Bush!!

lots of idiots are headlining threads like that now.

yeh sure, Obama even looks like a beady eyed reptilian vermin belly crawling high functioning moran piece of human shit like George.
:sarcasm:

[Cha]

23. Fuck yeah, we're all no better than Britney Spears!

Fuckin' zombies.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

27. Don't forget his FISA vote! Hillary voted against it.

See how that works? It's hard when your vote goes on record and you are trying to win a majority of votes.

[mkultra]

49. yeah, thats a twisting of the fact

the entire quote states his position as against it.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

12. He should have

the things that have happened in Afghanistan since the election should have changed it.

[Chulanowa]

16. It was part of his campaign platform

How did you not expect it? Did you just vote for him because of his nice abs, or the fact his daughters aren't those groady leprechauns that Dubya and Pickles cranked out?

[LakeSamish706]

22. As stated in my post, I knew what his views on Afghanistan were, but hoped he would...

change his mind...

[spiritual_gunfighter]

10. Clinton was more hawkish than Obama

and now she has his ear.

[Clio the Leo]

17. Hillary did the Democratic party proud today....

.... she shot down GOP talking points left and right at the hearing today.

[BeyondGeography]

39. She was very sure-footed

A total pro.

[HughMoran]

18. I also supported Hillary in the primaries

I think some of us even felt that her hawkish style would be an asset against McCain. I never agree with going to war, but there is something to be said for being the one making the decisions versus having no control at all.

[Cha]

19. I know you did.

:)

[stray cat]

25. It sounds like you actually listened to the candidate before voting

unlike the majority it seems who voted for Obama

[TheBigotBasher]

40. A bit of a cheap shot there

I would suggest that most Obama supporters not only listened to their candidate, but the other one as well. By listening to both it made Obama supporters even more determined.

[karynnj]

44. What were our real options?

The fact of the matter was that as soon as John Kerry opted not to run, the only three who had a real chance to win were Clinton, Obama and Edwards.

I ruled out Edwards, because he was a complete phony, and Clinton, for many reasons. The most emotional was that she stabbed Kerry in the back, but there were far more significant reasons. She was very hawkish. This left Obama. I knew that Obama voted against Kerry/Feingold - not quite the IWR, but a vote that required some guts at that point if you wanted to run for President. The safer vote was "NO". His history of having gone from an elite Ivy League college to working on the South side of Chicago and then doing the same after Harvard Law School were in his favor. (My guess is that in 2007, the powers that be in the party wanted a Clinton/Obama ticket) I had no illusions that he was better than he is - and that is pretty good.

I know for many, with either HRC or Obama, they cast the vote that they were most emotionally vested in - for me that was 2004.

[girl_interrupted]

28. Kurt_and_Hunter I am surprised

Candidates say a lot of things during election season. And some campaign promises they live up to and some they don't. It's just when you start to figure out how much it's going to cost us, in dollars and lives, you have to wonder, if it's really worth it. Pouring out more money in these economic times, in particular. That's one of the things that bothers me. I would have thought either Hillary or Obama would have reconsidered.

I don't know if you are familiar with Michael Ware, he's a journalist who spent a lot of time in Iraq & Afghanistan. I think he has given some really valuable insight on to what went wrong in both places for the past few years. After the President's speech, I watched him give an interview on CNN...they had a map up and he explained exactly why he feels we can't win in Afghanistan. It really gave me the chills. The areas we are dealing with, the geography, of both Pakistan & Afghanistan..it's overwhelming. If you want to take a look here's the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9lrfRG9a3A&videos=iaHhEL7Cui4

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

31. I have serious reservations about the policy, but...

I have serious reservations about the policy but am not an opponent because there are elements of it I cannot know--what are our real intentions vis-a-vis Pakistan? I don't know, and they're secret, and I cannot make head or tails of the Afghanistan thing without knowing how it really fits into the Pakistan picture...

So I am pessimistic, but willy (or forced) to defer to Obama's judgment on this.

I might have hoped that either candidate would reconsider post-election, but when you run on something AND the military demands it I guess it's kind of hard to back down.

[vaberella]

47. I like your response KaH---although normally you piss me off.

This is the problem I'm having. I had one poster ask me..what my position on the war was...only because I wasn't jumping up and down against Obama's (then possible) escalation. And I said...first off I'm not privy to all the information. We're talking about months and weeks of meetings---it seemed to me it was something done every single bloody day and for hours on end. I know that we aren't privy to everything he was prvy of during those meetings. I'm sure that what he knows now he had no idea about in while in the Senate. That being said, and the fact we caused a lot of the mess that Afghanistan faces---which means we bare responsibiity and have to face that fact---I in essence became ambivalent and I have to say I don't know what the best decision is or was and what the out come will be with either. However, I do know that if we left the nation the way it was we'd end up causing even more problems because it's reflective of what we did in Pakistan in the 80s, which might be another thing affecting it today and with the Taliba forces in the Swat Valley.


I understand everyone getting upset and not liking the escalation---but no one has the right answer and I find that leaving the Afghan people even worse is just bloody inhumane.

[PHIMG]

29. Cheerleading for War is great!

Who cares about Hillary or Obama? I care about dead G.I.'s and the taxpayers.

You care about puppets of the military industrial complex.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

32. That's me... cheerleading for war. Just how I roll, I guess.

[Hansel]

41. Hyperole much? nt

[paulsby]

33. oreilly trumps hilary on iraq

and that's saying it all. he said that if he knew then, what he knows about iraq, he would have been against the invasion. he said it wasn't justified based on what we currently know. hillary refused to admit as much on multiple occasions, never admitting it was a mistake.

hillary is DEFINITELY more hawkish than obama.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

34. CLARIFICATION OF OP: Not saying anyone should support the policy...

CLARIFICATION OF OP: I am not saying anyone should support the policy because they supported Hillary.

Just that if one supported Hillary it is ugly to jump on this policy as a target of opportunity in DU infighting.

Everyone should support or oppose by their own lights.

[grantcart]

48. I find it very difficult to understand why some of the most outspoken critics

of any involvement in Afghanistan were also Clinton's strongest supporters.


Were they not listening to her?


Atleast the Kucinich supporters were being consistent.

[bvar22]

35. If Hillary had voted AGAINST the IWR,

she would be President Clinton today.

[Hansel]

42. Yes, she would be.

I thought her vote was politically calculated and that she knew better than to buy the complete and utter BS Bush and Cheney were shoveling. My opinion of her was significantly lowered because of what I saw as political expediency over the concern for our troops and the Iraqi people.

She lost me with the vote. That being said, I do like her as Secretary of State. She's better in a more non-political role where she can do what is right without worrying about the political consequences.

[polichick]

36. Hill's hawkishness is the reason I didn't support her...

Joke's on me since the prez turns to her for advice.

[BeyondGeography]

38. That 3 a.m. phone call thingy...thanks for remembering

[ShortnFiery]

45. What? When is Chelsea quitting her Hedge Fund Position and enlisting in the Military Police.

Now, if I see Chelsea Clinton deploying over to Afghanistan with the MPs and patrolling Kabul on foot, I'll get behind my leaders.

My point: It's not THEIR loved ones who will come back maimed, body and soul OR in a coffin.