A question for Hillary supporters (Not a flame, I promise)

First off, let me get it out of the way and say that I am an Obama supporter. I am ALSO 99% sure that I will vote for Hillary in the general election if she is the nominee. There is, however, one nagging doubt (hence the 1 percent) that I have and with that in mind, I thought I'd try something new and give Hillary supporters a chance to defend their candidate before making my final conclusions.

The issue has to do with Hillary and her relationship with the Neocon front line. Any of us who have opposed this war and lost sleep pouring over the facts to find Bush's real motivation in fighting are bound to know the following two names: The American Enterprise Institute and The Project for the New American Century. They are more than likely able to recite in rote how the PFNAC wrote a letter to the President in 1998, long before the collapse of the two towers and the collective soul searching that would be manipulated and orchestrated into a nationwide penchant for blood, advising, nay begging him to take action against Saddam Hussein before "the world's safety was put at risk." They will know the names that signed that letter, names like Rumsfled, Cheney, Bolton.  And they will know who the letter was addressed to: sitting president William Jefferson Clinton.

Now. I understand that Bill did not act on their wishes. I am aware that the neocons were all over him, labelling him as the reason Saddam was able to rebuild his arsenal of WMDs right under our nose. But I can't for the life of me believe that Hillary was not aware of the letter and the way its authors slowly wormed their way into Bush's cabinet. The way they talked in private (and some times even in public) about "remapping the Middle East" and building a "Pax Americana." Much has been made of how Hillary didn't read the NIE before voting to authorize the invasion and I can almost forgive her, seeing as she was well briefed on its contents. But HOW, HOW, knowing what she did, could she have ignored the power grab that was taking place and not recognized the invasion for what it really was. That single letter was the evidence I used most often for arguing that the justification for the war was disingenuine. It is the smoking gun. And I can accept that most of the Democrats were out of the loop and caught unawares. But not Hillary. No way. In my mind, that makes her seem like an enabler in the closest thing to a coup we've had in the history of this country. An enabler in the atrocity that has haunted us for the past SEVEN YEARS.

So here's my request to Hillary supporters. I WANT to believe. I WANT to have a democrat in the white house. But I would rather immolate myself than see another neocon in office. So reassure me. Give me concrete evidence that she has opposed these people in some concrete way. Justify her actions for me.  This is an inner debate that, imho, should be taking place within EVERY INFORMED DEMOCRAT in this country.

I hope, for all our sakes, that there is an explanation.

•  You want reassurance about Hillary? n/t

  .

  by Libertaria on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 03:31:19 AM PDT

  •  LOL

    I don't think anyone can guarantee anything when it comes to Hillary.

    by christine20 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 03:59:56 AM PDT

•  Know Thy Enemy

  Gotta work it to jerk it.
  I don't know all the ins and outs of why politicians do what they do in DC and neither do you we only get, see, hear spin, MSM crap and rumors.

  We don't even really know what parts of bills are vetoed, omitted, added on to by 'others' unless we read the whole thing and I doubt anyone here does that regularly.

  Hillary's familiarity with the guts of DC is a big plus to knowing how to fix, change get rid of and make better many of the issues the People care about.

  Rise Hillary Rise!

  Obama and Hillary will work well together which ever way the end result occurs.

  "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

  by roseeriter on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 03:32:26 AM PDT

•  everyone has 20-20 vision in hindsight

  You can't ask counter factual questions in a debate.

  No one in their wildest dreams thought 9-11 could happen.  But it did and it created a few anomalous situations. If 9-11 didn't happen, the Dems probably would have taken control of the houses back in 2002 etc. etc.

   

  by kennyc on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 03:33:44 AM PDT

  •  No one in their wildest dreams? Not quite

    accurate. Richard Clarke did. Bill Clinton did. George Tenant did. Richard Armitage did. Etc. Not the specifics of the event itself, but that the probability of such an attack was real-- yes they did.

    Clinton gave at least a dozen major speeches emphasizing the very real threat/danger of terrorism in the last couple of years of his administration but the MSM failed in its duty to cover it, what a shock (not). And as we all know, when Bush took over he totally ignored all the warnings and put terrorism on the back burner.

    However, you are right about the anomalous situations created by 9/11. It's easy to criticize now, especially for those of us who were screaming against attacking Iraq, but at the time it was a difficult path for politicians to navigate.

    by tigerdog on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 04:37:37 AM PDT

•  Here Is Your Explanation

  Public sentiment at the time of the Iraq War vote was so strongly in favor of an invasion, that a lot of hands were tied, including Sen. Clinton's regarding Bush's Iraq plans.

  I think she felt powerless to influence the ultimate decision.

  Anyway, if you read her floor speech on the vote, you can see that she clearly outlines why she is voting for it and what the vote is and what it is not.

  My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

  Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.

  And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am.

  So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. 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. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.

  Sen. Clinton is a politician.

  She was put under enormous pressure by her constituents and by popular sentiment to take a more aggressive stand against America's perceived enemies.  She acceded, but with qualifiers, namely that Bush allows the U.N. inspection program to continue ...

  Her vote has never been what it has been spun to be.

  Barack Obama, although he opposed the war in the beginning, has also had a more complicated relationship with the Iraq War while in Senate.  He has not led efforts to stop the war.  He hasn't even participated in them.

  And, finally, his Iraq plan is not all that much different that Sen. Clinton's.

  For that reason, I really don't feel like I'm choosing between candidates on that issue.  It would be great if I could choose, but we are not being offered a choice between the "candidate who enabled the war" and the "candidate who ended it."

  They are both enablers.

  by bink on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 03:35:12 AM PDT

  •  You excuse-giving makesSenClinton look worse

    I am much more inclined to vote for a cold, calculating politician who went along with the ride on Iraq, than I am for a 100% pure idiot who does not understand a yes vote is a yes vote regardless of what fancy words you scatter around that one word "yes".

    by Quicklund on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:17:16 AM PDT

•  Hillary Clinton's Response

  Clinton justified her 2002 Iraq war vote again on Meet the Press, saying that she thought "it was a vote to put inspectors back in" so Saddam Hussein could not go unchecked. She insisted that she was "told by the White House personally" as were others that that’s what the resolution was for and noted that Bush himself said publicly that the resolution was the best chance to avoid a confrontation.

  Moderator Tim Russert pointed out that the title of the resolution was the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002."

  Clinton responded saying, "We can have this Jesuitical argument about what exactly was meant. But when Chuck Hagel, who helped to draft the resolution said, 'It was not a vote for war,' What I was told directly by the White House in response to my question, 'If you are given this authority, will you put the inspectors in and permit them to finish their job,' I was told that's exactly what we intended to do. "

  by dhonig on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 03:46:51 AM PDT

  •  I buy that from other democrats but not from her

    The letter to her husband was in 1998. She knew who these people were. She knew that they were gunning for planning regime change long before the weapons inspections were even as issue. And until the country really started to turn against the Iraq war her husband, as cited in another diary, was defending Bush's decision. Is she or isn't she a neocon.

    That's the more explicit way of stating what I'm asking.

    I was going to war protests LONG before the boming started, so this is not hind sight. It was painfully obvious that we were being set up and manipulated. The only things I found out after the fact were the NAMES of the people responsible and how they did it. She doesn't even have that. She KNEW.

    Even if I take her at her word that she will start a withdrawal from Iraq, Iraq is not the real issue. The larger neocon strategy is. These people want to democratize the middle east by force. I'd like some hard proof that she will significantly turn away from that strategy.

    by Last Years Man on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 03:58:24 AM PDT

    •  On what do you base your assumption

      that she knew about that letter? That she HAD to know? Considering everything swirling around the 2 Clintons at the time, one letter urging even that kind of action would be easy to lose sight of and besides that, do you suppose that Bill shared the contents of every single letter, etc. that he received? Remember that he never responded to that letter; for all I know he barely paid any attention to it. Perhaps at the time he thought it was too ridiculous to merit any attention, who knows? (Not me) At any rate I don't think that's really a legitimate assumption on your part, unless you can document that she in fact did know. Perhaps you can, and I have not seen that evidence? Please point it out to me (seriously, I'm not being snarky).

      As for her being a neocon, please look more closely not only at her life's work (start with her commencement speech and her activism pro-civil rights & anti-Viet Nam at Wellesley) but also at her voting record in the Senate. There simply is no way to turn that history and (the vast majority of) those votes into anything resembling a neocon philosophy. It simply is not there.

      by tigerdog on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 04:23:01 AM PDT

      •  tiger don't bother

        They hate her and they can't logically explain to you why.

        it is longing for religious authority.  Which explains their attraction to Obama.  You can't get logic from people blinded by messianic fever.

        by kennyc on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 04:29:47 AM PDT

        •  Heh

          No that's pretty uncalled for considering that I acknowledge the response below  under "thank you." You don't do yourself any favors by going ad hominem on people who have concerns over real issues.

          And as for my evidence as to why I think she knew, considering the high positions the people in the PFNAC were taking at the time, I would expect at least Bill to have recognized what was going on and not stood by it for so long. And I find it hard to believe that it would have not been discussed. But your right, it's all crystal ball conjecture. Still doesn't give you cause to blanket flame me. But what do I expect. This is the internet.

          Hearing from Joe Wilson, some one who actually tried to stop things and who I respect, helps a lot. Thanks again to people who post constructive comments.

          by Last Years Man on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 04:39:48 AM PDT

          •  I was very disappointed by Hillary's Iraq vote

            myself, and still hold it against her (and every other Dem who voted for it). But that one vote does not define her or her personal & political philosophy, at least not to me. Her overall record on progressive issues is very clear.

            Removing spin and the pointing of fingers from the equation, I respect Obama for his statement that he did not know how he would have voted had he been in the Senate at the time. That was an honest assessment by someone who understands the pressures on politicians and I don't think it is a negative.

            Just my 2 cents...

            by tigerdog on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 05:09:49 AM PDT

        •  Sigh. How I long for the return of obectivity

          to dKos. I love passion in people, but passion that is unbridled leads to chaos and very dark places.

          by tigerdog on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 04:43:16 AM PDT

          •  Oops

            My "don't flame me" whine reply was to kennyc, not to you tiger. Should have made that more clear.

            by Last Years Man on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 05:27:25 AM PDT

            •  I figured that out. No problem. Nor was my

              'more objectivity' sigh directed at you.

              by tigerdog on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:31:05 AM PDT

•  Why don't you ask

  Joe Wilson?

  During my tenure as Senior Director for African Affairs in the Clinton Administration, I had the responsibility for helping to plan and execute President Clinton's historic trip to that continent. It was a trip that forever changed the way American administrations think about Africa. I spent eleven days with President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton traveling to six countries and meeting with leaders from many more. She was a full participant in all of our activities and a key adviser--and for good reason. Hillary had previously traveled to Africa, leading a prominent U.S. delegation to several countries. On her return she was instrumental in persuading the president that he should invest that most precious of presidential assets--time--in his own trip. People who are now senior advisers to Senator Obama were involved in both of those trips. So it is mystifying to me that they have allowed themselves to "forget" the key role Hillary played in such a major shift in approach to that part of the world and have participated in a negative campaign tactic on the part of the Obama campaign to demean her significant contributions to foreign policy of which they are well aware.

  In the run up to the war and thereafter, I was in frequent discussions with senior Democrats in Washington, including Senator Clinton, and I was keenly aware of her demand for the full exercise of international diplomacy and allowing the weapons inspectors to complete their mission. Many of the most prominent early opponents of the war, including former General Wes Clark and former ambassador to the United National Richard Holbrooke support Senator Clinton for President, as do I. We do so because we know that she has the experience and the judgment that comes from having been in the arena for her entire adult life--and from close personal participation with her in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy. And we have trust in her to end the war in Iraq in the most responsible way, consistent with our national security interests.

  by dhonig on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 04:11:41 AM PDT

  •  Thank you

    That's a much better response. And much closer to what I wanted to hear.

    by Last Years Man on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 04:14:52 AM PDT

    •  My pleasure n/t

      by dhonig on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 04:21:23 AM PDT

  •  Nice job. But the die-hards won't buy it.

    They are already convinced of her duplicity with Iraq, and nothing on Earth will ever change their mind.  Let them go build their houses of straw or sticks, while you keep on building with bricks.

    by dcrolg on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 05:54:00 AM PDT

•  Think of Justice Stevens

  That should make you vote for any Dem. You may not agree with that Dem president on every issue, even some big ones, but the SC pick will be MUCH better than any Repub's picks.

  by palpatine316 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 04:12:36 AM PDT

  •  Exactly

    Heard on the radio today that McCain has started the talk about Supreme Court candidates as he tries to pander to those conservatives who can't stand him.

    Government must respect our values because they are the true source of our strength; and enforce the rule, which distinguishes successful democracies from failed societies, and is the first defense of freedom. And the judges we appoint to federal benches must understand that is their only responsibility, and leave to elected officials their responsibility to make the laws that they enforce.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/...

    by skohayes on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 05:54:02 AM PDT

•  Ok, here's my take

  And this is my take on Hillary's Iraq vote in general.  Note, I'm an undecided voter, currently going back and forth between Hillary and Obama, with a slight leaning toward Hillary partly because of how often she is unfairly being bashed here.  As a further note, I personally was against the Iraq war from the beginning.

  I believe that, as the spouse of a former president and as a potential presidential candidate, she believed that the executive branch should be entrusted with making decisions about military operations based on the intelligence to which it has access.  In addition, at the time of the authorization, the stated purpose was to force capitulation on the part of Saddam to bend to the demands of the US & UN.

  Where she failed was her trust that the Bush Administration would act responsibly.

  Lets be clear on why the authorization to use force against Iraq was a mistake.  Had the President been virtually anyone other than George W. Bush, such authorization would probably not have resulted in an invasion of a sovereign country.  The mistake of the authorization was that Bush could not be trusted to wield this power.  If Clinton were in power, or McCain, or Bush Sr., or Obama, or virtually any other intelligent woman or man, we would not be in Iraq today.  But she was in a catch-22: had she not authorized the use of force, it would become more difficult for her to convince others to authorize her to use force if the time came that she required it as President.

  by concordepa on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 04:55:08 AM PDT

  •  Exactly

    Which was pretty much the point I was trying to get at. That there were alarm bells about who they were giving that power to, ie a cabal of idelogues who believed that an American Empire was not only feasible but also essential.

    My response when I hear the "all the experts were for it" argument is: I doubted the veracity of WMD's from the beginning and the strategic aspects. I thought it was, as Obama said, a dumb war. FROM THE BEGINNING. Now I'm obviously, or at least I hope I am, less informed that people in Congress. So I find it hard to believe that I knew something they didn't. We all had access to the same information and it was pretty clear from where I was sitting that the whole thing was rotten.

    I DO understand the argument that the politicians were put into a difficult situation. But I'd be careful when saying that it could have jeopardized her presidency. That makes it sound like she put her future ambitions ahead of the good of the nation.

    Also, this another problem I have with Hillary. She makes a lot of assumptions about her long term prospects. Like when she says "I'll have health care finished by the end of my second term."  I know politicians have to do that "when I'm elected" crap to show confidence but talking about a second term takes it a little too far. There is no guarantee that she will have a second term if she's elected and I don't like to hear that she's planning her actions over 8 years. I'd prefer her to think her time was limited and work with some urgency.

    Just a thought.

    by Last Years Man on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 05:54:13 AM PDT

•  Good question- here's my answer, at least

  I am a Blairite about this.  Getting Saddam Hussein out of power in the late 1990s looked to me like a defining moral case--if we let someone with no more claim on the presidency of Iraq than my cat murder hundreds of thousands of people, and let a generation starve by misappropriating the UN's food-for-oil, then why was the US even pretending to be more of a power in the world than, say, Denmark or Bolivia?  

  Sovereignty arguments and UN Security Council arguments didn't matter to me then, and they don't matter to me now.  I continue to think that the only thing wrong with the invasion of Iraq is that it failed.  It's possible, even probable, that it had no reasonable chance of success, which would mean that the war was a mistake--but I wouldn't consider it a moral mistake in the sense that most people here see it.

  As for Clinton making common cause with noxious neoconservatives, two things:

  1. Remember, the Iraq disaster made them notoriously noxious neoconservatives.  When Clinton was president, they were obsessives about Iraq but they were issue obsessives who were eager to get a hearing wherever they could, even from a Democratic president.  So you can say they were always crazy, or even that they were always sinister, but they weren't pushing a Republican project.  After all, it was Bush the First who explicitly renounced regime change in Iraq.

  2. This to me is a prime example of how Clinton gets a bum rap vs. Obama.  When Clinton makes common cause with these folks, on a specific issue where she agrees with them, she's condemned for buying into their whole project and enabling neoconservatism in general.  But Obama's always talking about finding common ground, which necessarily empowers and legitimizes the adversaries, and sometimes you'll get results like this: not that it's going to produce another war, but the people he deals with will take that and run with it.  

  In the end, I think, you can either look at the past to determine what candidates will do in the future, or you can look at it as something to reward or punish with the presidency.  The second one may be gratifying, but it makes no sense to me--I'm only interested in the past as a predictive factor.  With that in mind, I suspect that Clinton will be appropriately wary--she's been burned, but Obama is still in that magical space where he thinks he can call 'em (good vs. "dumb" wars) with perfect accuracy, since he's batting a thousand so far.

  by Rich in PA on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 05:26:14 AM PDT

  •  Good point

    You make a good point about collaboration.  Clearly it can get you in trouble.

    My response is that I don't think Obama thinks of collaboration as meaning a compromise of principles. He has said that it's the president's job to set the agenda. The collaboration part comes in accepting the other side's opinion in order to carry out that agenda. So in that case the issue of judgement is valid. Ostensibly, Obama would have us believe that if he had been president Iraq would NOT have been on the agenda.

    Personally I think he is oversimplifying the issue by making it just about judgement. But that's more so he can have a clear talking point to use in the debates. Just part of campaigning. More than judgement, it's about breaking free of a cold-war mentality. Some have called this the post-post-911 strategy and he is so far the only advocate.

    Also, as someone who opposed the war from the beginning, I personally believe that an objective look at who was trumpeting the war should have been a pretty good sign that it was a bad idea. The non sensical arguments being presented set off a lot of alarm bells, at least in my head. If they were that careless and bullheaded in their justification, it wasn't a big stretch to think they would mismanage things or that it was a long-term strategic no-no.

    Ending the cold war paradigm is my number 1 issue for this election. Imo,  it's the only way to really win the war on terror as well.

    by Last Years Man on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:09:28 AM PDT

    •  Fair enough, but just one point

      The argument about "just look at who wanted the war" is hardly distinguishable from the idea of demonizing people based on preconceived notions, isn't it?  I mean, if Obama's overarching idea isn't that you can sit down and consider the merits of positions rather than get obsessed with who the other side is or what they're identified with, I don't know what it is!  This is part of what I see as a double standard, in which it's triangulation/capitulation or just being a disguised Republican when Hillary (or Bill) Clinton do it or did it, but it's wonderful transcendence of petty partisanship when Obama does it.

      If Adolf Hitler's ghost had come into my office (such as it is) in 1998 and asked me to consider the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, I would have offered him a cup of tea and read his draft letter.

      To me it is all about judgment, and that's why I am OK with people who say they would never vote for Hillary Clinton because of Iraq.  (At least that they'd never vote for her in the primaries--even under the most damning interpretation she has to be less of a warmongerer than McCain or Romney.)  I don't see her judgment as having been as bad as people think, and to the extent that it was bad, she learns from experience (look at health care) more than most politicians.

      by Rich in PA on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:02:04 AM PDT

•  Isn't her promise good enough?

  When's teh last time Sen Clinton broke her word?  I mean, since yesterday?

  by Quicklund on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:13:10 AM PDT