Hillary Clinton misleads Oregon
Clinton's flawed judgement doesn't begin and end with her vote for the Iraqi War Resolution. Speaking in Eugene, Hillary promoted the false and inaccurate claim that she "started criticizing the war in Iraq before [Obama] did." [Source: CBS News, 4/5/08]
As Oregonians know, Obama's criticism dates back to 2002:
Hillary Clinton, of course, did not speak out against the war and in fact voted for the Iraqi War Resolution after failing to read the National Intelligence Estimate report. But speaking in Oregon yesterday, Hillary now argues the clock should only start after Obama first entered the Senate. But her claims under this new standard are equally false.
From ABC News:
In Eugene, Ore., Saturday. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., attempted to change the measure by which anyone might assess who criticized the Iraq war first, her or Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., by saying those keeping records should start in January 2005, when Obama joined the Senate. (A measure that conveniently avoids her October 2002 vote to authorize use of force against Iraq at a time that Obama was speaking out against the war.) She claimed that using that measure, she criticized the war in Iraq before Obama did.But Clinton's claim was false.
Obama's criticism of the war predates Clinton's even by this self-serving standard. Starting on Jan. 18, 2005, with his very first meeting as a member of the Senator Foreign Relations Committee, Obama criticized the war. Within his first year in office, Obama called for a phased withdrawal of forces.
Again from Jake Tapper:
The misrepresentation of the record is symbolic of the re-writing of history Clinton has attempted on her record regarding the war in Iraq.Because the larger context is more important. And Clinton's written criticism of the war in a press statement in January 2005 received little attention compared to the press surrounding her trip to Iraq the next month, in February 2005.
Upon returning she argued that setting a deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops would aid the enemy.
“I don’t think it’s useful to set a deadline because I think it sends a signal to the terrorists and the insurgents that they just have to wait us out,” she said.
Describing her trip to Iraq, she said, "It’s regrettable that the security needs have increased so much. On the other hand, I think you can look at the country as a whole and see that there are many parts of Iraq that are functioning quite well."
She also interpreted a series of suicide bomb attacks as an indication that the insurgency was failing.
“The concerted effort to disrupt the elections was an abject failure," she said. "Not one polling place was shut down or overrun. The fact that you have these suicide bombers now, wreaking such hatred and violence while people pray, is to me, an indication of their failure.”
In an interview with NBC's Meet the Press on Feb. 20, 2005, Clinton said that withdrawing some troops or setting a date for withdrawal would be a "mistake."
How did Hillary Clinton's political ambitions influence her thinking? Speaking to the New York Daily News, Hillary gives what sounds like a distinctly political, and uncharacteristically candid, answer:
She soon told New York Daily News editors and reporters that it was important for Democrats to combat the idea that they're soft on national security issues like Iraq."If you can't persuade a majority of people that you're going to be strong and tough where we need to protect America and our [national] interests, you can't cross the [electoral] threshold," she said.
Democrats fail to cross the electoral threshold when we fail to level with people. When we exaggerate our experience, invent sniper stories or deaths caused by $100 hospital bills, we invite media narratives that are deadly in a general election.
The way to cross the electoral threshold is to tell people the truth and work to win their trust. When we give people a little credit and treat them like adults, they respond. That's one of the factors fueling the unprecedented grassroots movement behind Barack Obama's campaign.
I believe very strong that the candidate best suited to be commander-in-chief is the one who had the judgement to oppose the war from the start. The best person to get our economy back on track is not the one who voted to give George Bush a blank check for a $3.0 trillion dollar war. And the best person to repair our standing in the world is not the one who supported the biggest foreign policy blunder in a generation.
|
April 6, 2008 |
Charlie Burr | Comments (106 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Charlie Burr | Apr 6, 2008 6:11:37 PM
Katy, show me where Hillary spoke out against the war before Obama. Because that's what she said in Eugene.
It is an absolute, irrefutable fact that Hillary did not speak out first. Hillary's statement doesn't come close to passing the laugh test.
Posted by: Katy | Apr 6, 2008 6:16:55 PM
Charlie, I wasn't disputing that, I was responding to the last paragraph of your post - I should have been more clear on that. Sorry.
I don't have the wherewithall, nor do I pretend to have the skills to do a quick research check on who said what first. I do, however, want us to be honest about the important issues facing our country. Ending the war in Iraq is the most important issue for most Americans this cycle, Hillary said yesterday that it was her number one priority. Their voting record in the Senate is identical, they both want to end the war. Obama has said he doesn't know how he would have voted on the resolution.
I just want to make sure the facts are out there for all to read.
Posted by: Bill R. | Apr 6, 2008 6:19:17 PM
Another lie, on top of the phony Bosnia story, on top of the phony Ohio hospital story. This displays not only a contempt for the truth but an ineptness on the part of Clinton and her campaign.
And the idea that the metric for counting opposition to the war only starts when you enter the glorious senate. Even then Obama beats Clinton:
-"Tapper goes on to show that Obama criticized the Iraq war on January 18, 2005 during Condoleeza Rice's confirmation hearings. Clinton says she started criticizing the war on January 26, 2005 -- 8 days after Obama."
Clinton has continued to defend the Iraq occupation until it became clear that public opinion was turning decisively against it. So now she lies to distort and twist history. And it keeps happening again and again in this campaign. She lied to attempt to falsely present her public relations experience as first lady into national security experience. She lies about her support for NAFTA, she lies with these phony health care stories, and now she lies to re-state history about her support for the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Posted by: Charlie Burr | Apr 6, 2008 6:27:02 PM
I don't have the wherewithall, nor do I pretend to have the skills to do a quick research check on who said what first.
It's not that hard. You can click through to the ABC News story to read what Clinton claims as proof of her speaking out against the war before Obama. And what her staff points to actually occurred after Obama's first meeting as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Hillary's claims are false. There's not a lot to nuance here.
Posted by: Missy | Apr 6, 2008 6:42:29 PM
This is the second critical post you have done on Clinton's visit to Oregon in 2 days. In addition to being an editor on Blue Oregon, I know you are a frequent Obama spokesperson, and saw you on tv for Obama.
Do you have an official role with the Obama campaign? You seem to be awfully plugged in.
Posted by: Bill R. | Apr 6, 2008 6:45:42 PM
A question for the Clintonites:
Hillary has spoken this phrase a number of times in the campaign when referring to the Iraq invasion and occupation: "America has given the Iraqi people the gift of freedom."
What in the name of heaven is she talking about? In what possible way is what has occurred in Iraq and the current condition of the people of Iraq anything resembling freedom? Is this her idea of opposing the Iraq war and the Bush policy there, repeating his propaganda talking points?
Posted by: The Truth | Apr 6, 2008 6:46:55 PM
Uh Charlie, it is difficult to take your criticism of Clinton seriously when you yourself overexagerrate the cost of the war. According to Cost of the War.comthe cost of the war to date is approximately $500 billion dollars.......
Posted by: Charlie Burr | Apr 6, 2008 6:50:37 PM
I'm a volunteer and hold no official role with the campaign. I have been helping out since last year.
Both my posts were response pieces. I know this will probably ring hollow, but I'm glad folks had a good experience at the rallies. I appreciate what Hillary was saying about green building. And if she's the nominee, I will support and work hard for her. Until then, I'm going to fight like hell to make sure we nominate our best shot.
Taking on Obama -- and thoroughly, transparently -- distorting the reality of the record of each on the war begs for a response. I didn't plan on posting anything yesterday, fwiw. I was drinking a cup of coffee and watching Hillary on TV. Our post actually went up before the AP story. But I think the pool reporters saw the same thing I did: Hillary was making news. There are a finite amount of thing you get to communicate during a visit; if she didn't want this to be the headline she should re-think her language around it.
To the "Truth": The $3.0 trillion dollar figure is the estimate for what the war will cost when all is said and done.
Posted by: Prantha | Apr 6, 2008 7:06:06 PM
GREAT POST. And the sad thing is that more Americans - AND innocent Iraqis will die the longer this stupid war lasts.
Posted by: Chris Corbell | Apr 6, 2008 7:12:13 PM
Hillary spoke against unilateral war on the floor of the Senate. Like Kerry, Edwards, Byrd and many others they made it clear that their vote was to force inspectors back in. You, Mr. Burr, are misleading the readers of Blue Oregon shamelessly for your candidate.
So that's two posts in a day that Charlie felt compelled to write to dis Hillary on the day she appears in Oregon. What's wrong Charlie, are you afraid your political career won't get such a lucrative bounce to the big leagues if Hillary instead of Obama wins out?
As for me, I have no personal stake in this. I am not a pol like you, or a wannabe journalist. Like many many thousands of Hillary supporters in Oregon, I'm just a citizen wanting the right thing to happen this year. Like affordable college for my daughter in a few years, and a restoration of the environmental and labor policies dismantled by Bush (which Obama voted for, supporting the Cheney energy plan) and health care for folks who can't afford it (which Obama will never achieve with his cynical Harry-and-Louise tactics).
I don't recall any Hillary supporters posting anti-Obama articles while Obama was in town, though we easily could have. But then Charlie and his candidate have never -really- stood for unity.
Posted by: Beth Richardson | Apr 6, 2008 7:19:19 PM
Once again, Hillary demonstrated she is simply a pathological liar - and a fraud, and a farce. Her presidential run is turning into a joke - and making a mockery of the Democratic party. She would serve the party best by quietly bowing out of the race. It really is unprecedented - it seems like every week Hillary is caught in another lie: taking sniper fire, hospitals denying Healthcare, and now saying she started criticizing the Iraq war first. What's next? I was out of diapers before Obama was?
How can anyone in their right mind even begin to think the Country will be well run with Hillary in charge? It truly is time for a change. The Iraq war, sub prime mortgage debacle and the host of other issues our great nation in decline has proven one thing - it is that we need great leadership. Hillary is unfit to lead a even the smallest of businesses, let alone a Country. We've had enough of her kind.
Posted by: Steve Bucknum | Apr 6, 2008 7:36:51 PM
Yesterday, Chris Corbell wrote, "A re-vote would have gone forward if Obama hadn't obstructed it. Shame on Barack Obama."
Yesterday I asked for the source of this information, when it came out, how I could trace it down. Chris Corbell didn't respond. I asked again. No response.
Today, in this thread, Chris Corbell wrote, "I don't recall any Hillary supporters posting anti-Obama articles while Obama was in town, though we easily could have."
Well, why the fine point about "while in town"?? You seem to be doing it at every chance. I can trace your name back through all the recent posts regarding Obama/Clinton and see that you are throwing out misleading stuff like the first quote. Is it really important whether you are paid or not, or if you just volunteer to throw out garbage?
We are better than this. The one thing I really want for my Democratic Party is that they will behave better than the Republicans. I want honest politics. I want the Democratic Party to be spin free, and above board. I note with pride that we don't have Karl Rove in our Party.
I'm personally very disappointed with Mrs. Clinton. I'm beginning to wonder if she isn't a pathological liar. The Bosnia thing sure sounded that way. This parsing of words so fine attempting to draw a distinction about who opposed the war first, that as this post by Charlie shows not only doesn't exist, but goes the other way - is another example.
Blue Oregon has had its share of Republican trolls before. I fear that we are now to the point that we have Clinton trolls - people that use Blue Oregon to spread misinformation and misdirection.
When I vote, I have always voted for the person, not the Party. Ethical behavior is a foundation for my decision, and then track record and policy follow. At this point, and I have said this before, Clinton doesn't reach my threshold for support. Unethical behavior, and trolls like Chris Corbell, keep my support from going to this candidate.
Posted by: sue | Apr 6, 2008 7:41:25 PM
Thank you for being brave enough to print the truth. Few are.
Posted by: Katy | Apr 6, 2008 7:42:51 PM
Charlie, I was just being self deprecating, which I think is really important right now. Everyone is feeling very passionate, I for one am very passionate about my candidate. I take issue with the headline "Hillary Clinton Misleads Oregon." Thousands of Oregonians showed up to hear Hillary Clinton speak yesterday and thousands were inspired. She's a candidate who speaks in great detail about how she'll bring health care to every American, the environment, the war in Iraq, ending Bush's tax breaks on the wealthy, a woman's right to choose, and of course, I could go on.
Chris C., I remember the day Obama came to Oregon - most of my cohorts went to his event. I remember the posts that appeared on BO that day. I remember reading through the comments and how excited his supporters were. I have questions about Obama and his campaign. I wonder, for example, how he'll deal w/Michigan and Florida if he wins the nomination? "I pushed against your delegates being seated but now I'm asking for your vote?" I worry about some things I've read about his past w/lgbt issues. Point being, I would NEVER have even thought of posting an attack here. That was their day - and yesterday was our day. So I'll say again how disappointed I was to read the negative attack posts. Imagine coming to BO the day Obama was in town and the headline being "Obama Misleads Oregon." It's almost laughable, right?
Hillary Clinton did not mislead me yesterday morning, she inspired me to go out and work every day until the primary for her, for my Grandmother who says she can't believe she lived long enough to see a female become President, for my nieces who now know they can do anything they want, and for the little girl who sat in front of me yesterday with a t-shirt on that said "I can be President too!"
Posted by: Hawthorne | Apr 6, 2008 7:46:25 PM
Chris C. "Hillary spoke against unilateral war on the floor of the Senate."
She also said that she would support a war, understood that it could lead to war and that Iraq was a threat to the United States. Go back and listen to her speech. It's very clear.
Posted by: Katy | Apr 6, 2008 7:53:56 PM
Hawthorne, and here's what Obama said:
In 2004, Sen. Obama also said there was little difference between his position and George Bush’s position on Iraq:
In a meeting with Chicago Tribune reporters at the Democratic National Convention, Obama said, “On Iraq, on paper, there's not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry administration as there would have been a year ago. […] There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage.” [Chicago Tribune, 07/27/04]
Posted by: Hawthorne | Apr 6, 2008 8:03:01 PM
Katy,
I didn't raise any questions about what Obama has or has not said. It is Hillary Clinton who is being dishonest (and unlike John Edwards refuses to concede that her vote was a mistake). The words came out of her mouth, that she criticized the war before Obama. This is a flat out lie.
This is a question about judgment and honesty. Frankly, it's troubling.
Posted by: backbeat12 | Apr 6, 2008 8:05:05 PM
Katy, watch this video of Senator Clinton showing her distain for a group of women who were, like me and others, proven correct about Iraq. And now she votes yes on Iran....handing bush another loaded gun.
Please Katy, for the sake of my kids and yours, watch this video and tell me how the senator has changed. She is in favor of war.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYATbsu2cP8
Posted by: Katy | Apr 6, 2008 8:05:50 PM
This is how I feel about Charlie (who I like VERY much, only meant to be funny and ease mean-ness:)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OBlgSz8sSM&feature=related
Posted by: laura | Apr 6, 2008 8:11:57 PM
What I don't understand is women voting for women just BECAUSE they are women. I would love to support a woman, just not this one.
Posted by: backbeat12 | Apr 6, 2008 8:14:47 PM
Katy, Obama indicated he had not seen the intelligence reports, so would not sit in judgement of those who votes yes when they had access.
On the above video, Senator Clinton mocks, with derision, the Code Pink women tellling them, "well, you don't have access to the intelligence reports like I do."
Since that time, Senator Clinton has admitted she failed to read the intelligence reports.....the ones she mocked us about.
Senator Clinton has poor judgement and doesn't even bother to read the intelligence. Case closed. And don't be surprised if bush shoots that loaded gun again.
Posted by: John Calhoun | Apr 6, 2008 8:16:26 PM
For all those who claim that Obama couldn't tell what to do in the vote in 2002 because he wasn't in the Senate then, I would like to point out that our Senator and Democratic Representatives voted against the war as did the Democratic Senator from Illinois. Why would it be unlikely that Obama would vote differently than Senator Durbin, his senior Senator? Frankly it wasn't hard to know then that it was a vote for war. The Democrats that supported it were cowed into it by the Bush propaganda machine and fear of an electoral defeat. Most of them have now apologized for the vote. Hilary hasn't.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Apr 6, 2008 8:16:42 PM
Speaking to the New York Daily News, Hillary gives what sounds like a distinctly political, and uncharacteristically candid, answer:
She soon told New York Daily News editors and reporters that it was important for Democrats to combat the idea that they're soft on national security issues like Iraq.
"If you can't persuade a majority of people that you're going to be strong and tough where we need to protect America and our [national] interests, you can't cross the [electoral] threshold," she said.
Gandhi didn't believe it necessary to be "strong and tough" and he defeated the British empire in India. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the civil rights movement adopted Gandhi's policy of non-violence and achieved major successes for their people. George Bush and company and McCain believe in showing the world how "strong and tough" we are and worldwide our nation's reputation is in tatters.
Posted by: Daniel Spiro | Apr 6, 2008 8:21:50 PM
The words "credibility" and "Clinton" simply don't go together.
Posted by: Katy | Apr 6, 2008 8:23:05 PM
Backbeat, I watched the video as you requested and she appears very respectful? I'm curious why you're not puting pressure on Obama in the same way? Their voting record is the same on Iraq. I was at an event at the Hilton in Portland (geez, could it really be a couple years ago now?) where the Code Pink group yelled throughout Hillary Clinton's speech. They got their word out. She gave her speech. I was happy to be there.
Have you gone after McCain for saying he's ready to continue Bush's war?
and to Laura, I'm not voting for Hillar Clinton because she's a woman, I'm voting for her because I'm a woman.
Posted by: Chris Corbell | Apr 6, 2008 8:25:41 PM
In 2002, the most rabid hawks in congress - and there were a lot of them - were not simply pushing for the authorization vote. They were pushing for explicit unilateral war.
Bush's authorization vote was sold as a compromise - he promised that it was to get the inspectors back in, and that force would only be used as a last resort. He lied.
Hillary's statements on the Senate floor before the authorization vote specifically argued against unilateral war, saying it would be a huge mistake and set a dangerous precedent for the world. She positioned herself as a centrist by going along with the compromise, but spoke out against the unilateral approach. (And note that others who are not nearly so vilified in the Blue Oregon comments - Kerry and Edwards, for example - were more hawkish in approach than she was, not just on this vote but throughout their Senate careers).
Those who don't know about Hillary's statements before the authorization are obviously not doing their homework, they are just mouthing talking points from the Obama campaign and assuming that anything is a lie when it doesn't agree with Obama's (or Charlie Burr's) dubious assertion of fact.
For your edification here are her comments, but for the sake of democracy I urge you, friends, to do some actual homework before you shrink the Blue Oregon tent by excluding Hillary supporters.
Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.
This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.
However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.
If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?
So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.
- Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, October 10, 2002
Posted by: backbeat12 | Apr 6, 2008 8:29:17 PM
As a 49 year old woman, I can't think of anything sadder than voting for a woman just because I am one. It sickens me that this "woman" voted yes once again to give Bush a loaded gun. Of course I've been protesting, making calls, writing letters, showing up at town hall meetings, doing whatever I can to stop this illegal occupation Katie. Why would I vote for a woman like that, one who treats my concerns with such disgust? She lied in Eugene about speaking out before Obama. She is not the right woman to be our first female president. She'll send my sons to Iran.
Posted by: Y. Hall | Apr 6, 2008 8:29:40 PM
This is why I'm NOT voting for "Billery". She voted for the war, period. She is part of the problem in my view. Now she's playing lying/ lawyer word games . This is the "Slick Willy" tactic. Its obvious to me that Obama is the only candidate with any real integrity. He has my vote over her.
Posted by: Hawthorne | Apr 6, 2008 8:34:39 PM
Chris,
Of course what you included is not the entire speech, which ended with HRC saying this "And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed."
The bigger questions: why has she never said that her vote was a mistake? Why would she try to bend history and suggest that she was against the war?
I've done my homework. I'm not interested in shrinking the tent. I am concerned about those who when looking at a tent would say that it was, indeed, not a tent. Or try to move the tent elsewhere.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Apr 6, 2008 8:35:24 PM
She positioned herself as a centrist by going along with the compromise, but spoke out against the unilateral approach.
Her vote to give Bush authority to go to war was a betrayal of her oath to uphold the Constitution as explained to the entire senate before the vote by Senator Robert Byrd.
Posted by: Katy | Apr 6, 2008 8:39:46 PM
Backbeat, and that's okay because we live in a democracy! I'm glad you get to vote for your candidate, as I am so happy I get to vote for Hillary Clinton. I work at OHSU and see families coming to Doernbecher every day with sick children who don't have insurance. Remaining professional is very difficult in such situations. I'm voting for Hillary Clinton because she will make sure that these children and their families have health insurance. Yesterday she said she wanted to "end Bush's war on science," something that is so important to me and the people I work with. I'm voting and working for a candidate that I believe can achieve the things that are important to me and to our country, which is what the point of a democracy is really, isn't it? Politics is the art of comprimise, we live in a country with neighbors who disagree with us. The great thing about the vote is being able to vote for our choice despite what our neighbors think. I'm very happy for you that you've found your candidate in Obama - and I'm very happy for me (!) that I've found my candidate in Hillary Clinton. I think it's important to understand that people vote for and choose candidates based on a variety of issues and passions. There's a lot at stake!
Posted by: Katy | Apr 6, 2008 8:49:12 PM
and ps - on NIH applications for funding reasearch since Bush has been in office there's a new box for researchers to check: "Does this research involve stem stells?"
We MUST beat McCain, I think that's something we can all agree on.
Posted by: backbeat12 | Apr 6, 2008 8:53:24 PM
Well Katie, I've written many a letter over the years to get increased funding for the NIH and basic research....going back decades....orchestrated campaigns as a matter of fact....way before senator clinton had her healthcare debacle. Too bad she didn't exercise the proper courage and go for single payer at that time. Still doesn't advocate for it.
I do understand your concerns.
Posted by: backbeat12 | Apr 6, 2008 9:08:13 PM
Nope, can't have McCain.
The Supreme Court
Posted by: Missy | Apr 6, 2008 9:15:51 PM
"Too bad she didn't exercise the proper courage and go for single payer at that time. Still doesn't advocate for it."
Neither candidate supports single payer, though Clinton's health plan is widely acknowledged to be "universal" while Obama's is not.
Posted by: Charlie Burr | Apr 6, 2008 9:16:39 PM
I do very much appreciate Katy's video. I'm a sucker these days for anything with cute bambinos in it.
Look, Clinton was way off base with what she said about Iraq. It was false and inaccurate. It has been called out by national media, as well it should. What's more disrespectful: a major presidential candidate misstating her opponent's record or a volunteer correcting the record on a blog?
As far as the timing, I believe strongly that campaigns -- even if they're in a primary -- should rapidly respond to false, negative attacks. Because that's what it was.
I appreciate Chris Corbell taking a break from his relentless victimization to make an ad hominem attack against me, but I am pretty sure he went after Obama, his consultant, and his consultant's clients on this blog right before Obama's last visit. I don't think anyone complained about the timing.
Posted by: james r bradach | Apr 6, 2008 9:33:52 PM
"My bottom line is I don't want thier sons to die in vain...I don't believe it is smart to set a date to withdraw...I don't think it is the right time to withdraw"
This is what senator Clinton told Village Voice reporter Sarah Ferguson on Sept 22, 2005. Right after she had met with Cindy Sheehan, her sister Dede and my sister Lynn Bradach, who all pleaded that she do what she could to end the war. They did not believe that thier sons or nephew had die in a "Noble Cause" as the president had recently stated.
What else was going on then?
Polls showed 62% of Americans believed that the war was based on a lie (which axact lie I can't recall).
Not quite 2000 service people had died.
52% of Americans supported an immediate withdrawl.
more than 30 Oregon soldiers were dead.
This nation was waking up to reality of the administrations incompetence in the wake of Katrina.
Next day 300 000 people marched in front of the White house.
The senator was being gutsy and tough back then... and she was wrong!
This might be a good week for folks to check in on the results in Iraq.
Posted by: Bill R. | Apr 6, 2008 9:35:48 PM
AUMF-Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq. That's what Hillary voted for. You can't re-create history. As Hillary says, "you don't get do-overs in life." That's what she supported,invasion and occupation, right up until it ceased to be popular. She has blood on her hands and she would do well to simply say so. And she didn't even have the decency or the responsibility to read the National Intelligence Estimate regarding the presence of WMD before taking that vote. Then she gives Bush the loaded gun to attack Iran with her vote for the Kyle/Lieberman Resolution. No credibility on Iraq, no credibility on Iran, no credibility on judgment regarding national security, war and peace.
Posted by: J | Apr 6, 2008 9:43:29 PM
I like the video. (It's refreshing for those of us who are tired of this particular babble storm; the tempest seems to maintain vigor, even if the teapot is shrinking.)
From the repetitive department of redundancy department: Let's show some love. If not Rodney King, then Black Eyed Peas.
Posted by: SDG | Apr 6, 2008 10:39:30 PM
It's this simple.
Hillary has been preparing to be president at least since Bill left the White House. And look at the inept, disastrous way she has run her campaign - lurching from crisis to crisis. Spinning, cheating and lying just to stay in the game.
Obama, on the other hand, is running one of the best campaigns in memory. And he's rebuilding local parties at the same time.
That all there is to say. Hillary was supposed to be ready on day one. She wasn't.
Posted by: Matt Blevins | Apr 6, 2008 10:48:19 PM
As Atrios said:
It's fair to say that Obama didn't exactly spend his time in the Senate being an anti-war leader, but this moving the goalpost stuff is really annoying.
The Iraq war has been a colossal moral, fiscal, and humanitarian disaster. Those who opposed it were marginalized, vilified, and ignored by our elites. Those who opposed it, in any way, had a bit of courage even if they weren't in the Senate at the time.
And just so we're clear, here's Obama at the 2004 DNC Convention:
When we send our young men and women into harm’s way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they’re going, to care for their families while they’re gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to never ever go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world.
We all listened to that speech. We all knew he was speaking out against the war.
Quite making shit up.
And Chris, you're making the other shills on this site look like amateurs. It's embarassing.
Posted by: Frank | Apr 6, 2008 11:04:23 PM
If it walks like a liar, talks, like a liar, and has benn proven to be a liar then folks she is probably a liar.
She was fired for being unethical by a law firm, he was disbarred for LYING.
Wait up and smell the coffee. Both the Clintons and McCains are RICH - ARE YOU. NO NO NO. Do you really think they care about you. Not!
Am I NO NON NO
I want to elect someone who has made a career of fighting for others, who has the education, experience and ability to bring together the needed resources and experts not lobbyist or corporate lackies or cronnies but real people that have the knowledge and passion to do what is right for the people and the country and that will help us all turn this country around.
This is why I am voting for Barack Obama!
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Apr 6, 2008 11:10:30 PM
as long as Chris wants to play pieces of Hillary's vote on "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" — which is the full and accurate title of the resolution she voted for — i want make sure we don't miss this part of her floor speech:
He (Saddam) has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members.... While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein's biological and chemical weapons. ... I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible." (emphasis added)
ok, why in the name of everything holy would she take President Bush at his word? she knew the 2000 election had been stolen, she knew what kind of people surrounded Bush — Cheney, Rove and the ilk — and she had to know their "Project for a New American Century" included the desire to go to war in the mideast, Iraq being a prime choice. the frikking Onion knew they wanted to go to war before Bush was even the damn nominee:
Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years."You better believe we're going to mix it up with somebody at some point during my administration," said Bush, who plans a 250 percent boost in military spending. "Unlike my predecessor, I am fully committed to putting soldiers in battle situations. Otherwise, what is the point of even having a military?"
this was The Onion fergawdsake on January 7, 2001, in a brilliant and tragically prescient piece of satire-cum-Nostradamus entitled "Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over."
Hillary understood the Bush gang more poorly than The Onion.
and then some months after the vote, she told Salon this:
"I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision." (emphasis added)
and as others have pointed out, this was a lie. she did not read the NIE (90 frikkin' pages, not even novella length). if the people she trusted led her to vote for the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" then what will her advisers suggest she do at 3 a.m.? this is supposed to give Americans confidence, that she listens to people who tell her to believe Bush, Cheney and Rove?
and finally, just to demonstrate her character fully, she had this to say to "Meet The Press" on December 7, 2003:
"No. I regret the way the president used the authority. I believe in presidential authority to deal with threats ... I have no second-guessing about giving the president authority."
"I regret the way the president used the authority." who doesn't? what an enormous, shameful and deceiptful cop-out. she can't even admit she was wrong to vote for the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002". cannot say the words. i can only assume she does not believe she was wrong, and that's even worse.
she's spent the campaign running from that one vote, and that's the one vote that matters most. yes, she did excellent things in the White House; much of her Senate work is outstanding. and it's no-brainer to vote for her over McCain. but over Obama?
i swear to god, i hear more time "...but he wasn't in the Senate...." no, he wasn't. but as Charlie's video demonstrated, he knew exactly what lay ahead and why the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" was a huge mistake. don't tell me he would have voted differently in the Senate because he would have read the damn NIE, he would have remembered who was asking for the authorization, and he would have made the same choice as the other Democrats who got right what Hillary got so wrong.
the one vote that mattered, and she failed. utterly.
Posted by: She is pathological | Apr 6, 2008 11:18:13 PM
Hillary Clinton is a pathological liar.
The best thing about this campaign is that the Clitons and their followers have been exposed for the moral relativists that we all suspected they were.
Simply put-the only thing the Clintons care about is the Clintons. We defended Bubba back when he destroyed his presidency and helped weaken the Democratic party because of a blowjob. I told everyone I could that it didnt mater, what mattered was his Presidency. Well guess what? It did matter. The Clintons were bankrupt then and they are bankrupt now.
It is time for her to leave and take all of her supporters who think it is okay to be lying and cheating and lying some more with her.
Posted by: Jamais Vu | Apr 6, 2008 11:20:57 PM
It's worth occassionally remembering the smarter voices which spoke in the senate back in 2002. I enjoy this excerpt from the senate floor debate to authorize pre-emptive war against Iraq:
Senator Byrd: "Mr. [Senate] President, this is a Tonkin Gulf resolution all over again. Let us stop, look, and listen. Let us not give this President, or any President, unchecked power. Remember the Constitution. Remember the Constitution."
Biden and Kennedy come out looking pretty good in the transcript, too. It's worth looking up the record and remembering there were quite a number of senators whose judgment at the time was every bit as good as our judgment of crowd appears today.
Posted by: D.A.C. | Apr 7, 2008 1:45:42 AM
p.s. You Might Be An Idiot!
blah blah blah
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you believe what jackhole jacksmith and pathetic Katy (Katy, reading what you wrote, I first thought your were just ignorant. Than I read your weasly comments here and I think there is a chance you truly are deceitful.)
There are only two differences between Obama's plan and Clinton's plan:
The first is that Clinton, in what really is corrupt maternalism, would have the final effect of forcing us by law to buy from private health insurance companies. Obama would not because he recognizes Clinton's plan would force working class people who don't have insurance to be driven further down to enrich private insurance companies.
The second difference is that Obama offers a serious plan --- as in one you can get coherent details about from his campaign staff --- to allow people the chance to participate in a public insurance plan as an alternative to plans from private health insurance companies. Clinton talks smack about a similar option as she does about everything these days. But if you press her national headquarters for specifics, as I have, the really disgusting people that work for her get really angry because she has no intent of offering a genuine public insurance system. They try to deceive people that the FEHBP is a public insurance plan, but it most certainly is not. It is a managed competition plan entirely built on our private insurance system with much higher costs than Medicare.
And by the way, Clinton's plan back in the 1990's was based purely on an HMO model which would have eliminated your right to choose your doctors or make your own health care decisions. It was as far from a progressive public health insurance system as you can possibly get.
jacksmith and Katy are prime examples of the kind of really pathetic people who support Clinton at this point. Clinton is a DLC Democrat who, with Bill, has whored herself to corporate America and all but destroyed the Democratic Party.
The fact is, a Hillary Clinton adminstration will not be significantly different from a John McCain adminstration. John McCain, is a lying, self-serving, corporatist who was on the verge of leaving the "movement" Republican Party a few years ago. Hlllary Clinton, is a lying, self-serving, corporatist, and former Goldwater Girl, who left behind what few Democratic Party values she tentatively embraced long ago. They both supported the war without question and Hillary will keep us there in line with the DLC's policies.
I don't believe Obama actually will be much better, and I'm not a big Obama partisan. I don't actually believe he will pull us out of Iraq any sooner than Clinton or McCain UNLESS the Congress forces it. (And I'm not holding my breath for that given the strength of the ultra-rightwing AIPAC amongst the DLC and DSCC.) But I will vote for him for the little bit better than Clinton he will be. Particularly after she and Bill started appealing to racial animus. The fact you have not repudiated and abandoned her after that Katy is evidence enough of the kind of low-quality people left in the Clinton camp.
Posted by: Matthew Sutton | Apr 7, 2008 6:59:51 AM
Blatant lies won't work in the primary, and they won't work in the general election. Folks have had a enough of that and are looking for something different.
Posted by: carla | Apr 7, 2008 7:12:21 AM
Wow.....I just had deja vu.
Carla--Netroots Outreach, Jeff Merkley for Oregon
Posted by: D.A.C. | Apr 7, 2008 7:20:23 AM
p.s. You Might Be An Idiot!
blah blah blah
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you believe what jackhole jacksmith and pathetic Katy (Katy, reading what you wrote, I first thought your were just ignorant. Than I read your weasly comments here and I think there is a chance you truly are deceitful.)
There are only two differences between Obama's plan and Clinton's plan:
The first is that Clinton, in what really is corrupt maternalism, would have the final effect of forcing us by law to buy from private health insurance companies. Obama would not because he recognizes Clinton's plan would force working class people who don't have insurance to be driven further down to enrich private insurance companies.
The second difference is that Obama offers a serious plan --- as in one you can get coherent details about from his campaign staff --- to allow people the chance to participate in a public insurance plan as an alternative to plans from private health insurance companies. Clinton talks smack about a similar option as she does about everything these days. But if you press her national headquarters for specifics, as I have, the really disgusting people that work for her get really angry because she has no intent of offering a genuine public insurance system. They try to deceive people that the FEHBP is a public insurance plan, but it most certainly is not. It is a managed competition plan entirely built on our private insurance system with much higher costs than Medicare.
And by the way, Clinton's plan back in the 1990's was based purely on an HMO model which would have eliminated your right to choose your doctors or make your own health care decisions. It was as far from a progressive public health insurance system as you can possibly get.
jacksmith and Katy are prime examples of the kind of really pathetic people who support Clinton at this point. Clinton is a DLC Democrat who, with Bill, has whored herself to corporate America and all but destroyed the Democratic Party.
The fact is, a Hillary Clinton adminstration will not be significantly different from a John McCain adminstration. John McCain, is a lying, self-serving, corporatist who was on the verge of leaving the "movement" Republican Party a few years ago. Hlllary Clinton, is a lying, self-serving, corporatist, and former Goldwater Girl, who left behind what few Democratic Party values she tentatively embraced long ago. They both supported the war without question and Hillary will keep us there in line with the DLC's policies.
I don't believe Obama actually will be much better, and I'm not a big Obama partisan. I don't actually believe he will pull us out of Iraq any sooner than Clinton or McCain UNLESS the Congress forces it. (And I'm not holding my breath for that given the strength of the ultra-rightwing AIPAC amongst the DLC and DSCC.) But I will vote for him for the little bit better than Clinton he will be. Particularly after she and Bill started appealing to racial animus. The fact you have not repudiated and abandoned her after that Katy is evidence enough of the kind of low-quality people left in the Clinton camp.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Katy | Apr 6, 2008 6:05:44 PM
But Charlie, Obama wasn't in the Senate so he didn't even have the chance to vote no. In fact, he's said this:
When asked about Senators Kerry and Edwards' votes on the Iraq war, Obama said, "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports," Mr. Obama said. "What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made." [New York Times, 07/26/04]
And since he's been in the Senate they're voting record on Iraq has been exactly the same but for one vote:
Since Obama entered the U.S. Senate, his record on Iraq is identical to Hillary's, with one exception. ABC News reported that, "In fact, Obama's Senate voting record on Iraq is nearly identical to Clinton's. Over the two years Obama has been in the Senate, the only Iraq-related vote on which they differed was the confirmation earlier this year of General George Casey to be Chief of Staff of the Army, which Obama voted for and Clinton voted against." [ABC, 5/17/07
I just think we need to be honest about this. They both oppose the war, we don't know how he would have voted if he was in the Senate when the vote was taken - he even says so himself. Let's just be fair with the facts.