Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Shop the Truthdig Gift Guide 2014
December 18, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!








Truthdig Bazaar
How To Be Black

How To Be Black

By Baratunde Thurston
$24.99

The Balkan Trilogy

The Balkan Trilogy

By Olivia Manning; Rachel Cusk (Introduction by)

more items

 
Report

Hillary’s Calculations Add Up to War

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Feb 20, 2007
Hillary Clinton
AP Photo / Dennis Cook

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., listens to then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2005.

By Robert Scheer

Let’s face it: No matter how much many of us who oppose the war in Iraq would also love to elect a female president, Hillary Clinton is not a peace candidate. She is an unrepentant hawk, à  la Joe Lieberman. She believed invading Iraq was a good idea, all available evidence to the contrary, and she has, once again, made it clear that she still does.

“If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast a vote [to authorize the war] or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from,” she said in New Hampshire last week, confusing contempt for antiwar Americans—now a majority—with the courage of her indefensible conviction that she bears no responsibility for the humanitarian, economic and military disaster our occupation has wrought.

As a candidate for ‘08, Hillary clearly calculates that her war chest, star power, gender and pro-choice positions will be sufficient for her to triumph in the primaries, while being “tough,” pro-military and “supporting our president” will secure her flank in the general election against those who would paint her as that horrible beast, “a liberal.”

A winning strategy? That remains to be seen. It certainly does not bode well for the future of the nation, however, should it be. Consider the parallel case of President Lyndon Johnson, who can be heard on tapes of his White House conversations ruminating that he never believed in the Vietnam War and pursued it only to deny Barry Goldwater and the Republicans a winning campaign issue.

In fact, whether out of such callous political calculations or sincere beliefs, mindless militarism has been a bipartisan majority position in Washington for a half-century, and counting. With the end of the Cold War, its acolytes went searching for a new enemy to serve as a foil. When one emerged, those with aspirations to the presidency fell in line quite easily.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
“Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt,” New York Sen. Clinton stated in her October 2002 speech when voting to authorize a war the White House had already decided to launch for bogus reasons, and which Clinton dutifully endorsed. “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members ... .”

That none of this was true is now airily dismissed by Clinton as the result of her being mislead by “false intelligence.” Yet Clinton had to be aware that the case for Saddam’s WMD and ties to al-Qaida was weak, when not obviously misrepresented. Surely she was in contact with the intelligence and diplomatic sources from her husband’s administration who were telling anyone who would listen that the Bush team was obsessed with invading Iraq.

Leaving aside the absurdity that Democratic senators such as Clinton and ‘04 presidential candidate John Kerry didn’t have the access and means to do the same basic fact-checking of Bush administration claims that independent journalists, intelligence analysts and published skeptics such as ex-arms inspector Scott Ritter undertook, how is that they could have ignored the historical evidence that occupying Iraq with the vague goal of “fostering democracy” was a phenomenally dangerous endeavor? Had Clinton caught the “fever” for invading Iraq that Secretary of State Colin Powell attributed to Vice President Dick Cheney?

If not, Clinton certainly forgot her role as a senator to balance the power of the president, instead blindly following his lead: “I will take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a U.N. resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible,” she said. Yet, when the president clearly broke his word five months later, blindsiding the U.N. inspectors on the ground in Iraq who had found no evidence of WMD, Clinton simply cheered him on.

No, Congress failed to take seriously the obligation built into its constitutionally mandated exclusive power to declare war, and Sen. Clinton’s refusal to admit that is not a minor issue. This paired with her strident support, ever since the invasion of Iraq, for a huge increase in the standing army to fight other wars, including a possible confrontation with Iran, shows a fondness in Clinton for war and bullying adventurism that vastly overshadows her sensible stances on many domestic issues. As Barry Goldwater supporters stated in kicking off the Republican revolution, what we need is a choice, not an echo.

Click here to check out Robert Scheer’s book,
“The Great American Stickup: How Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats Enriched Wall Street While Mugging Main Street.”


Keep up with Robert Scheer’s latest columns, interviews, tour dates and more at www.truthdig.com/robert_scheer.



Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.

Previous item: Danny Goldberg on Antiwar Artistry

Next item: The Perils of Cyberbaggage



New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Bert, February 21, 2007 at 2:09 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I think instead of agonzing over her votes, what she should be pushing for is a nationwide poll, cross-checked 8 ways from zero by independent disinterested third parties, just like they used to check their math at NASA(ref. Apollo 13, that’s an awesome movie), and send forth the pollsters and gather the publics’ opinion in authoritative and effective fashion.

You can build any platform you want, out of whatever you want, or you can find out what it is that the people are thinking that you ostensibly claim to be representing. We, the People, are tired of people making decisions(really really bad ones, at that) in a vacuum devoid of actual input from actual people. Blow out K street while you’re at it, Hillary, all the high-dollar patrons can go ahead and go take a walk and pursue their profiteering elsewhere. Iraq’s a ‘biggie’, and should be treated as such, and hopefully more ‘blog sites like this will cut through the B.S. and get to the heart of the matter…

Report this

By C Bond, February 21, 2007 at 2:04 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Anybody, but anybody, running for election and will not say at the very least that supporting this war was a mistake, should fold up their tents and go home.

Report this

By Christopher Scheer, February 21, 2007 at 2:01 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To Hondo and others who excuse Clinton, Kerry et al for being mislead—go read our book on the subject, “The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq,” written at the war’s launch You can get it on Amazon for a buck, I’ll bet. Or you can go back and read Robert Scheer’s columns from 2002. Or you can read Scott Ritter’s books from before the invasion.

Best of all, read the full National Intelligence Estimate from 2002 on Iraq. Yes, the intelligence services thought Hussein had SOMETHING, but probably just useless old chem stuff—and definitely NO NUKES.

The only people that were “mislead” by the president were those unwilling to scrutinize the b.s., for a variety of reasons (Isreal, “electability,” “bipartisanship,” etc.) which included many Democrats who had been lazily supporting anything that sounded tough on Iraq going back to the Clinton presidency. Who is going to stand up for a rat like Hussein?

It’s one thing to say Bush mislead “regular” Americans, it’s another to portray U.S. senators as such patsies. When Judy Miller and the White House were running around screaming about mushroom clouds plenty of people knew it was baloney, and they knew it because of available facts.

Report this

By Jon B, February 21, 2007 at 1:54 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

sue writes “Dear Mr. Scheer, Why do you pick on just Hillary in your article….Why don’t you just say how you really feel about her. You hate her?, feel threatened by her?”

Please, Bob dealt with facts, not fictions and your post is into fictions and not facts. Hilary did vote for the war. She did ignore reports from Ritter, David Kay, Hans Blix, Ambassador Wilson…....Her vote contributed to thousands of dead GIs and hundreds of thousands dead Iraqis. Don’t they deserve an honest apology and the admission of wrongdoing?

Report this

By Lord Byron, February 21, 2007 at 1:32 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

First off, thank you, Robert Scheer for writing so eloquently (as you always seem to do) concerning your misgivings about Senator Hilary Clinton. Clinton, in my mind, would be the worst pick of the Democrats. As I keep posting, time and time again, (will anyone on Truthdig bother to listen?) Hilary is the biggest wolf in sheep’s clothing to come along in some time. She might be a Democrat but she is no liberal. She’s a mainstream conservative and only dangles her pro-choice position as a carrot stick to the liberal community. In her entire duration as Senator from New York, Clinton has not come out to advocate any challenge to the status quo. She has not come out in favor of single payer health care. She has not come out in favor of decriminalizing marijuana. She has not come out in favor of actually cutting the pentagon budget instead of just escalating it.
I don’t see anything liberal in Hilary Clinton at all. NOTHING. She will never have my vote for the Democratic nomination.

As for Sue and her comments:

<Dear Mr. Scheer, Why do you pick on just Hillary in your article when it can easily sum up just about all in congress who voted “yes”, for the war both Republican and Democrat?>

Sue, Mr. Scheer “picked” on Hillary b/c she is currently designated by the “media at large” as the leading Democratic candidate for President. As such, she should be examined much more closely and that is what Scheer has done. His essay was about Hillary Clinton not “the rest of Congress who voted in favor of Bush’s “war resolution.”

<Do I detect a bit a male chauvinism in those words of yours?>

No male chauvinism whatsoever implied in Mr. Scheer’s piece.  Do I detect a bit of “anality?” coming from you?? 

Hillary Clinton IS NO liberal and is a mainstream CONSERVATIVE who should be a member of the REPUBLICAN PARTY and should BOW OUT of the Presidential race all together.

<Why don’t you just say how you really feel about her. You hate her?, feel threatened by her?>

Why would ANYONE feel threatened by Hillary Clinton???  She’s a WOLF and will support the status-quo to the end!  So far, she’s shown no leadership on the major issues of the day and her stance on Iraq has been piss poor! The only people who should feel threatened by Hillary are the same people who constantly keep “getting it” from the powers that be, namely, the poor, the downtrodden, the exploited, the middle class, etc….


<Possibly she’s a lot smarter than you?>

I highly doubt “smarts” has anything to do with it. Scheer can hold his own when it comes to Hillary. Hillary is the one who has to explain herself and her positions and why she’s voted the way she has. So far, Hillary has been given carte
blanche from the media with the exception of her vote on Iraq. Hillary will not apologize for her vote in Iraq and she was a strong supporter of the invasion once it happened.

I cannot even begin to consider supporting Hillary Clinton until she apologizes for her vote on Iraq, declares it was a mistake, declares that if she could vote all over again she would have opposed Bush’s resolution, and she must come out in support of single payer health care and the decriminalization of marijuana. Otherwise, Hillary is persona non-grata and I eagerly look forward to her bowing out of the 2008 Presidential race.

Report this

By yours truly, February 21, 2007 at 1:21 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

As politics turns more and more into another Celebrity game, isn’t it about time we moved towards direct democracy?  For starters we could vote on certain issues, such as war or peace, single payer versus private health insurance, the size of the military budget (increase by 10%, the same as last year, decrease by 10%, decrease by 50%) and so on and so forth.  Then, the candidate whose positions most closely matched one’s own would get one’s vote.  Better yet, why not do away entirely with representation and decide the issues ourselves.  What’s happening now is that what’s personal and trivial about a candidate (personality, clothes, grammar (or lack of same) often outweigh the pressing issues of the day.  When our nation began the call was for no taxation without representation.  Today shouldn’t it be for no representation at all,  we can do it ourselves?

Report this

By phuk inknowidal, February 21, 2007 at 1:16 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

So long as the Federal Reserve controls the creation of money in this country it matters not one bit which gangster lives in the White House.  Hillary and Bush are two sides of the same coin.

The only person running for president that has addressed that issue of the Fed as far as I know is Rep. Ron Paul.  Because of that I see him as the only legitimate candidate.

Report this

By Big Al, February 21, 2007 at 1:06 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Re: Comment #54665 by Dick on 2/21 at 7:39 am:

“Ms. Clinton has been snared by AIPAC and is obligated to do as Israel wants in the middle east in return for support for her bid for President. Thus, she supports the mayhem there and a USA/Iran war.”
———————-

Yes; that is the sad fact of the matter.

Report this

By Dudeson, February 21, 2007 at 12:59 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This crap proves the old republician provrb, Democrats will always kill off their best candidates.  All we have to do is start the hate train rolling.  When she is out of the headlights Obama will be next. Then——-

Report this

By Gary K, February 21, 2007 at 12:56 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

As a progressive Democrat I will not vote for Hillary under any circumstances whom I consider to be of the same stripe as Lieberman. She’s a power-hungry, scheming, untrustworthy phony. If she becomes the Democratic candidate I will either vote for a suitable third party candidate or I’ll not cast a vote for president.

I truly believe that if she runs we’ll have another four years of a right-wing Republican president. Many Democrats have a very negative opinion about her.

Report this

By Jon B, February 21, 2007 at 12:30 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hilary was not misled. She chose to ignore Ritter, David Kay who was choseb by the whitehouse, Hans Blix and teams of UN inspectors, Ambassador Wilson…..reports.

Report this

By Ron McInnis, February 21, 2007 at 12:12 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The new Thatcher.

Report this

By Sue, February 21, 2007 at 12:09 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Dear Mr. Scheer, Why do you pick on just Hillary in your article when it can easily sum up just about all in congress who voted “yes”, for the war both Republican and Democrat? Do I detect a bit a male chauvinism in those words of yours?
Why don’t you just say how you really feel about her. You hate her?, feel threatened by her? Possibly she’s a lot smarter than you? Most male conservatives and even some liberals do the same thing. This is how I read between the lines of articles like yours.

Report this

By Casey, February 21, 2007 at 12:02 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hillary might not be best candidate for dem nomination, but comparing her to Bush is extreme.  No she didn’t apologize, but would you apologize if you made a decision on false information.  Most of us were uneducated about the details of Iraq before and the start of the war.

We were all given the same basic information from the Bush administration.  At the start of the war a majority of Americans supported his cause.  Do you hear anyone apolgizing for supporting this.  No, and I wouldn’t expect her either.  What about Edwards apologzing?  Or any other democrat?  I don’t even necessilary support Hillary, but I think she is being over-analyzed on this subject because of her gender.

Report this

By johnnyfarout, February 21, 2007 at 11:52 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Personalities are not going to change the nature of the empire. Lying, cheating, and scheming are the ways of the boardrooms and its lawyers, and most all of these characters running around at the top, and vying for attention, are from this echelon of our civilization.  The view from the elitist rungs around the crucible of war decisions in DC is not up for discussion. The war will go on and get larger as the empire “deciders” see opportunities out there for greater control. Afgablamistan will not be unoccupied; Iraq will not be unoccupied; unless the only choice is nuclear winter, and even then those with their fingers on the button will push it if their “freedom” fevered minds are no longer their own. If a human being is brought by brinksmanship to having nuclear winter wipe humanity off planet earth along with most of Gaia’s life force, we should be looking for causes that could make this happen. Here we have otherwise intelligent people making up their minds about world economic realities without compassion for human life. This is what Hillary is saying: Natural resource wars of occupation trump rational humanism. Is the future made better when US corporations run and distribute and control the oil fields of the Middle East in this day of Peak Oil? Is the world a better place if every last goofball irrational Muslim is shot in the head or blown to smithereens in their home towns by profitable free world marketplace munitions? Are our lives enriched when our heads are full of 2 party advertising that no one believes? The 911 Coup in America worked. Inside those cigar smoke filled corridors of power, the ghostly figures in Bilderberger suits, with Federal Reserve Banker’s winks and nods, will not let their ham fisted grip slide easily from the scepter of power, or let an election circus take their fat butts up off the throne. This coming election, I fear, will change little in America, if false flag event planners even let it happen. Not to mention the evidence that national elections are rigged. It’s all entertainment value, and we are seeing how they are going about making sure they are getting the best bang for those mountains of increasingly meaningless dollars.

Report this

By Thomas I Green, February 21, 2007 at 11:37 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Zionist Hillary represents Israel, as does Lieberman, and both do not represent the best interests of America. As Ariel Sharon said: Israel tells America what to do…; and, in this case, Israel has an adept political manipulator in Hillary who is disguised as an American.This is why she became the senator of New York (her Zionist power base) and, as described by the Israeli “Jerusalem Post”: the Clintons are the best ambassadors to the USA that Israel has.

Report this

By Lee Driver, February 21, 2007 at 11:36 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The rabid hondo rides again we see, under the ragged banner of indisputable facts. Doesn’t matter those facts were disputable and weren’t facts at all, any more than that todays new indisputable facts about Iran will turn out the same. Facts shmacks. The Gulf of Tonkin ruse worked, that’s a fact. Another fact is, a relatively small number of us believe if you’re the most powerful military force on the planet and don’t use it to dominate, you’re an idiot. To which Mr. Hondo would undoubtedly subscribe. That’s indisputable. If you can’t get those fools in Teheran to attack like they’re supposed to, then you fake it, of course you do. These are facts and facts don’t lie.

Report this

By Frank, February 21, 2007 at 11:27 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Jim Yell said “The last thing the Republican party ever did that was socially progressive, the President was Lincoln.”

In fairness to the GOP, it was Republicans who appointed the first black male Secretary of State, the first black female Secretary of State, the first latino Attorney General, and various other minority ‘firsts’ in administration positions.

Report this

By Bukko in Australia, February 21, 2007 at 11:06 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hillary is the perfect Republican candidate for the 2008 presidential race. That’s why so many Rethugs like Rupert Murdoch support her. If she was nominated by the Dems, it would come down to a Republican-values woman nominated by the supposed opposition party, and a flawed, fascist without a prayer nominated by the Repigs. Plus, if Hillary heads a ticket, that would give the Publican base something to foam at the mouth about. Two Minutes’ Hate, anyone?

I say forget about who’s going to be president two years from now. AMERICA NEEDS TO GET RID OF THE PRESIDENT IT HAS NOW!!! What are you going to do when you hear the news that your country has started bombing Iran? Because the chain of events that will trigger will cause your economy to collapse. Have you listened to Scott Ritter’s take on the blowback from bombing Iran? Millions of Americans must protest in the streets demanding that the Bush/Cheney Crime Syndicate resign.

World Day of Protest March 17! I’ll be marching in Melbourne. What about you? Better now than after the bombs start falling and the world goes up in flames.

Report this

By kellina, February 21, 2007 at 10:47 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Stop bending over backwards to like this candidate. If she weren’t female, you wouldn’t want anything to do with her, so continuing to support her is a act of sexism.

Move on, already!

Report this

By Doug Tarnopol, February 21, 2007 at 10:41 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

1. To the Christian Conservative (sic?) troll: if you’re defending Hillary now, what does that tell us? Anyone with two working neurons and a knowledge of American foreign policy, resource curves, and the relevant history—and lacking the touching (touched?) naivete necessary to think governments tell the truth (you’re a conservative?)—knew that the Iraq war was a load of crap, with the evidence available at the time.

2. Howard Dean is hobnobbing with the 700 Club, etc., and continuing his loud support of Israel, no matter how destructive to Israel, ourselves, or the rest of the world. Let’s not mix Dean’s supporters with Dean himself. Whatever cojones he had are gone; the DNC gelded him, and he allowed it. Price of getting his e-mail list was DNC chairmanship. And I supported him in 2004.

3. The continuity between Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II is what is striking, not the differences. So, the warmongering is truly bipartisan, and goes back to at least Truman, if not before.

4. Edwards gave a rousing pro-Israel (sic) speech in Israel with all the other American pols, and just got bitch-slapped for speaking aloud that an Israeli nuke strike on Iran is the primary danger today. It is.

5. I’m Jewish, so call off the “anti-Semite” dogs. Bring on the “self-hating” ones.

6. Obama has gone on record supporting Israel (sic) and INCREASING the defense budget. You do the math.

7. Other than Kucinich, who has zero chance and my full support, there isn’t a candidate in either party worth a damn. That Kucinich (or Nader, or anyone else) has “no chance,” despite the clear alignment of such candidates’ positions and Americans’ true interests (out of Iraq; universal health care; etc.)—when not perverted by propaganda—tells you that we are not in a representative democracy. Diebold aside.

8. What to do about it? None of our rights were handed down from above. They were taken, usually with high costs to those who dared to take them. That the streets weren’t full of outraged citizens when NOLA was abandoned tells you a lot about our citizenry. We can’t “shop” for a “leader;” we must organize from below to pressure the leadership (such as it is) to respond. This is possible.

So, stop reading this and get out there! Waiting for a white knight is childish and lazy. Start making financial and other sacrifices TODAY to change any aspect of our system. God knows it’s a “target-rich” environment. Also, there are millions of people who agree with you. Find them.

Best, Doug

Report this

By Don, February 21, 2007 at 10:18 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Can’t agree more with article’s assessment of clinton (Bill, too) as a hawk who would not hesitate to bomb Iran back into the stone age if the occasion presents itself..Would like to know how much of her war chest comes from military-industrial complex.  Also, close ties to aipac indicates also indicates she would be likely to pull the trigger on anyone who threatens Israel and take their side in all disputes with neighbors.

Report this

By epicrumiates, February 21, 2007 at 10:09 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hillary is not the Demoratic Candidate-To-Win for the next Presidential election.  She is only going to contribute to the Democrats not being able to win the next election.
  Furthermore, until I read this article, I thought she would be a solid contender in the Presidential election following the upcoming one.  However, for me at least, she’s off the list since she clearly is a “hawk”—- a blind hawk at that, like the rest of the Republicans and Liebermans.
  If she hasn’t the sense to see the reasons for going to war with Iraq were figments of Bush’s (and his cronies’) imagination and that continuing this war is risking more suffering and death for the Iraqi people (the people we’re supposed to be “liberating” are the same people we are killing and that are being killed) as well as risking initiating a terribly destructive conflict with Iran (which could easily escalate into a world-wide conflict depending on how countries like Russia and China react to the US destroying their oil supply and business interests there), then she’s no different than Bush himself as far as I’m concerned.
  Hillary appears to be willing to do anything and everything it takes, from her perspective, to win the next election.  Hmmmm… seems like a behavioral pattern she’s followed at other times of her life.
  The Democrats are in power now to do at least one thing: get us out of Iraq.  They’re failing miserably to accomplish this objective and Hillary is, it appears, a contributing factor to this failure.

Report this

By John Farbstein, February 21, 2007 at 10:08 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Great article, Mr. Scheer.  Al Gore, Al Gore, Al Gore!!! (for President in 2008)

Report this

By The Saint, February 21, 2007 at 9:44 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It scares me how this Scheer fellow speaks my mind.  I saved great articles from Playboy by him thinking that “the world needs to hear this guy.”  Now I find him here in Truthdig, thanks, Robert. 
I find myself still wishing for Dr. Howard Dean.  I believe that the Republican party nixed him with their powerful spin machine knowing that they wouldn’t be able to push hime around if Preisdent.  I guess he’s gone forever as far as presidential material?

Report this

By Tim, February 21, 2007 at 9:36 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Clinton not unlike McCain will support the military industrial congressional complex and their “any war is good for business” concept in order to hopefully gain the presidency. What happened to politicians who were in office to serve the American PEOPLE!

Report this

By RAE, February 21, 2007 at 9:31 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What frightens me most about the possibility of a President Hillary Clinton is that I think she would likely play the hawk on virtually every issue if, for no other reason, because she would need to “act like a man” to retain any authority/legitimacy with the majority of the voters and power brokers behind the scenes. I bet she’ll quickly discover that she’ll either do what she’s told to do or she’ll soon be sandbagged/sabotaged by those who actually pull the political/financial strings of power. They’ll find some way to get rid of her fast.

Let’s face it folks… the “average man,” socio-culturally speaking, is about 100 years behind the curve. It takes GENERATIONS to change imbedded notions handed down through the family and church. It will be another 100-200 years before the stigma of being a gay person, for example, will disappear.

Society today pays lip service to the “equality of women.” In most corporations the “glass ceiling” is very much a reality. Sure… there are exceptions and things are changing but nowhere nearly as fast as many would like to think.

Hillary faces the fight of her life to get elected. I predict that if she actually does become President, any “fighting” she’s done to date will look like child’s play when she comes up against the likes of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or some foreign Ayatollah or other. They’ll drop a figurative “burka” on her so fast it’ll make her head dizzy.

Report this

By Steve Hammons, February 21, 2007 at 8:56 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Chicken hawks” can be found in many genders, colors and political affiliations.

They can be chicken hawks for personal psychological reasons, financial and war-profiteering motivations and for political purposes.

Hillary Clinton may be affected by all three.

A big part of her political base seems to involve those prone to neoconservative viewpoints.

For more in this, the article referenced below may be of interest:

“Chicken hawks are real and dangerous”

By Steve Hammons
Columnist, PopulistAmerica.com
Populist Party of America
November 26, 2006

http://www.populistamerica.com/chicken_hawks_are_real_and_dangerous

Report this

By norman cressy, February 21, 2007 at 8:52 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Robert—you are one of my heroes in the print media, but I take issue with you on the following quote and your explanation of it: “If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast a vote [to authorize the war] or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from,” she said in New Hampshire last week, confusing contempt for antiwar Americans—now a majority—with the courage of her indefensible conviction that she bears no responsibility for the humanitarian, economic and military disaster our occupation has wrought.
I heard her say it and it was NOT vocalized with an in-your-face attitude. She said it as something that she cannot change and so be it! But, where you truly disappoint me, your admirer, is in not mentioning that Hillary said that if she is president in 2008 she will redeploy the troops OUT OF IRAQ. That’s as close to saying ‘I made a mistake’ she can muster, I believe. Can you accept that?

Report this

By dick, February 21, 2007 at 8:39 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ms. Clinton has been snared by AIPAC and is obligated to do as Israel wants in the middle east in return for support for her bid for President. Thus, she supports the mayhem there and a USA/Iran war.

Report this

By Brent, February 21, 2007 at 8:25 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

America
It is time to vote for a third party,whatever that
may be. If effort is put into this, a third party can win.Even a no confidence vote is better than being made a fool of.Do not vote the lesser of two evils. Your concience is the only true vote.Do the right thing.

Report this

By anonymous, February 21, 2007 at 8:23 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt,”

Cheney couldn’t have said it better. 

Why didn’t Chelsea enlist?

All we need to hear now is how Hillary cleared brush on her day off.

Report this

By Hondo, February 21, 2007 at 8:14 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I NEVER thought I would be in a position to defend Hillary, but here goes!

Hillary was right to support the war. “All available evidence” (contrary to the fiction in the above article) from each and every intelligence agency in the world said that Iraq had a WMD program, that he had WMD’s, that he was in the preliminary stages of establishing ties with other terror organizations, and that he fully intended to attack American targets. All of this was agreed on by President Bush, former President Clinton, former VP (and current sci fi movie mogul) Al Gore, and the chief defense advisors of both administrations.

With all of that in mind, President Bush would have been the worst kind of incompetent to not attack Iraq, and Hillary would have been the worst kind of incompetent had she not supported him. These are the facts and they are beyond dispute. Today, Hillary is being savaged by the lunatic fringe (the Truthdig Brigade) because of the very competent decision she made. You people should be ashamed of yourselves! What am I talking about? A person has to be sane in order to feel shame! Oh well!

Report this

By Hank Van den Berg, February 21, 2007 at 8:12 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Thank you for saying what needs to be said.  Senator Clinton is as closely tied to the military-industrial power base as anyone in Washington.  Clearly, she would be an improvement over the current administration, but in terms of our overseas posture and actions, probably not nearly as much of an improvement as the current dismal situation demands.  I only hope that the next year or so will reveal good alternative candidates who are more intelligent, clear in their convictions, and independent.  We should be encouraged by the impressive rise in the polls by Senator Obama, who is both intelligent and a Constitutional law expert.  Or, perhaps it is the time to bring back Al Gore, whose has had 8 years to rise above the muck of Washington.  Senator Clinton, on the other hand, would probably end up being little more than yet another “least objectionable” candidate.

Report this

By steve binder, February 21, 2007 at 8:01 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I cancelled the L.A. Times the day they fired Scheer. I’m in total agreement with today’s column and am looking at Edwards and Obama for my choice in ‘08.

Report this

By Stan Carter, February 21, 2007 at 7:59 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What scares me about this is, if you believe as i do, that Hillary has already been ‘chosen’ (a decade ago) to be the coming President… and the public disgust the Americans and the world has for this war…

Hillary’s ‘so what’ attitude, seems to make a stronger case for another false-flag event leading up to the elections. Perhaps Iranian in nature?

Report this

By Paul, February 21, 2007 at 7:49 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Why did 20+ Senators, and one independent, vote against the IWR and not Hillary Clinton?
What did they know that she didn’t or what did she know that they didn’t?
I fear Senator Clinton is trying to appease her Jewish constituency in New York with an appearance of toughness against foes of Israel.
This will hurt her. I don’t believe she “gets it” in terms of the impact of this war on the psyche of the American people.

Report this

By Lee Driver, February 21, 2007 at 7:45 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hillary knows you don’t get to play in the big ball game unless you give a nod of obeisance to who “the men in the shadows are.” There are some pretty unsavory types walking the corridors of power, who, if not paid respect, will hurt you. This is our predicament. The real reformers of high mind in the game of politics, get sidelined early.

Report this

By Jim Yell, February 21, 2007 at 7:33 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The last thing the Republican party ever did that was socially progressive, the President was Lincoln. I believe in social progressive government and once thought that for all her faults Hillary was a social progressive,as a Democratic Candidate should be. Still I had doubts about the Clintons even before her husband became President—voted for him the first time and 3rd party candidate the second time.

Until she became a Hawk I was thinking, as I do before plunging into a really cold pool, she won’t be so bad, but I think the Democratic Party can do so much better and I don’t think the novelty of a Female President is enough to transcend the opportunistic, narcissim of the Clintons. Let’s hope a more Democratic and peaceful candidate comes to the fore.

Report this

By Vajara, February 21, 2007 at 7:31 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Goodbye, Hillary, you have lost my vote and many others who thought you might make some sense out of useless war mongering and endangering our troops, families and Iraqis.

I suggest that Hillary turn over her war chest to Obama. What a disappointment for our first potential woman to become president of our country.

Report this

By Roy Snell, February 21, 2007 at 7:27 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Clinton’s position on the Iraq war should really be no suprise.  The driving force behind this misbegotten war is OIL.  Our economy is totally oil dependant.  Corporate America, whom the Clintons are solidly behind (NAFTA anyone), ordered up this war to secure access to one of the world’s last large oil reserves.

Report this

By Doug Tarnopol, February 21, 2007 at 7:19 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Amen, Robert!

Report this

By cadence, February 21, 2007 at 7:10 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What annoys me about Hillary is that she and the rest of those who “support the war”—despite the falsity of prewar justifications for the invasion—refuse to announce the real reasons why they support the war.  They offer these cloudy, distracted soundbites, like “protecting our way of life,”  or “bringing freedom and democracy to Irag,” but those sound like what they are:  non-reasons for continuing a war without end. 

I believe that the real reason for the war, which underpins even Ms. Hillary’s support for it, is global domination.  I’m serious—not just oil, not just support for Israel, not Bush wanting revenge for his father.  These people, like Condeleeza Rice, support this war because they are engaged in a global struggle for world power, against Russia and China, each of whom have superior cultural and geographical access to the vast natural energy reserves in the middle east, particularly the Caspian region.  Without US control of those resources, it would be possible for another superpower to rise.  Bill Clinton supported control of those resources, so it is no surprise that Hillary does too. 

I earnestly wish that those who support this war would get clear about why they have and continue to support it, and quit blathering on about freedom and demonizing the people of the middle east.  It is disingenuous and does all the world a great disservice.  For Ms. Hillary, it might even be restorative—if she would get off her highhorse and come clean about her understanding of deep foreign policy, she might even be perceived as a truly honest politician.  Because it should be clear even to her that the people who will consider voting for her do not buy the crap justifications for the war that she and others have been relying upon.

Not that understanding the why of the war helps much.  But war is a human affliction.  Maybe if all the world understood the “WHY,” we could achieve a peaceful settlement.  Say, share the oil until we have enough solar?

Report this

By Christopher Robin, February 21, 2007 at 6:50 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hillary never suffered from humility.

“Yet, when the president clearly broke his word five months later, blindsiding the U.N. inspectors on the ground in Iraq who had found no evidence of WMD, Clinton simply cheered him on.”

^ Yes, less we forget.

“New Democrats” RIP Cash and carry politics is running the country down the tubes.

Report this

By Mark & Donna Anderson, February 21, 2007 at 6:37 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Regarding Hillary’s stand on the “Iraq war”, or more accurately the Iraq invasion and occupation: 
In her most recent newsletter Hillary talks about her “Roadmap out of Iraq”.  After a recent visit to Iraq she says she came back even more determined to stop the presidents escalation of troops and has introduced to Congress her Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction Act.  She also says that she has been pushing the phased redeplyment of troops out of Iraq for two years. She invites her readers to get more details about her plan by watching Friday’s HillCast:  http://www.hillaryclinton.com/hillcast

There seems to be a discrepancy here.  Your comments . . .

Report this

By Victor Berry, February 21, 2007 at 5:45 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It’s obvious that John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, et al who supported Bush’s pre-emptive war resolution in 2002 were doing so for purely political reasons.  Even I thought it was a good political maneuver for those thinking ahead to the 2004 presidential campaign.

Well, it was wrong to think you could politically cozy up to Hitler or Hirohito and protect your right flank from attack.  Decorated Vietnam veteran Kerry was “swift-boated” as a military coward, while the Texas Air National Guard deserter was re-elected commander in chief of all US military forces.

As much as I think I would like to see Hillary win the election, she scares me on her hawkish pro-AIPAC views of the Middle East.  Hillary would start wars for the same reason as Bush ... to prove to themselves that they have a pair!

Report this

By Ken Mitchell, February 21, 2007 at 5:20 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Let’s also not forget that She got heaps of praise for her pro-war stand from Bill O’Reilly

Report this

By Big Al, February 21, 2007 at 4:27 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Fine. She has chosen to serve AIPAC rather than America.

Report this

By George N. Spitz, February 21, 2007 at 2:32 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The 2002 Iraq war vote provides a convenient diversion for politicians, particularly Senators Clinton, Obama and Edwards, who seek to avoid the question of how to bring to an end US endless wars of choice, particularly but not exclusively those started since World War II.  That war was the only one in our history not initiated by the United States. In fact, if Woodrow Wilson had not frivolously intervened in a stalemated World War I, which in early 1917 was in the process of winding down with no winners or losers, it is likely that the now virtually pacifist states of Continental Europe, France Germany and Italy etc., would have realized at an earlier date, as Sweden did in 1809, the futility of war, Consequently, there would have been no empowered Adolf Hitler and, thus, no World War II.

Peace groups such as Americans Against Escalation serve as partisan fronts for moderately left of center Democrats who seek to capture the White House without promising to cease or apologize for perpetual US participation in foreign wars. Embarrassingly, military involvement in Korea, Vietnam and Serbia, and especially World War I, commenced during Democratic presidencies.

What would be useful now is a presidential candidate willing to pledge against any US initiated foreign wars. Since this seems unlikely at present, the best alternative may be to elect as many delegates as possible committed to fighting for no compromise antiwar platforms at the Democratic and Republican conventions in 2008.

Report this

By Ken Greenberg, February 21, 2007 at 2:15 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What amazes is why Dick Morris is so vehemently anti-Hilary.  Never mind Bill; they clearly sleep in the same bed.

Report this

By Nima, February 21, 2007 at 2:09 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I couldn’t agree more.  Not that I was much of a fan of hers to begin with.  But she’s been a complete disappointment in every respect so far.

Report this

By Jackie T. Gabel, February 21, 2007 at 1:34 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Bill gets the Clintons’ Marching Orders when he checks in at Bilderberg meets. There’s no mystery to this. NWO calls the shots.

Support for the Strausian strangeloves who’ve damn near tossed the whole table is dwindling fast. They’re going down, probably by the claw that feeds them, but it’s a shame their treason couldn’t catch up with them first. Really a shame because the nation needs it.

NWO operatives will continue to run the global show, just as they did under Bill. They’ll likely enlist Hillary to keep down the rabble at home and she’ll let NWO install a less ham-fisted gang to run their black-ops/psy-ops while her staff manages the PR.

Report this

By Squirtapotamus, February 21, 2007 at 1:15 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Yes, yes, enough already with Hillary’s war vote.  She can defend that vote all she wants, it doesn’t matter.  What does matter is Hillary’s vote for the Military Commision Act of last year.  There’s no defending this vote.  She has empowered Bush and company to commit crimes against humanity by granting W the power to deny any person in thie world a 1000 year old right to Habeas Corpus.

Report this

By DeanOR, February 21, 2007 at 1:00 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Even if we were to grant that her statements about intelligence at the time were correct, which I dispute, she still cast a vote allowing preventive war with a country that even she could not claim, on her own terms, was a threat to the US, especially an immediate threat.
She (and Kerry) can not be accused of voting for a declaration of war, for that is not what it was, but they chose to trust Bush, an untrustworthy person, with the power that no one should be trusted with, the authority to launch preventive war.
Many of us at the time felt that was a great mis-judgment. Kerry at least became a critic of the war. Hillary, if we assume that she means what she says, is a danger to world peace because she still will not repudiate the preventive war doctrine of Bush/Cheney.
This does not mean that all other Democratic candidates are in the clear. Some of them still talk about “all options on the table”, which logically has to include the current policy of preemptive/preventive war unless they say otherwise. And they are smart enough to know that preventive war is not the only “military option”, but they conflate giving up the “all options” bluster with pacifism; this is unacceptable obfuscation and gives us no reason to trust that they would be much of an improvement over Bush/Cheney.
Unless they have the courage to repudiate the stated official Bush unilateral preemptive (actually preventive) war power of the President, they are promising to continue the same old “mindless militarism (which) has been a bipartisan majority position in Washington for a half-century, and counting.”
John “all options” Edwards, this includes you. Just saying you are in favor of diplomacy is not enough. Listen to Jim Webb and Wes Clark, two Democrats with vastly more military experience than you have who repudiate the Bush doctrine. Tell us which branch has the power to start a war. Tell us you don’t believe in preventive war. Tell us that aggressive, unilateral war is illegal. Tell Iran the same thing, now.

Report this

By TAO Walker, February 21, 2007 at 12:26 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hillary Clinton’s presidential ambitions could go absolutely nowhere unless she’d irrevocably signed-on to what another regular commenter on this site calls the “New World Oligarchy”‘s program for global domination and homeland dictatorship.  She gives every indication of being a congenital control freak anyway, so the new centurions’ authoritarian “project” is no doubt right up her…..alley?

Anyone who has yet to realize the “political process” here is just another shell-game, probably is already too far gone in their delusions to ever catch-on at all.  Few if any among the domesticated peoples appear to recognize they are caught in the end-game phase of a process that has been running here on Earth for around ten thousand years….with soon the “ultimate sacrifice” of eighty-to-ninety percent of them called for as a pre-requisite to the establishment at last of a “thousand-year Reich.”

This end-times “script” has been in the public domain for maybe one hundred sixty Jeffersonian “generations.”  Those who’ve been dismissing it as nothing but the wet dream of feckless flocks of religious fanatics must not be paying attention, because the entire “record” of human civilization (more accurately, domestication) runs relentlessly to right here, right now, with exactly this existing “set” of circumstances and conditions as its gaol….uh, goal. 

An H.R.C. administraion would be nothing but a blurred mile-marker just before the last exit to perpetual Hell-on-Earth.  She herself, along with many of her fella and gal fingerpuppets, will almost certainly wind-up as roadkill before the wreckage finally comes to-rest.

So maybe Hillary was only revealing that voting for her, or one of the “others to choose from,” isn’t going to make a damned bit of difference in the way it all plays-out anyhow….in the final end.  When the marquee names start giving the game away it’s a sure sign the insider bets are all down, and it’s only the designated losers (just about everybody else trapped in the civilized world) who don’t know the fix is in.

Now might be a good time for the domesticated breeds to take a good hard look at what’s actually lurking out past the end of their stone-ground noses.  It ain’t a pretty picture, but at least has the advantage of offering a glimpse of the natural living arrangement from which they’ve been kept so carefully cut-off for such a long time.  Their chances there may’ve become rather iffy, but still remain better than the absolute zero guaranteed them where they are today.

HokaHey!

Report this

By oregoncharles, February 20, 2007 at 11:42 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The last two Presidential elections have demonstrated one thing beyond a doubt:  right-wing Democrats aren’t worth nominating, supporting, or voting for, because THEY LOSE (or they don’t win by nearly enough, like Al Gore.)  So even if your main goal is just to avoid electing a Democrat, they aren’t a good bet.

I say this as someone who wasted his vote in ‘04 - on John Kerry.  Hillary Clinton is just like him.  (BTW, we have it from Scott Ritter that he personally told Kerry there were no WMD’s in Iraq, before the crucial committee vote on the authorization.  Kerry not only voted for it, but refused to put Ritter before the committee.)

As a Green, I hope the Democrats do nominate Sen. Clinton in ‘08:  we will then face a contest between unelectables - no Republican will be electable.  With other parties and movements jumping into the free-for-all, that will be the best thing that could happen to us, and a vivid demonstration that our electoral system is unworkable.

Or, you can just take Hillary’s own advice.

Report this

By moe thompson, February 20, 2007 at 11:38 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

robert scheer ,  are you really sure about what you have just written ??? seems to me you might be reading to much right wing into this….

Report this

By John Weinell, February 20, 2007 at 11:33 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It is reasonable for Senator Clinton to assert that she was mislead by “false intelligence.” It would be more accurate, however, to characterize the situation as “lied to by the Bush administration.” The intelligence was not only false, it was known to be false. If Senator Clinton focused on the overwhelming evidence that Bush manufactured a pretext for his war of choice, she could effectively solicit the antiwar vote without apologizing for her mistaken vote. Congress should rescind their authorization for war since it was garnered under false assumptions. The war in Iraq is immoral. There were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. There was no justification for preemptive invasion of a sovereign nation that posed no threat to our country. By reliable accounts, Bush is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians and over three thousand brave American soldiers. He has squandered the good name and reputation of our nation as well as three quarters of a trillion dollars. He has violated international law, the Geneva Convention and the Constitution of the United States. I am prepared to forgive Senator Clinton for her mistaken vote if she votes correctly on impeachment.

Report this

By not my chosen candidate but, February 20, 2007 at 11:31 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

at least she’s upfront.

Report this

By rowdy, February 20, 2007 at 11:27 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

if this self serving bitch gets the demo nomination,i will stay at home and not vote. everyone else feeling the same as i should contact her campaign and say so. i have done so, many times.

Report this

By Jon B, February 20, 2007 at 11:22 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hilary Clinton’s vote for Iraq war is a display of monumental incompetency. Her defensive stubboness and inability to admit her wrongdoing
is downright obnoxious and outright callous. Lets not forget her vote costs thousands of dead GIs and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis including children and woman as well as women in Chelsea Clinton’s age.

For the sake of this nation, Hilary Clinton should disqualify herself from the candidacy.

Hilary, your ego means nothing. US of A means everything.

Report this

By Marshall, February 20, 2007 at 11:00 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Robert, I don’t know why you’d place a priority on a President’s gender to begin with when their politics and capabilities should decide suitability.  But while you cast the Clinton administration advisors as staunch doves in hindsight, you leave out the simple fact that the US policy of regime change towards Iraq was instituted by the Clinton administration itself.  It had already drawn up a plan to do it by force, and the male Clinton repeated the same Iraq damning refrain before the invasion that Bush did, based on intelligence that had change little since his bombing of Iraq in 1998.  The Oct. NIE document was believed by all but a few like Ritter to be valid, and two bipartisan Senate committees have since found no evidence that the administration misled Congress to the war.  Yes - it WAS faulty intelligence.

Report this

By Carl Baydala, February 20, 2007 at 10:56 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The woman represents the State of New York. The Jewish vote matters. ” All politics is local ” dictates support for the war as a given.

Maybe the strong war posturing is just doing what Johnson did as the article states; keeping the critics at bay. Perhaps she is just trying to avoid the massacre that will befall her if she becomes too ’ liberal ‘, especially during times of war.

Finally, I think the lady is simply trying too hard, trying too hard to be political. She is trying to get things right and to be on the right side of the issues and influence the people that really do the hiring in these presidential elections. In this process though I think she fails. She makes the same mistake really as Kerry and all the rest; she supports the right wing agenda and in the process looks weak and exposes a lack of leadership

Report this

Page 2 of 2 pages  <  1 2

 
Monsters of Our Own Creation? Get tickets for this Truthdig discussion of America's role in the Middle East.
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Zuade Kaufman, Publisher   Robert Scheer, Editor-in-Chief
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook