Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton took the debate over Libya to a new low yesterday. (For full disclosure, I am lead counsel representing members challenging the constitutionality of the Libyan War). Clinton is largely responsible for entering the United States in another undeclared war. She is now dismissing all of the constitutional and fiscal concerns of members and publicly asking members “Whose side are you on?”
It is a case of hoisting the wretch to silence one’s critics.
The not-so-veiled threat is directed to House members who want to cut off funding for the war — who will now be accused of supporting Gaddafi. It is an approach taken by others. In a recent bizarre debate I had with Abraham Sofaer of the ultra-conservative Hoover Institute, Sofaer continued to push aside the constitutional and statutory problems with the war by repeatedly reminding listeners what a bad guy Gaddafi is. Sound familiar? It is precisely what the Bush Administration did in pushing us into the disastrous Iraq War. Clinton was one of those Senators who went along in approving the action (and later insisted that she had been misled). Back then it was Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction. The legalities and logic of the war were quickly pushed aside by the power of personality.
She may succeed. Not willing to appear pro-Gaddafi, Senators are moving to give Obama post-hoc authorization. Senators Kerry and McCain are pushing to give Obama the authorization that he never asked for — and is still not asking for. It is a rather pathetic display of the Congress desperately trying to appear relevant — even when a president is saying that it is not.
The technique of guilt by association is a time tested approach. Any high school student will tell you that the only thing as successful of pressuring kids to be “in with the in crowd” is to say that if they are not they are sweet on the ugliest or most unpopular kid in class. Next we will hear the State Department spokesman taunting members of being “up in the tree” with Gaddafi “K-I-S-S-I-N-G.” Either you give us the money for an undeclared war or you are BFF to Gaddafi.
Here is the answer for the Secretary of State — we are on the side of the Constitution. Jamaica.
Source: AP
And Buddha,
You were the first that I know of to regularly call for throwing in Obama with the Bush torture crowd for aiding and abetting. I’m finally in your camp.
Props : )
Nate,
I know you were talking to Tony, but I found nothing wrong with your previous comment other than the “front row” thing. She may be an enabler, but she’s not a front row treasonous criminal like Cheney and his ilk. But the rest of your comment was spot on. She’s used her platform and skills to enable those who would keep this country engaged in a perpetual war for their profits instead of using said platform and skills in the name of justice. She’s a sellout without question, but compared to the war criminals proper, she’s purely minor league material. Revolting in many ways, but still not a major player.
Mr. C,
Just thought I’d say I respect you.
And I feel sorry about my last post concerning Hillary Clinton. I don’t know why, I have almost an allergic reaction to her. Somewhere deep inside, I find her revolting. It’s the only person I know of that has that affect on me.
I don’t wanna be like that so I’ll get to work on fixing myself.
Under the current campaign graft and restrictive ticket laws, I too believe a third party can have limited efficacy at best. But a 501(c)(3) corporation is a different deal altogether if properly utilized. Especially a true grass roots movement using one as an advocacy platform. And I say true grassroots to contrast it with MoveOn. While somewhat effective, they are crippled in many ways by their close association with Soros who to many appears to be just another wealthy special interest and can be portrayed as such by enemies of the agenda of MoveOn or personal enemies of Soros (the two not being mutually exclusive categories). To be effective and to possibly transition to a viable third party role, such an advocacy group must not have any “special patrons” of any sort in their appearance and presentation. It must in some ways be formless. But in strategy, the 501 tactic is analogous to fighting fire with fire. I have some ideas on how to set this up, but I’m not sure I want to discuss them in a public forum just yet.
(Posting to subscribe.)
@Blouise, Buddha: On Tactics
I believe it is impossible for a third party to win. Perhaps a Congressional seat here and there, perhaps even a governorship, but for the most part the game is Soooo rigged that there is only one viable alternative: Take over an existing party. The Tea Party executed this strategy with the Republicans; doing the one thing politicians truly fear: They basically said, “The hell with voting for the lesser of two evils, we’re voting for our ideologues, even if that splits the party, even if they are destined to lose, even if Democrats will win, we are voting for our ideologues.”
The fact is, there is no blueprint or contract for what makes somebody a “Democrat” or a “Republican.” For us progressive liberals, the idea would be to run as a NEW BRAND of Democrats with a new name (positive sounding, not “against” something). The brand should connotate a belief in the modern Constitution without exception; a belief in the rule of law, a belief in the seperation of powers, etc.
The constitution says nothing about social programs, taxes, welfare, or anything else we believe in, so we can advocate for those things and still be 100% commited to the Constitution.
The key, however, is to run a primary and get on the ticket as the “Democratic” candidate. That satisfies the approx 80% of the population that is so superficial that it will only vote for one of the major parties.
Whatever we call ourselves, the ABC Democrats or whatever (ABC doesn’t mean anything, I just now made it up as a placeholder and that isn’t the name we should use), we run somebody that pounds it in; “I am a Democrat and I believe in ABC!” and, “I am an ABC Democrat!”
Just like the opportunists on the Republican side call themselves “Tea Party Republicans.” What we do is add a LABEL to the existing party, say screw off to the actual corrupted Democrats, and start electing ABC Democrats all over the map until we have enough to demand changes.
The big difference between us and the Tea Party, and the reason we can be more successful than they are, is we actually have logic, science and arithmetic on our side and they simply do not. So don’t try to start a third party: Do the easy thing, and start a new flavor of Democrat that appeals to the left 55% of voters, which I think is eminently possible.
Swarthmore mom,
I’ve read the Taibbi article, but thanks for pointing me back in its direction — it was worth a second read… (Regarding a possible Hillary/Bachmann matchup, even if Bachmann wins in 2012 — and may God (or someone) help us if she does — someone (presumably) will run against her in 2016…, if the world as we now know it still exists…)
From the Taibbi article:
Even other Republicans, it seems, are making the mistake of laughing at Bachmann. But consider this possibility: She wins Iowa, then swallows the Tea Party and Christian vote whole for the next 30 or 40 primaries while Romney and Pawlenty battle fiercely over who is the more “viable” boring-white-guy candidate. Then Wall Street blows up again — and it’s Barack Obama and a soaring unemployment rate versus a white, God-fearing mother of 28 from the heartland.
It could happen. Michele Bachmann has found the flaw in the American Death Star. She is a television camera’s dream, a threat to do or say something insane at any time, the ultimate reality-show protagonist. She has brilliantly piloted a media system that is incapable of averting its eyes from a story, riding that attention to an easy conquest of an overeducated cultural elite from both parties that is far too full of itself to understand the price of its contemptuous laughter. All of those people out there aren’t voting for Michele Bachmann. They’re voting against us. And to them, it turns out, we suck enough to make anyone a contender.
Anon nurse, I don’t think Bachmann is waiting until 2016. She is now polling in second place in Florida and first in some national polls. She could be unstoppable. Did you read what Matt Taibbi said about her?
I have your support hanging in my, my, my.
Running OT…
Thursday, Jun 23, 2011 05:24 ET
by Glenn Greenwald
Climate of Fear: Jim Risen v. the Obama administration
Excerpt:
For someone who has no real interest in challenging government claims or undermining official actions, these policies will have no direct, perceptible effect. It’s always true that those who are supportive of institutions of authority or who otherwise have no interest in challenging them are never targeted by measures of this sort; why would they be? That’s why supporters of all Presidents — Republicans during the Bush years and now Democratic loyalists under Obama — are rarely disturbed by such developments.
Along with the apathetic, who by definition pose no threat to anyone, prominent cheerleaders for the President and his party, who labor every day to keep them in power, are the last ones who will be subjected to such programs. Obviously, nobody in the Obama administration is monitoring the phone calls at the Center for American Progress or ones placed to the large stable of columnists, bloggers and TV stars who daily spout White House talking points or devote each day to attacking the President’s political opponents. That’s why purported civil liberties concerns manifest only when the other party is in power, but vanish when their own is. Partisan loyalists are indifferent to their leader’s ability to deter dissent; if anything, they’re happy that their party’s leader wields such power and can use it against political adversaries.
But for anyone who is engaged in meaningful dissent from and challenge to government officials — the Jim Risens and other real investigative reporters, the Thomas Drakes and other whistleblowers, the WikiLeaks supporters, the Midwest peace activists — these prosecutions and these ever-expanding surveillance, detention and even assassination powers are inevitably intimidating. Regardless of how those powers are used or even whether they are, they will, as Risen put it, have “a chilling effect” on the exercise of core freedoms. As Risen explained in his Affidavit, even if Brian Ross’ story turned out to be false, the mere claim by anonymous officials that the phone records of journalists are being monitored — combined with threats of prison for their sources and even for reporters who are subpoenaed — means “the Government further contributed to creating an atmosphere of fear for journalists who publish stories about national security and intelligence issues.”
The most odious aspect of this Climate of Fear is that it fundamentally changes how the citizenry thinks of itself and its relationship to the Government. A state can offer all the theoretical guarantees of freedom in the world, but those become meaningless if citizens are afraid to exercise them. In that climate, the Government need not even act to abridge rights; a fearful populace will voluntarily refrain on its own from exercising those rights.
Nobody wants to believe that they have been put in a state of fear, that they are intimidated, so rationalizations are often contrived: I don’t perceive any violations of my rights because there’s nothing I want to do that I’m not able to do. Inducing a fearful population to refrain from exercising rights — as it convinces itself no such thing is happening — is a far more effective, and far more pernicious, means of suppressing freedoms. That’s what a Climate of Fear uniquely enables. The vast National Security and Surveillance State has for decades been compiling powers — and eroding safeguards and checks — devoted to the strengthening of this climate, and the past two-and-a-half years have seen as rapid and concerted intensification as any other period one can recall. Read Jim Risen’s Affidavit if you doubt that.
end excerpt
SwM,
It is difficult to remain sane in a politically insane situation. You need that trip home!
anon nurse,
The trip is getting better and better, though I’m thinking of taking the train to Chicago where I will meet up with SwM and we will visit, incognito, a bar that employs the best bartender and order a “Creepy Uncle”.
Hillary has a married daughter and the possibility of grandchildren … there’s all kinds of good she can do through her husband’s foundation. However, the presidential virus, once caught, never goes away.
Hey, until Feb. of this year, he was our BFF! Is this a lovers quarrel? Must we the people take sides in the divorce? Can’t we still love both halves of the couple? I love Obama and I love Gaddafi too! They just can’t split up like this! They were made for each other.
Oh, about that humanitarian kinetic action not happening in Bahrain?
Blouise, I would go. They are saying Obama listened to Biden not Petraeus concerning the draw down in Afghanistan. The political landscape is grim here as Perry and the tea party are in control. Ohio is a must win for the democrats.
“It is the overweening hubris of the Beltway Foreign Policy Establishment that they are the only “serious” people and the only ones in the ‘know.'” (Mike Spindell)
I have long contended that the Beltway Box is one of our greatest vulnerabilities in all areas and, although I did not support the Presidential nomination of Obama, I did think that he would be able to think outside that Box … obviously, I was wrong.
Blouise,
Trust you’re enjoying your trip… I hope so…
Blouise and Swarthmore mom,
It wouldn’t surprise me a bit if Hillary packs it in and moves on to something else in 2016, or sooner… It’s hard to say… But as you say, Blouise, we’d be wrong to “rule her out”…
Buddha,
Tony C had some interesting comments regarding tactics … I just can’t remember from which thread … maybe he’ll see this and repeat himself.
The saddest thing is I believe tha she believes it. It is the overweening hubris of the Beltway Foreign Policy Establishment that they are the only “serious” people and the only ones in the “know.” The truth, as old as humanity, is that those thinking inside an intellectual box may be intelligent, but are woefully ignorant when it comes to making intelligent choices. It cannot be any other way, since to be limited by dogma, limits ones ability to react to situations effectively.
anon nurse and SwM,
I don’t know about Hillary and 2016 …. she’s sending out emails to finish paying off her old campaign debt with no mention of future … it’s possible, of course … I never rule her out.
Off track a bit… “Yes” to what Mike A. said…