Advance copies of Hillary Clinton’s new book have been distributed and the book has already created a buzz over her statements about the Iraq War, Bergdahl, and other subjects. In a statement that will be viewed as many as “too little and too late,” Clinton now says that her support for the Iraq war (and vote for the war as a Senator) was a mistake. At the time of the Iraq war, many of us opposed the vote and called on Clinton and her colleagues to hold real, substantive hearings on the war. With the exception of Russ Feingold, the members refused and eagerly jumped on the band wagon for war. After all, the war was popular and the polls were with Clinton. Then the war became unpopular, the reasons for the war exposed as untrue, and Clinton’s position began to change. She tried to offer a nuanced answer while running for President in 2008, but avoided an admission of fault or mistake on her part (as opposed to others). Now, she is coming out and offering a type of “oops, my bad.” At the same time, she has moved to separate herself from the backlash over the Bergdahl trade. With some 44 percent of Americans opposed to the trade (and only around 29 percent supporting the trade), Clinton wants no part of the scandal and insists that she was steadfastly opposed to any trade for Taliban. At the same time, Clinton has publicly stated that she and Bill also faced hard times after leaving office. It seems that when they were “dead broke” while living in the large home in New York and worried (like so many families) of how to cover tuition costs and the mortgage.
The logic on Capitol Hill has long been that votes for wars like Iraq are the safe choice for politicians since the costs of appearing unpatriotic would have greater costs. Moreover, the view in Washington is that Americans have a short attention span and you can always express regret later or blame the prior administration. While thousands of Americans are dead or severely wounded, the war can be treated as something in the past when we need to look to the future.
For those families, Clinton’s new admission is unlikely to erase the anger:
“Many senators came to wish they had voted against the resolution. I was one of them. As the war dragged on, with every letter I sent to a family in New York who had lost a son or daughter, a father or mother, my mistake (became) more painful. . . . I thought I had acted in good faith and made the best decision I could with the information I had. And I wasn’t alone in getting it wrong. But I still got it wrong. Plain and simple.”
Of course, it ignores the objections at the time that Clinton and others were unwilling to even listen to objections over the failure to address constitutional problems over another undeclared war. She also ignored demands for substantive hearings that might have revealed that there was no real evidence of weapons of mass destruction. These calls were ignored because the members did not want to hear anything that would make it difficult for them to vote for a popular war. It was at best willful blindness and can only be defined as “good faith” if one ignores the concerted effort to avoid countervailing information in the rush for war.
For those of us who opposed the war, the revision of history by those responsible for it is not short of maddening. In September 2005, Clinton began to re-position herself and blamed the Bush Administration for her vote. That was three years into the war when the polls were falling. She continued this theme in 2008 in her presidential run. She did not however come clean about being mistaken. She however adds “I wasn’t alone in getting it wrong.” That is not exactly the “buck stops here” attitude when it comes over a decade too late and shares blame with others.
Having offered the admission on Iraq, Clinton proceeds to throw Obama under a bus on Bergdahl. She makes clear that she was against the now unpopular trade and that she made clear “that opening the door to negotiations with the Taliban would be hard to swallow for many Americans after so many years of war.” She also said that Obama ignored her call to arm the Syrian rebels and that they might have been able to overthrow the regime. She wanted action and portrays Obama as timid: “[T]he risks of both action and inaction were high. Both choices would bring unintended consequences. The President’s inclination was to stay the present course and not take the significant further step of arming rebels. No one likes to lose a debate, including me. But this was the President’s call and I respected his deliberations and decision.”
So there you have it. She was “wrong” on the war but not alone but do not blame me for Bergdahl or Syria. It is called a political pivot.
If that reinvention is does not take, Hillary also appears to be making a pitch to struggling American families that she knows their pain because she and Bill were “dead broke” after leaving the White House. In an interview with ABC, Hillary details the harrowing reality that followed their departure from the White House: “We came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt. We had no money when we got there, and we struggled to, you know, piece together the resources for mortgages, for houses, for Chelsea’s education. You know, it was not easy.” For a candidate who has had persistent problems with authenticity, this is not going to help.
Of course, unlike most Americans, Bill Clinton immediately started a speaking tour that brought in millions, including some fees from questionable associations. Also the Clintons were able to call upon fundraiser Terry McAuliffe (now, the governor of Virginia) to secure a loan for a $1.7 million home in Chappaqua, N.Y. Hillary Clinton has pulled in the same huge fees after leaving office as we previously discussed. This includes half of a million dollars from Goldman Sachs in less than a week. The weird math that allows the Clintons to claim to be “dead broke” is that they had legal fees from their time in the White House. However, no one seriously expected these Democratic firms to pursue the Clintons for payment and donors quickly worked to pay off that debt. Those bills were entirely paid off by 2004 by donors eager to help the Clintons.
It is not clear if this will remake Clinton into a new image of a struggling mother and peace advocate, but many in Washington believe that American voters have the memory of a golden retriever puppy. They will have to. The Democrats have been pushing Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton to a public that is calling for an end to the duopoly of the two parties and a break from the Washington establishment. It will be interesting to see if the next book paints Biden as an outsider in Washington. In any case, the campaign has clearly begun and, despite even liberals wanting to see Hillary face a primary challenge, the Democratic Party appears to be treating her nomination as a done deal.
Source: Politico
If she’ll lie about enduring sniper fire with her child, just what is it that she won’t lie about?
Oops. Apparently she wasn’t lying 🙂
I want someone from outside politics. Someone who has built something in their life. Someone who truly looks upon this country as exceptional and will restore the American Dream stolen from our children and grandchildren by the duopoly. The dream was there for me and I grabbed it, having my own business for 30 years. I’m comfortable. I don’t want this person to be on a duopoly ticket. And, I don’t know how many times I need to explain to you the difference between the Libertarian party and libertarians. I know you are not stupid, so there must be some other agenda. You are a hardcore duopollist. Like all of those who have bowed to the duopoly, you would rather have “those other guys” win than see more legit choices. You fear the change. I pray for it.
How many wars did Elizabeth Warren lie us into?
How many US troops were killed because of these lies?
… Of course Hillary will platform on Foreign Policy.
Max-1 – the better question would be how many lies did Elizabeth Warren tell to get where she is? And does that set a pattern for the future?
nick, Bill could charm anyone and she can’t so maybe that is to her credit. Now I have a serious question for all you libertarians, republicans, tea partyers. Y’all are good at running down Obama, Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, and Biden, but you never mention the name of an admirable person that you would like to see make the run on either the libertarian or republican party ticket.
Queen Hillary had an unscripted moment of truth when she had the temerity to sing the ol’ Negro spiritual, Nobody Knows the Trouble I Seen. It is just like when she showed contempt for women who choose to stay home and raise their children w/ the sanctimonious, “I could have stayed home and baked cookies.” This is a narcissistic, sociopathic, bad person. Only cultists don’t see it. And, like when she had the cookie gaff[speaking how you REALLY think is a gaff in politics] in her husband’s election, she is out this morning setting the record straight. The chastened Queen was on GMA telling the common folks she feels their pain. But, she just can’t sell that BS like her husband. Maybe she needs to bite her lip and get teary eyed like Bubba. Cultist women buy that one every time.
I hear that many democrats prefer Elizabeth Warren particularly the activists. I am afraid that Rove and the Koch brothers would do to her what was done to Michael Dukakis.
The Clinton’s were deeply in debt due to Ken Starr’s witch hunt, but they had the skills to earn millions. They also had a rolodex with names of names of the rich and powerful on it.
The Clinton’s broke? Yeah, right. President Truman struggled after leaving the White House; in fact, he’s the reason why former Presidents get a pension. No one since that time has had ‘financial difficulties’ greater than worrying about how to pay for two European vacations in the same year.
I want someone to run who will take the position that our Policeman of The World era is over. Pull out of all wars and withdraw from NATO. I cannot abide treaties that allow some place like Poland to get us into a war. I want a George McGovern. Does he have any offspring?
Dredd, you are probably right. @8:56.
Move over Hillary, its going to be Elizabeth Warren.
doglover says: “Elizabeth Warren: yes Hillary Clinton: No”
Yes. Definitely not Hillary Clinton
Hillary Clinton “wants no part of the scandal and insists that she was steadfastly opposed to any trade for Sgt. Bergdahl & the Taliban.”
I am steadfastly opposed to Hillary Clinton.
mostlyright70,
I agree with you. But you forgot the part about how anyone who says anything bad about her will be a labelled sexist, chauvinist and you might as well through racist in there too since the dems always play that card some how. But hey, “What difference does it make anyway?”
[music]
Lets beat up on Hillary.
We’d rather have a Mitt or a Jeb.
For there ain’t no name like Hillary.
Hillary the ape I am.
I for one do not prefer Jeb, or Mitt, or Cruz, or Perry, or the Cuban guy from FL, or Meg Ryan, or the Koch Brothers.
So, as a true voter I will with hold judgment on Hillary and ignore rants.
Hillary is the Teflon Queen. We even caught her red-handed by fingerprints on the missing White Water files, and nothing ever happened to her.
And, seriously, I am going to faint if too many people believe that a woman living in mansions with huge assets was “dead broke and worried about tuition.” Really, was it hard?
These are the same people who will not expose the amounts donors made to the Clinton library.
Nick:
“For the first time in a long time, our children will not be better off than we parents are. That is some earth shattering stuff that many are still processing. When a political system takes away opportunity is when a paradigm shift it possible.”
So true. But Aesop’s ants are never as popular as the grasshopper.
It’s hard to compete with a party throwing money out the window, and few ask where that money comes from or how it will be repaid. They just want the stuff. And both major parties are entrenched in obligations to major donors, backdoor deals, etc.
” Saddam issued a series of decrees establishing severe penalties for criminal offences. These include amputation, branding, cutting off ears, and other forms of mutilation. Those found guilty of slandering the President could have their tongue removed.
Saddam’s son Udayy maintained a private torture chamber known as the Red Room in a building on the banks of the Tigris disguised as an electricity installation. He ordered the Iraq football team to be caned on the soles of the feet for losing a World Cup match. He created a militia in 1994 which used swords to execute victims outside their own homes. He has personally executed dissidents, for instance in the Shia uprising at Basra which followed the Gulf War.
In October of 2003, an Iraqi torture tape was obtained by the media. On the tape, what appear to be Fedayeen Saddam members and Republican Guard troops are shown administering cruel punishments, including chopping off fingers, cutting off tongues, breaking a wrist with a heavy stick, and throwing people off a multi-story building. Also depicted is a beheading by sword, which takes several attempts to complete.
In July of 2004, the Iraqi National Olympic Committee put on display torture devices which were used by Uday Hussein to punish soccer players who failed to perform to expectations. Journalists were shown medieval-style torture equipment, including an “iron maiden-like” casket with metal spikes fixed to the inside. Talip Mutan, an Olympic Committee official said, “There were torture camps of Uday Hussein where sportsmen and women had been murdered or tortured, beaten and left to rot. Your worst nightmares came true in those camps. Using an iron maiden, Uday used to punish not only athletes but also everyone who made him angry. Tortured people were kept in it for hours. When he was nearly dead, he would be brought out…” Also on display was a chain whip with steel barbs the size of a tennis ball attached to the end. Uday would also beat them with iron bars, tan the soles of their feet, and drag them on pavements until their backs became bloodied, then dunk them in sewage to ensure the wounds became infected.
On March 24, 2006 U.S. Joint Forces Command published the “Iraqi Perspectives Project: A View of Operation Iraqi Freedom from Saddam’s Senior Leadership.” This unclassified report defined the nature of Saddam’s regime by stating, “His atrocities differ from those of Hitler and Stalin only in scale, not intent.” Inside Iraq societal relations broke down as neighbor no longer trusted neighbor and citizens feared denunciation even by their own family. “In a meeting of Baath Party officials one of Saddam’s thugs singled out for special praise to Saddam a man who had executed his own brother for blaspheming the regime.”
Saddam pursued a long-term program of persecuting the Iraqi Kurds, including the use of chemical weapons. During the Iran/Iraq war, Saddam appointed his cousin, Ali Hassan al-Majid, as his deputy in the north. In 1987-88, al-Majid led the “Anfal” campaign of attacks on Kurdish villages. Amnesty International estimates that more than 100,000 Kurds were killed or disappeared during this period.”
Lest we forget . . .
“Human rights abuses under Saddam:
4000 prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib Prison in 1984.
3000 prisoners were executed at the Mahjar Prison between 1993 and 1998.
About 2500 prisoners were executed between 1997 and 1999 in a “prison cleansing” campaign.
122 male prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in February/ March 2000. A further 23 political prisoners were executed there in October 2001.
In October 2000, dozens of women accused of prostitution were beheaded without any judicial process. Some were accused for political reasons.
Women prisoners at Mahjar were routinely raped by their guards.
Methods of torture used in Iraqi jails include using electric drills to mutilate hands, pulling out fingernails, knife cuts, sexual attacks and ‘official rape’.
Prisoners at the Qurtiyya Prison in Baghdad and elsewhere were kept in metal boxes the size of tea chests. If they did not confess they were left to die.”
mostlyright, I’m afraid you’re correct about the Santa Claus party. But, politics is a pendulum, and people are pissed @ the way this country is headed. For the first time in a long time, our children will not be better off than we parents are. That is some earth shattering stuff that many are still processing. When a political system takes away opportunity is when a paradigm shift it possible. The duopoly must be destroyed for that to happen.