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:
āMany 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 wasnāt alone in getting it wrong. But I still got it wrong. Plain and simple.ā
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 āthat opening the door to negotiations with the Taliban would be hard to swallow for many Americans after so many years of war.ā 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 Presidentās 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 Presidentās 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
Yep, got to love that duopoly thing. I like Elizabeth Warren, but I am almost afraid of what awaits her if somehow, she would ever become Prez. Haven’t heard anything more about the new Glass-Steagall bill that might stop the orgy of money before the whole house goes up in flames. Not sure the authority resides in the government anymore anyway. Between special interest, the defense industry, and the couple of dozen or so secret spy creeps, who knows what is going on. ???? Maybe James Spader runs everything???? No…. he wouldn’t be so stupid to try to roll the head of nuke power for some oil reserve cash. He would get China to do it (as would Bismarck…). Hillary?? Bwaaahaaaaa….. nice attempt at a positioning PR piece to be the pious Prez contender.
I am a progressive and i’m done with the duopoly. Sorry, no more votes for people who will “punch the dirty hippie” in the media any chance they get. I’d vote for Bernie if he ran, but that ain’t gonna happen. DNC can suck it. What irritates the hell out of me is that then i read on Digby’s blog this trite BS from one of her minion blogging pals, about “how it actually works”, this whole electoral politics thing; you know, we peons gotta learn…. if you don’t vote, or you vote Green or some other party, they’ll just ignore you. You will not be heard. So, the lesson is supposed to be that you have to be SUPER engaged to be heard. Ugh. What drivel. When the left helped elect Obama, did they listen???? I am disgusted by that man more than George Bush. I was one of the hoping cretins. But he is indeed the “more effective evil”, as Glen Ford might say. Change from within? Nope, they killed the left, and then they complain that the left is … complaining. Huh. DNC can suck it. Can’t be said enough.
Nick – I would posit that Paltrow is a pretty good actress, but like many actors and actresses, is not the brightest bulb in the drawer.
Good news for Hillary. Hillary was keeping an eye on crazy Kim in North Korea. Got the video to prove it.
Makes me wonder what she would do with the nuke codes to launch. I remember Bill actually misplaced the nuke launch codes at a party.
Glen – didn’t Clinton lose the nuke codes several times?
Karen, I think Paltrow is a mediocre actress. I think her mother is much better. She and Duvall were superb in The Great Santini. I know you must have seen that flick!
This isn’t about Rep.or Dems, this is about QUEEN HILLARY!
You know people are getting their asses kicked in a debate when they bring up unrelated topics. This is about Hillary Clinton. The Clintons perfected attack politics. Their cultists take that cue. The truth about the Clintons is harsh, so try and change the subject. Read the thread and see the loser’s of the debate strategy. Just keep it on Queen Hillary folks, don’t be distracted.
KarenS, They must have hot the lottery. And, think of the poor schmuck up thread, along w/ may others, who sent them money. Jim and Tammy Baker are the best analogy.
http://youtu.be/lFUUDrh9wNg
Karen S
“Here are their tax returns. They are currently worth between $100 million and $200 million. The Clintons are the 1%. The question is, will they be subjected to the same contempt that Romney was for being wealthy?”
Even Al jazeera Gore is worth more than Romney. Maybe he can buy some snow machines for the polar bears.
I just saw the great David Maraniss on CNN. He knows the Clintons better than most. Maraniss is a liberal but NOT a fan of Hillary, and he knows them well. He scoffs @ “If she runs” and her poormouthing. I got the Senate campaign finance papers shortly after leaving the WH from him. Maraniss spends most of his summer in Madison. He walks around the campus and is very approachable. A true gentleman and scholar. His disdain for the Clintons is almost palpable in person. I mostly have spoken w/ him about Clemente and Lombardi, you know..great men!
SWM, Oh I remember the Man from Hope video! The point is his wife was poormouthing their post presidency finances. It is one of many lies.
Here are their tax returns. They are currently worth between $100 million and $200 million. The Clintons are the 1%. The question is, will they be subjected to the same contempt that Romney was for being wealthy?
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/clintons-dead-broke-leaving-white-house-article-1.1822461
SWM, The Dem Rep comparison]Smart v stupid, etc.] is what most Dem voters believe. I know Cruz is smart and I know there are many Dems dumber than a box of rocks. We’ve gone over this previously.
And even this article neglects to mention the $4.6 million in her legal defense fund. Can you still list the debt if you have a huge fund to pay for it?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/06/09/the-clintons-left-the-white-house-in-debt-wait-what/
Nick, Bill Clinton was not raised with money and won scholarships including a Rhode. People love to hear him speak and will pay him for it.
Nick:
It’s like Gwenyth Paltrow saying that working moms have no idea how much harder it is to be a pampered movie star, with endless funds, a staff, catering, etc. She is a great, lovely actress, and of course she should accept her income as a blessing. But to then turn around and complain that her life is so much harder than the common man earned her a rebuke.
What was it in that famous response letter? Thank goodness the rest of working moms open their doors to qualified nannies roving the streets in packs, available to watch their children.
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/262249071.html?ipad=y
Scott Walker the only Governor in the history of the US to have a legal defense fund, according to this article.
nick, Cruz is smart, and Perry isn’t. Both are republicans. Cruz graduated Harvard law with the highest honors. He was a championship debater at Princeton. His politics are horrible but he is intelligent. They do love him and his tea party in Texas.
Bill Clinton is ranked 9th in wealth of all US Presidents. Conservative estimates put him @ $55 million. He is right after FDR!