Hillary Clinton seems to have found a way to get people from moving beyond her disastrous “dead broke” claims, but not in a way that is likely to please those voters tired of wars and military interventions. Clinton used an interview this week to criticize the “failure” of President Obama’s policies in Syria and to insist that she wanted a more interventionist military approach. President Obama was quoted responding to such criticism by calling it “horseshit.” It seemed a return to the 2008 election where Clinton campaigned on her hawk credentials in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars — a mistake for many Democratic and independent voters. Recently, she changed her mind and said that the Iraq War was a mistake despite her refusal to listen to a chorus of critics of the war at the time when it was a popular political move. Despite that change, Clinton is suggesting that she would have armed the Syrian rebels and acted more aggressively to stop the Islamic State.
In the interview with prominent foreign affairs writer Jeffrey Goldberg, Clinton attacked Obama’s decision not to quickly and strongly support the Syrian rebels and said that the West Wing’s foreign policy mantra — “Don’t do stupid stuff”— is “not an organizing principle.” She seemed to brush over the fact that that the same course that led us into repeated costly military campaigns or that many of the rebels at the time were found to be committing atrocities like the regime. Then there is the fact that many of our weapons have already ended up in the hands of the Islamic State in places like Iraq — as we saw in Afghanistan with Al Qaeda.
The statements were a replay of Clinton’s much maligned campaign against Obama in 2008 that she was the one who could handle the “3 a.m. phone call.” As someone who supported both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, many insisted that they did not want any more such calls.
The change in strategy and message may not be coincidental. A major poll this month by NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showing Obama’s approval rating at an “all-time low.” The interview was widely viewed as designed to separate Clinton from the declining fortunes of both Obama and the Democratic Congress.
Putting aside the timing, Clinton has repeatedly shown herself to be closer to George W. Bush than Obama on military interventions. She used the interview to reaffirm her absolute support for Israel and her credentials in committing U.S. military resources in foreign conflicts.
Nevertheless, while criticizing Clinton on the attack against Obama and interventionist drumbeat, liberal writers like Joan Walsh at Salon.com are still cited in the article below as still expecting to support Clinton for the next president. It is part of a continuing rift on the left of our political spectrum. It is not clear what are the dominant values of the Democratic Party going into this election. Civil liberties and war issues used to be a rallying point for liberals. However, those issues have been seriously undermined by the Obama Administration and the Clinton campaigns in 2008 and 2014. Clearly, some agree with Clinton’s hawkish views and others are drawn to the chance of electing a female, even one with opposing views. However, there remains a remarkably fluidity in the defining values for the party going into the election beyond the dominant blue state/red state rhetoric that the Republicans are simply worse. That narrative is clearly not working but seems to be the only theme upon which the party is advancing consistently. There is the immigration issue but that has proven extremely risky and does not appear to have paid off politically. Indeed, some black leaders and voters have publicly opposed the effort by Democratic members to push for legalizing the status of millions of undocumented individuals. We are, as the Chinese curse says, living in interesting times.
Source: Politico
Eric, your expectation of what a military mother should feel about the mission in Iraq is based on your belief that it was a just war. There are many military mothers and even military members who do not agree with your belief. They are no less loyal, patriotic Americans than you are. One of our Navy Moms group son committed suicide after coming home from Iraq, he suffered tremendously fro PTSD. My sister worked at the Tomah WI VA hospital, there were guys with organs and brains damaged from roadside bomb blasts. So many other injuries that will last them a lifetime. If you need to feel the Iraq war was just, then do so. Don’t expect grieving military parents to agree with your belief, don’t disparage them as Americans or patriots because they don’t agree with your belief.
Annie, I released your comment at 9:47.
Annie,
I quoted directly from the UNMOVIC Cluster Document, ie, “about 100 unresolved disarmament issues”, that’s dispositive Iraq was noncompliant at the decision point for OIF. The inquiry really should end there for the compliance-based Iraq enforcement.
I also quoted directly from the Duelfer Report with a short sample that, albeit irrelevant to Bush’s decision for OIF, corroborates Saddam was in violation – eg, the Iraqi intelligence services – Saddam’s regime arm that worked with terrorists and handled Saddam’s black ops – was found with a “large covert procurement program [and] undeclared chemical laboratories”.
Your response to direct quotes from primary sources? “Lies, lies, lies and those who still believe”, based on the authority of Charles Lewis.
What does that tell you?
I think about our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who gave fully of themselves – body, mind, spirit, honor – to the Iraq mission. Many died there. Many came home physically and/or mentally scarred, and will suffer the effects for the rest of their lives. Families lost loved ones. Children lost moms and dads.
That’s episodic for all our military history. However, in the past, veterans, widows, parents, and children growing up could be proud and comforted in their personal loss by the honored legacy in the cultural zeitgeist of a just cause.
For Iraq, though, the prevalent social narrative is all their achievement, honor, and sacrifice was misspent on a cause “based on lies” (Jonathan Turley).
If it were true, then so be it. But Operation Iraqi Freedom was right on the law and justified on the policy. The cause was just and true.
Yet their legacy has been corrupted in the cultural zeitgeist because the Democrats calculated, correctly, a fundamental lie would win them the White House.
I’ll rephrase: One expects an American military mom would feel relieved and proud of the discovery that the US mission with Iraq was, in fact, right on the law and justified on the policy; that our diplomats, soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen served in Iraq on a just cause.
Yes getting rid of Saddam was so good that instead they have ISIS growing and Maliki.
Jim, Had Bush gone after Bin Laden, whom he said did not concern him and wasn;t worth the thought, maybe just maybe Iraq qouldnt be where it is now.
Eric. What is anti American is calling out people because they have a differing opinion. It is, or used to be, very American to have differing opinions. Somehow now, and not just from you by any means, when one has an opposing opinion you are AntiAmerican/unpatriotic.
Eric I find it is a waste of time to post anything that is in disagreement with your poinit of view. Even in what you wrote about Mrs Sheehan you say she does not know what she does. Yes she did. She had her beliefs and viewpoint and as an American every right to express it and have her point of view respected.
I usually don’t get involved with the name calling etc but Annie is right
When you wrote:”Again, I don’t understand why an American would respond negatively to the discovery that her country is right. that sure sounds like you are questioning her patriotism and Americanism.”
The movie “Fair Game” is pretty accurate. Essentially a small DoD agency “Office of Special Plans” run by Doug Feith bypassed the government Middle East experts at the CIA and other agencies – small but important detail.
Eric, you owe me an apology. When you question my patriotism in the guise of questioning my Americanism, you have sunk to the depths of the Cindy Sheehan haters. You called the mother of a Navy FMF Corpsman, me, UnAmerican in so many words.
Annie: “The swift boating of Cindy Sheehan. Lest we forget and resort to the same tactics once again.”
I wrote this about Mrs. Sheehan in 2005:
I have strong feelings about Cindy Sheehan’s protest. But balancing my great sympathy for her loss as an Army mom (I’ve had one of my own), my disgust over the petty exploitation of her grief and her son’s death – twisting them into a perversion that aids the same intolerable enemy who killed her son and so many like him, my hatred of the groups who shamelessly use her as a shield for their own evil agendas, and my distress over the embarrassment caused to the honor of her son’s service and sacrifice . . . it’s not a commentary to be taken lightly nor expressed glibly.
. . .
In Mrs. Sheehan’s defense, her son died as an American soldier. Mrs. Sheehan didn’t volunteer, her son Casey did. He died in a tradition and as part of a heritage, and in a cause, she clearly does not and probably cannot understand. She can only interpret the life and death of her beloved son the best she is capable, and in that, I can’t fault her. After all, I’ve had an Army mom, too, who was not a soldier and resisted giving her son to the Army. When Casey became a soldier, for whatever reason that motivated him, he entered a world and joined with a reality that is other than what she is.
Vaya con Dios, Specialist Sheehan. We, your brothers and sisters in arms, understand you and honor you. Your mother knows not what she does, but we love her just the same, as we love our moms who have borne the helpless weight of their love and their children’s sacrifice.
leejcarroll: “President Bush’s Iraq War justifications have changed several times since the invasion in 2003. Here, see how the reasons for keeping the US at war in Iraq have shifted from year to year”
I thought Zalman was going to visit the WMD v liberal reform issue, but she only describes various challenges of the 2003-2011 peace-building mission. It was a dynamic situation for sure, but that didn’t change the basic purpose of the mission.
To understand the basic purpose of our 2003-2011 peace operations with Iraq, I recommend reading the UNSC resolutions that underlay it. Excerpt from http://learning-curve.blogspot.com/2014/05/operation-iraqi-freedom-faq.html :
Q: Was Operation Iraqi Freedom legal?
. . .
A3: There is neither a domestic nor international legal controversy over the 2003-2011 US-led occupation mandated to “take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq”. As in the occupation following the Serbian regime change, the peace operations following regime change in Iraq were conducted with UN authorization. For example, see UNSCR 1511 (2003):
Also see UNSCRs 1546 (2004), 1637 (2005), 1723 (2006), 1790 (2007), and the 17NOV08 agreement between the US and Iraq.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/opinion/21rich.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
The swift boating of Cindy Sheehan. Lest we forget and resort to the same tactics once again.
How can it be that when one disagrees that there were WMD in Iraq and that the war was based on a lie, one gets their ‘Americanism’ questioned? That this isn’t evident to some people here in the sentences of Eric’s that I quoted I can’t fathom, but I certainly DO wonder what is wrong with their perception capabilities. I wouldn’t dream of questions someone’s patriotism or Americanism because they disagreed with me. I think that is pretty disgusting.
Darren, that is your opinion, you are free to express it. You are wrong.
Is he questioning my Americanism?
“Darren, you don’t see anything that could be taken here as questioning my patriotism, my Americanism? Truly? Wow.”
~+~
No, there was nothing in what Eric wrote that questioned your patriotism.
I’m an American mother of a Navy Corpsman who was under fire for hours in Afghanistan during the attack on Camp Bastion in 2012. A group of us Navy moms who had kids at Camp Leatherneck were calling, texting and emailing one another for support. Durin the hours that the Camp was on an information and communication shut down, none of us knew if our loved ones were alive or dead. Anyone who wants to question my Americanism or my patriotism can go to hell.
When my Americanism and my patriotism is questioned, I’m done discussing anything with those persons. Disgusting.
on 1, August 12, 2014 at 8:37 pmEric
Nick Spinelli: “Eric, Incredible mindset isn’t it. Mind boggling.”
I don’t know what you’re referring to. If you’re referring to Annie’s refusal to accept the fact that Saddam was noncompliant and Bush applied the operative enforcement procedure he inherited from Clinton, then yes, the mindset is mind-boggling.
*One expects an American* would feel relieved and proud of the discovery that the US mission with Iraq was, in fact, right on the law and justified on the policy; that our diplomats, soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen served in Iraq on a just cause.
Instead, Annie is reacting like she prefers, even *needs to believe America was wrong.*
Again, I don’t understand *why an American* would respond negatively to the discovery that her country is right.
********************************************
Darren, you don’t see anything that could be taken here as questioning my patriotism, my Americanism? Truly? Wow.
Annie,
I don’t quote myself from the OIF FAQ as a source of authority. I do it for convenience. Like I said, it’s a cheat sheet for my take. For authority, see the primary sources I link to and quote from.
Again Eric, it’s YOUR take. There are MANY MANY sources that disagree with your TAKE on the Duelfer Report. Are you touting yourself as the last word on the matter, an expert, the only one who knows the real truth?
I reviewed what Eric has written in this article and I haven’t seen anything that leads me to believe he questioned a person’s patriotism. His links to another blog/website are used as reference to support his position. Others, often times Dredd with blogdredd and professor Turley with this website are quoted by them to bring additional information to their statements. He has just as much of a right to convey his opinions and analyses as anyone else. In fact, he has presented many facts to support his position regardless of whether or not others agree. He as also just as free to disagree with others or the process they arrived at their opposing conclusions.
Annie,
As I said, the OIF FAQ post is the cheat sheet for my take.
The Perspective on OIF post and ‘further reading’ section of the OIF FAQ provide links to the primary sources.
When the primary sources “agree with [my] premise” while you and leejcarroll must rely on citing to secondary and tertiary sources that filter and reframe those same primary sources, what does that tell you?
leejcarroll: “The report found that the 1991 Persian Gulf War and subsequent U.N. inspections destroyed Iraq’s illicit weapons capability, leaving it without any chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Saddam Hussein hoped to someday resume his weapons efforts, the report said, but for the most part there had been no serious effort to rebuild the programs.”
Again, read the Duelfer Report to see for yourself. Compare their findings to the mandates in the UNSC resolutions, though keep in mind the main trigger for OIF was the UNMOVIC Cluster Document.
That said, the quote highlights a key to understanding Iraq’s burden of proof and the compliance-based enforcement procedure, and why it’s critical to view OIF in the context of the whole 1991-2003 Iraq enforcement.
Assuming the quote for argument’s sake, why then didn’t the US and UN end the Iraq compliance-and-disarmament enforcement in the mid-1990s?
In fact, the opposite happened. Operation Desert Fox in December 1998 marked the apex of Clinton’s Iraq enforcement with the penultimate military enforcement (bombing Iraq) that emphasized the necessity for regime change and set the baseline precedent for OIF. Yet the accounted and unaccounted for destruction of Iraqi weapons described in the quote happened before Operation Desert Fox.
Understanding ODF will go a long way to understanding OIF. When you’ve read the basic essentials, you should be able to answer why Clinton didn’t end the Iraq enforcement before ODF.
You should also be able to understand the actual, circumscribed role of intelligence in the compliance-based enforcement procedure and why regret over the intel doesn’t change the justification on the policy.
Key: Clinton’s intel for ODF was no better than Bush’s intel for OIF – which only makes sense if you think about it.
For OIF as for ODF, the danger of Saddam was imputed by necessity from Saddam’s compliance, not Saddam’s demonstrated possession or unaccounted for destruction.