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
Annie: “For those of you who constantly criticize Obama yet applaud the mission creep in Iraq, do you know that you sound like huge hypocrites?”
I hope people would praise Obama doing the right thing and criticize Obama doing the wrong thing.
my comment shows that it was made in the side bar but is not showing up in comments itself.
A sociopath is not going to appear evil at all times. They aren’t even going to be evil at all times. The book that just came out on the ordinary lives of Hitler’s top group shows very touching moments with wives and children. Thinking that a sociopath isn’t human is the first mistake. The second mistake is being unable to see that someone in power is using their power for bad ends.
Both aspects of sociopathic humans are true at the same time–for example, one can be a fine person as a mother and a truly evil person as a “leader”. Citizens need to evaluate what “leaders” are doing with their time in power.
Here is also a record of pentagonal humanitarian aid to so many nations recently.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/08/12/gaza-egypt-and-syria-a-common-thread-of-genocide-war-crimes-and-wars-against-humanity/
leej, Not a Bush fan. But, the ranch was his home. It would be like Obama going to Chicago, few would call going home a vacation. Going to a vacation home, like Kennebunkport, is a vacation, and 26 days in 8 years seems pretty austere. I do laugh how Dem Presidents love MV except in election years. Having spent many weeks on MV, I don’t consider it elitist. It is a family vacation spot as much as it is liberal bastion of snobbery. But, if you’re up for election or reelection, the polling says NO MV! Silly.
Leej, wonderful story about Hillary and Chelsea, thanks for sharing!
re Hillary being a sociopath I want to relate an experience with her that really surprised me because it was a totally ‘human” moment in the midst of the primary
I was asked for some reason to attend a gathering at Bryn Mawr college where Hillary, Chelsea and Hillary’s mother were speaking.
When it was over we all went up to shake hands with them. Chelsea was at one end and Hillary at the other.
I shook Chelsea’s hand and asked her about Medicare D, something esoteric enough that I did not expect her to have an answer. Amazing she knew it chapter and verse.
Then Mrs Clinton came to our end. I put my hand out, she shook it and I said “I was going to ask you (this) about Medicare D but Chelsea knew all about it and answered me. Mrs. Clinton lit up, a gigantic smile on her face. “Isn’t she wonderful!” she said as proud a parent as one could be.
Whenever I see her in her politician mode I always remember that moment and am sorry that most people rarely get to see it.
Re Obama being on vacation. Obama has taken far less time away from the White House than his predecessor. While Obama has spent 92 days on 14 vacations, Bush spent 323 days at his ranch and 26 days at his family vacation home in Kennebunkport, Maine, at the same point of his presidency, according to CBS News correspondent Mark Knoller, who keeps detailed records of presidential travel
In 2005, Bush ended a month-long vacation at his ranch two days early to survey — from the sky on Air Force One — the damage caused by Hurricane Katrina, after facing criticism for remaining away while New Orleans flooded. Bush later said that observing the damage from the air was a “huge mistake” since it made him look “detached and uncaring.”
Obama, like most if not all pres has a mini white house with them.
Annie,
This isn’t the Pentagon Papers anymore. You don’t need Charles Lewis to do your thinking.
The UNMOVIC (OIF triggering) Cluster Document and Iraq Survey Group (post-war finding) Duelfer Report are on-line. Google them. Or open them from my table of sources.
Lewis’s assertion that “numerous widely publicized bipartisan and international reports had definitively shown that no such weapons existed” is oddly ahistorical and inapposite of the mandated standard of compliance.
If you don’t believe Congress, HW Bush, and Clinton’s records on the issue, then I suggest looking at UNSCOM’s records on the issue. They’re on-line, too, as are UNMOVIC’s, and linked in my table of sources.
You know that Bush picked up from Clinton on the enforcement of Iraq’s compliance (including the non-weapons mandates) and disarmament, right? Saddam didn’t go anywhere. The 1991-2003 Iraq enforcement didn’t reset to zero with the Clinton-Bush presidential hand-off in Jan 2001 anymore than it reset when Clinton picked up the Iraq enforcement from HW Bush in Jan 1993.
The Democrats need someone who opposes wars and the Military Industrial Complex. We need someone new and not Elizabeth Warren or Bernie whatshisname from New York living in Ver Mont. Some person needs to emerge. I am getting sick of all these war mongers.
Jill, You’re not a whiner. You seem to evaluate issues w/ intellectual honesty. I have consistently had strong support and praise for Obama on education. I have praised this effort to help non Muslims from the minute it was announced. We people who aren’t haters, but critical thinkers, are not myopic. The mouth frothers here are becoming a major distraction to a serious discussion on difficult topics. They are hardwired to not be able to process conflicting ideas and issues. But, “Haters gotta hate.”
This is a massive undertaking. We need boots on the ground to help coordinate the constant coming and goings of the aircraft, transporting people off of this stark mountain. It is for the safety of our pilots and the people on the mountain. Some have been storming any aircraft and literally throwing their children onto helicopters. The footage is heartbreaking. I’m very happy to see compassion for Christians and other non Muslims.
Thanks Darren!
Nick, I would like to know more about what the pentagon is actually doing. They are not known for humanitarian missions. It is not a form of whining to look into things more deeply or to disagree with you or anyone else. That is a form of intellectual curiosity and deep questioning in a desire to know the truth.
For those of you who constantly criticize Obama yet applaud the mission creep in Iraq, do you know that you sound like huge hypocrites?
The Pentagon just announced we are sending some boots on the ground to help do an intense airlift of all the non Muslim people. Good call. I salute this use of US Troops. And, I’m sure the soldiers assigned to this mission will be honored to do it. Any whiners here?
trying again to see if it will post!
What about the present sociopath in office? He hasn’t left. He’s ramping up more poor people to be killed in I-raq. He’s sending in more to be killed in the Ukraine. Then of course, there’s all the civilians who will die in these wars and through his drone program.
Why worry about Hillary? She’s not the current problem. It’s not time to vote, it’s time to organize peaceful resistance. I believe we are being deliberately put off confronting current reality just as we where every year of Obama’s presidency.
We are always told to watch out for X,Y and Z in the future. This way we never take responsibility to stop wrongdoing in the present. I tell you that the America public has to stop being so easily distracted and propagandized or we will not have a prayer of changing the injustice we face/perpetrate around the world.
Vote for Hilliary if that’s what you want to do. In the meantime, focus on rectifying current injustice.
Jill, I retrieved your comment at 5:58.
Darren, my post around 5:55 won’t post of course. Is there a way to get it please. It doesn’t even say it posted.
Thanks,
Jill
http://billmoyers.com/2014/06/27/the-lies-we-believed-and-still-believe-about-iraq/
Lies, lies, lies and those who still believe.
Gee, SWM, I never heard the Palin is stupid rap before!!! Lame. She’s smarter than Pelosi. Admittedly “Damning w/ faint praise.”
Annie: “Eric, please, you of all people cannot credibly speak to a Iie being perpetrated on American citizens. I know you believe the fundamental lie that the Bush Cheney administration hoisted upon us with “WMD in Iraq”. Very very few people left or right believe in that HUGE lie.”
The truth isn’t a popularity contest.
Short sample from the 3-volume Duelfer Report:
Each of those findings by itself justifies OIF – especially the active program in the IIS, which was notorious as Saddam’s regime arm that worked with terrorists and handled Saddam’s in-house black ops.
Here’s the thing, though. Although it corroborates Iraq was in violation of the weapons mandates, the Duelfer Report is irrelevant as a trigger for OIF. The pre-war intelligence is also irrelevant as a trigger for OIF.
The relevant weapons-based trigger for OIF was the UNMOVIC Cluster Document, presented to the UNSC on 07MAR03, that reported “about 100 unresolved disarmament issues”. Of course, UNMOVIC didn’t cover Iraq’s non-weapons violations that also triggered OIF.
Annie, here’s how I cracked the false narrative against OIF. You can do it, too.
1st, “WMD in Iraq”, in terms of procedural trigger for OIF, was defined by the mandated standard of compliance.
2nd, The false narrative pivots on misrepresenting the enforcement procedure by shifting the burden of proof (excerpt from my OIF FAQ):
3rd, The best source for understanding the 1991-2003 Iraq enforcement isn’t Bush. It’s Clinton. Bush only carried forward the Iraq enforcement from Clinton.
ODF is the penultimate military enforcement that set the baseline precedent for OIF, so when I wrote my term paper, my 1st question was, How did Clinton cite the intel for ODF? I wanted to know because the intel controversy is the basis of the “Bush lied people died” assertion.
The answer is Clinton didn’t cite the intel at all. Clinton only cited Iraq’s noncompliance. Digging further into the record – UNSC resolutions, HW Bush and Clinton statements, POTUS updates to Congress, UNSCOM, etc – there was no controversy. Enforcement was entirely based on Iraq’s compliance. The US held no burden of proof. When I revisited UNMOVIC, Bush’s pre-war statements, and PL 107-243, I saw that Iraq’s compliance – not the intel – was plainly stated as the procedural trigger. The intel only colored the argument; it wasn’t a trigger.
In fact, Clinton’s statements strongly imply that when he pronounced “Iraq has abused its final chance” and bombed Iraq, the intel for ODF was not better than the intel for OIF – which only makes sense if you think about it. When Clinton endorsed Bush’s Iraq enforcement, Clinton cited to the compliance-based danger of “unaccounted for” stocks, not the intel.
The OIF FAQ is a cheat sheet for my take on the issue. The last ‘further reading’ section links to primary sources that are basic essentials for understanding the law and policy basis of OIF.
However, if you want a fuller understanding of the law and policy basis of OIF from primary sources (eg, HW Bush, Clinton, Bush, Congress, UN), here’s a table of sources that have informed my take on the issue:
http://learning-curve.blogspot.com/2004/10/perspective-on-operation-iraqi-freedom.html
Again, the truth isn’t a popularity contest. If you want to know the truth of OIF, it’s open-source, easily accessed on-line, and conveniently tabulated.
I might vote for Hillary or Jeb. But beating Hillary seems very simple if the Republican PACs are willing to go to the gutter. Just run constant ads of people who look MUCH older than her, but are actually younger, saying:
“Should our next President be someone older than me? Possibly four or eight years older!”
It’s an image and question that even few Democrats will be able to ignore in the privacy of the voting booth (assuming Jeb is the alternative).