Nbadan
09-21-2007, 03:22 AM
It's time for Hitlary to take responsibility for her initial role in advocating the Iraq war...
Without Hillary's Support, The War Might Never Have Happened
Posted September 20, 2007 | 05:53 PM (EST)
Ryan J Davis
Remember these words?
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members..."
What about these:
"If left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Scary stuff--positively Cheney-esque in its evocation of nuclear and biological nightmare scenarios. There is even a reference to the evildoers themselves: those ubiquitous Al Qaeda members, presumably nestled securely in one of Saddam's palaces, laughing it up with Uday and Qusay as we go about our business, ignorant of their infernal schemes.
This wasn't Dick Cheney talking, though. Or George Bush. Or Condoleezza Rice or Colin Powell. It wasn't the daily two-minute hate from the likes of Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly. These words were spoken by a candidate who may very well be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008: Hillary Clinton, on the floor of the U.S. Senate, on October 10, 2002.
Hillary Clinton's support of the war was no technicality, and talking about it isn't mere hair-splitting. It's not about harping on one particular vote that she still won't apologize for, or playing Russert-style "gotcha" with fear-mongering quotes from days of yore. George Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq; that much is clear. But without bipartisan support, or the support of the Washington foreign policy establishment (and with it, the D.C. media elite), the run-up to the invasion would have been very, very different. Maybe we would have had a real debate over the merits of the invasion. Maybe the intelligence would have been properly analyzed. Maybe a forthright discussion of the possible costs of the war would have taken place. We'll never know, though, because the "serious" foreign policy experts, the press, and virtually all Democratic leaders were actively telling war opponents to please shut up already.
(To see a great example of Clinton's attitude toward the views of war opponents, take a look at this video of her speaking to a group of activists from the group Code Pink on March 6, 2003.) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYATbsu2cP8)
Clinton's role in the invasion was unique. She'd been in the Senate for less than two years, but was understandably more famous and more visible than any other member. She was also respected as an intelligent, capable politician who'd won her Senate seat largely on her own merits. She was a star. And she became the most high-profile Democrat leading the march to war.
Had she done the opposite--forcefully opposed the invasion, as a few courageous Senators chose to do--the Bush administration would have had a much bigger hurdle to cross in terms of convincing the press and the public that invasion was the most prudent course of action. Would she have taken heat for it? Of course. Would she have put herself out of the running for the presidency? Possibly. But she wasn't president yet. She was a Senator, our Senator, the Senator from New York, for whom both of us pulled the lever in 2000, and she let us down, and consequently war opponents had no real voice in Washington. And now, our worst nightmares about Iraq have come true.
Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ryan-j-davis/without-hillarys-support_b_65256.html)
Without Hillary's Support, The War Might Never Have Happened
Posted September 20, 2007 | 05:53 PM (EST)
Ryan J Davis
Remember these words?
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members..."
What about these:
"If left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Scary stuff--positively Cheney-esque in its evocation of nuclear and biological nightmare scenarios. There is even a reference to the evildoers themselves: those ubiquitous Al Qaeda members, presumably nestled securely in one of Saddam's palaces, laughing it up with Uday and Qusay as we go about our business, ignorant of their infernal schemes.
This wasn't Dick Cheney talking, though. Or George Bush. Or Condoleezza Rice or Colin Powell. It wasn't the daily two-minute hate from the likes of Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly. These words were spoken by a candidate who may very well be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008: Hillary Clinton, on the floor of the U.S. Senate, on October 10, 2002.
Hillary Clinton's support of the war was no technicality, and talking about it isn't mere hair-splitting. It's not about harping on one particular vote that she still won't apologize for, or playing Russert-style "gotcha" with fear-mongering quotes from days of yore. George Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq; that much is clear. But without bipartisan support, or the support of the Washington foreign policy establishment (and with it, the D.C. media elite), the run-up to the invasion would have been very, very different. Maybe we would have had a real debate over the merits of the invasion. Maybe the intelligence would have been properly analyzed. Maybe a forthright discussion of the possible costs of the war would have taken place. We'll never know, though, because the "serious" foreign policy experts, the press, and virtually all Democratic leaders were actively telling war opponents to please shut up already.
(To see a great example of Clinton's attitude toward the views of war opponents, take a look at this video of her speaking to a group of activists from the group Code Pink on March 6, 2003.) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYATbsu2cP8)
Clinton's role in the invasion was unique. She'd been in the Senate for less than two years, but was understandably more famous and more visible than any other member. She was also respected as an intelligent, capable politician who'd won her Senate seat largely on her own merits. She was a star. And she became the most high-profile Democrat leading the march to war.
Had she done the opposite--forcefully opposed the invasion, as a few courageous Senators chose to do--the Bush administration would have had a much bigger hurdle to cross in terms of convincing the press and the public that invasion was the most prudent course of action. Would she have taken heat for it? Of course. Would she have put herself out of the running for the presidency? Possibly. But she wasn't president yet. She was a Senator, our Senator, the Senator from New York, for whom both of us pulled the lever in 2000, and she let us down, and consequently war opponents had no real voice in Washington. And now, our worst nightmares about Iraq have come true.
Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ryan-j-davis/without-hillarys-support_b_65256.html)