DISQUS

p_lukasiak · 1 year ago

Wow....



I see that the media onslaught on Hillary continues unabated, and now includes the boys club of the progressive blogosphere.



Hillary is perfectly positioned to take on McCain on the issue of the war. She was critical of its execution long before McCain started speaking out -- just check out McCain's unequivocal support for Bush's strategy in 2004.



Moreover, McCain is extremely vulnerable to attack by Hillary (and any Democrat) because he only criticizes the "Rumsfeld strategy" --- I can just see the Democrat explaining to McCain WHERE the buck stops.



Finally, Obama gave one good speech -- and since that time has been moderating his position. The better things looked in Iraq, the more he equivocated on his original position. His waffling is no different from Hillary's in that regard, and only a completely biased reporter would write this kind of one sided hit-piece.

skulzfontaine · 1 year ago

Now Paul, you say "Hillary IS perfectly positioned to take on McCain...". Shouldn't that all depend on what your definition of "is" is? "Is" she or "isn't" she? I mean you NO disrespect Paul. Ms. Clinton packs a lot of baggage. Not necessarily good baggage. She (Ms. Clinton) does the old chameleon shuffle an awful lot. So "is" that an 'evolutionary' thing or, "is" Ms. Clinton simply pandering to that which she feels will get her "baggage" elected? Personally, I think that a "leopard cannot change it's spots" but, I may be wrong and can admit that readily. I am loath to think that America will chain itself to just another warmongering lunatic for another four or possibly eight years. America cannot afford anymore war OR insane political sycophants shilling for a corporate/special interest elite. "Is" any of this relevant? Germane? Politically incorrect?

hadenough · 1 year ago

Not surprising from likes of a tnr/tapped alum but as usual disappointing. Put quotes around a few words and use

szielinski · 1 year ago

So, in other words, right wing Dems like Clinton can't be trusted to get to war right and to communicate effectively their position on national security issues. Why is this news?

alaninsf · 1 year ago

The thing is, a lot of us were alive in 2002 and 2003, and there is no question that Hillary and Bill were enthusiastically for the war, and telling war opponents and critics on the left to get lost. There is no question that their vocal support (echoed by all the major Clintonistas) had a lot to do with enabling the war.



I'm not sure what Spencer's gender has to do with this.

juniusbrutus · 1 year ago

I was a strong Hillary supporter until Iraq, but she cannot be forgiven for her failuire to sdtand up for principle on this. It was too serious of an issue to allow for triangulation and it got 1,000,000 Iraqis killed.



I repeat: the policy she supported got 1,000,000 Iraqis killed. That's pretty serious, isn't it?



You decide to play strategic games with a matter of fundamental moral principle and you get 1,000,000 human beings killed? Nope. Can't hang with that. Won't vote for her.



If you knew me, the idea that I wouldn't vote for any Democrat for president over the extremists on the right is simply incredible. But there it is. She crossed a bright line.



I remember back in 2002-2003. I had it figured out by January 2003. And you know what? I think Hillary's pretty smart. I think she had it figured out too. But she left people like me behind.



And her policy got 1,000,000 human beings killed.



Her policy got 1,000,000 people killed.



You can't expend 1,000,000 lives to further your political career. That is evil.

santamonicamr · 1 year ago

There's a hole in this article. While Clinton's position in October 2002 was bad, one could argue that she really didn't support the use of force but only its threat. And while one could wish she pushed harder for withdrawal, things get messy once troops are in combat.



What I'd really like to know about is whether her views evolved between October 2002 and March 19, 2003. That's when the war might have been stopped, or at least we could tell if what she now says about her October 2002 vote was real or rationalization. Did she stand against going to war after the inspectors went in and after they continually reported finding nothing?



How about a follow-up, Spencer?

juniusbrutus · 1 year ago

"one could argue that she really didn

warrenmetzler · 1 year ago

When am I going to read a commentator who writes that Hillary's various positions on the war indicated she is genetically incapable of maintaining a principled stand on any issue. And will handle every issue presented as President in the identical manner, making her administration a castrophy????

copywryter · 1 year ago

What's the difference? Americans have no memory en masse for politics, economics, or war. They live for today. Now is what matters. Hillary is Machiavellian (as all successful politicians are), and will not be punished for being mercurial in her position on anything.

I wish it wasn't this way, but when have principles ever had anything to do with politics?

hadenough · 1 year ago

warrenmetzler,



Look at the next post of this one. So there you go.

moondancer · 1 year ago

She is so afraid of the GOP noise machine that she has repeatedly voted against her principles. That is unacceptable. Yes politics is tough. But somewhere in the course of time you have to take a stand. She doesn't. With an electorate begging for sweeping change, careful parsing, misdirection, and not so subtle hypocrisy tells me shes not the one.

amiblue · 1 year ago

If she didn't know the truth, she should have. If she knew it and still authorized Bush to invade Iraq, she shouldn't be president. She is entangled in her own web and trapped by her own catch 22. No one to blame but herself and not willing to admit it.

grannygail · 1 year ago

I knew Iraq was no threat to us.
I noticed that the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury and Nelson Mandela all opposed the war.
I noticed that massive crowds all over the world opposed the war.
So where was Hilary? Asleep? Hypnotized? Or just chicken?
Plus, if she wants to claim her White House years constitute "experience" then she has to take "credit" for the hasty and ill considered passage of NAFTA and of the so-called welfare "reform."
Both of these have had the terrible effects that were predicted by environmentalists, labor and child advocates. Predictable effects. Effects we knew about. No surprise and not Bush's fault.
If she should happen to be the nominee despite all odds I will vote for her. But I will have to hold my nose.
I suppose those reading this site know by now, Obama WON the caucuses and the delegate count in Texas.