Clinton Still Believes In Iraq Mission

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 15:18


The reason Hillary Clinton has never apologized for her Iraq war vote is because she clearly believes in the American "mission" in Iraq. Here is a statement from her campaign today on the deaths of 4,000 American soldiers in Iraq:

"In the last five years, our soldiers have done everything we asked of them and more. They were asked to remove Saddam Hussein from power and bring him to justice and they did. They were asked to give the Iraqi people the opportunity for free and fair elections and they did. They were asked to give the Iraqi government the space and time for political reconciliation, and they did. So for every American soldier who has made the ultimate sacrifice for this mission, we should imagine carved in stone: 'They gave their life for the greatest gift one can give to a fellow human being, the gift of freedom.'

Clinton presents Iraq as a resounding success where a tyrannical regime was removed from power, and freedom was brought to the Iraqi people. From this perspective, withdrawal is justified because the major missions have been accomplished, not because the war itself was a mistake. Also, as has been repeatedly made clear over the past twelve months, a sizable residual force will be left behind to continue some of the secondary missions of the war.

Compare this to Obama's statement on 4,000:

Each death is a tragedy, and we honor every fallen American and send our thoughts and prayers to their families. It is past time to end this war that should never have been waged by bringing our troops home, and finally pushing Iraq's leaders to take responsibility for their future. As we do, we must serve the memory of all who have died as well as they served our country, by providing support for their families, caring for our troops and veterans, and upholding the American values which our fallen heroes exemplified through their service."

For all the supposed lack of policy differences between Obama and Clinton, even on their Iraq withdrawal plans, this remains a fundamental, deeply ideological discrepancy. As I wrote earlier today, the Iraq war has ended America's brief tenure as the world's only superpower, and effectively instigated a genocide in Iraq. If you still think this was a good idea that was worth the costs, even if it was badly managed, then you simply have a fundamentally different view of the world and America's role in the world than someone who thinks the war was a mistake and not worth the costs. Even though I know it is something no presidential candidate can ever directly say and still hope to remain viable, the fact is that our soldiers in Iraq did not die for a good cause. Quite the opposite has occurred: they died as part of an effort that has eroded America's power faster than any other event since the Civil War, and which has created one of the worst humanitarian crises in the past fifty years. It was a mistake of colossal proportions, not "the greatest gift one can give to a fellow human being." A candidate's ability or inability to recognize that mistake remains the best possible way to measure how effective a Commander in Chief he or she would be.  
Chris Bowers :: Clinton Still Believes In Iraq Mission

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Clinton Still Believes In Iraq Mission | 45 comments
yup (4.00 / 6)
This is why Clinton's refusal to apologize for her vote was such a problem.  It's not that she was being political, it was just that she sincerely doesn't think the war in Iraq was a mistake.
And has Obama (0.00 / 0)
Apologized for coming to the Senate and time after time voting to fund a war he says he was against?

No he hasn't. In fact he won't even mention the fact that he voted to fund the war - as if no one would notice.

Which is worse? Voting to give our President the ultimate negotiating power needed to put inspectors back in via the UN - which is exactly what Clinton and other were doing as documented in their floor speeches at the time of their votes - and then stand by your vote...

Or doing as Obama has done saying you were against the war before you were for it and then saying you were against it again after your actions said you were for it?

One person stands by their actions. The other had their finger in the wind and then tries to pretend they never had their finger in the wind.

Personally I trust a person more that stands by their actions even if people say they were wrong more than I trust a person who changes like the sands in a wind.

[ Parent ]
So you subscribe to Strong and Wrong doctrine? (0.00 / 0)
When troops are already in harms way you give them what they need.

And this post by Chris isn't about these points about what has been done.  It's about the ideology of the candidates.  About how Clinton believes that it was the right thing to do.  That invading Iraq was a good idea, just executed poorly.

Compared to Obama's ideology that it was not a good idea regardless of how well it was executed.  It was flawed in conception.

Which ideology do we want to lead America's foreign policy going forward?

[ Parent ]
Oh Yeah (0.00 / 0)
"When troops are already in harms way you give them what they need."

There were more than a few NO votes to funding in both the House and Senate.

Obama could have but never did vote NO. Why? Political calculation? Planning a run for President?

If he was so much against the war he would have voted NO with the others. But he didn't. Finger to the wind politician that wouldn't stand up to his own rhetoric out of the Senate when he was in the Senate. Now he pretends he never voted to fund. Sorry that is all spineless as far as I am concerned.

At least Clinton points back to her floor speech which none of the Obama supporters want to acknowledge as evidenced by your response. Neither do they want to acknowledge that she and Byrd introduced a bill to rescind the 2002 AUMF, something Obama didn't even come close to doing to my recollection.

Why if he was so against the war didn't he try to stop the war with legislation when in the Senate? Finger to the wind - the same as he will be as a President should he win? I think so.

[ Parent ]
Why if he was so against the war didn't he try to stop the war with legislation when in the Senate? (4.00 / 1)
....Because Hillary and the rest of her insidious DLC war club made it abundantly clear they weren't going to provide the votes to stop the occupation...

I'm glad that Obama has decided to run for President to be in the position, to have the power to actually get the "bus out of the ditch"...  That bus -- Hillary and the DLC drove willingly into the ditch, and made sure to keep it there.

Yeah and...

Clinton and Byrd are Calling for Revocation of the Wrong AUMF
http://baltimorechronicle.com/...

[ Parent ]
As I said, this post is about ideology... (4.00 / 1)
not this lame attack, that he's just as bad as her, that you have created.

So I'll ask again. Do you want the ideology that got us there in the first place? Or do you want to change that?

[ Parent ]
These cheap debating points... (4.00 / 1)
...do nothing to enhance the candidate we assume you support, or denigrate the candidate you clearly abhor.

One day you will get it. It's not about spin, it's not about 'but he's as bad as we are'. It's about going beyond the triangulated polls, of supporting a bellicose Republican president because that's what everyone else is doing. It's about leadership: taking the consequences of an unpopular decision (70 per cent of your country and mine supported the war when Obama made his speech); envisaging the consequences from a position of power in the senate, when you should be able to see through the intelligence briefings (supposing you read them) and the short term patriotism of supporting our soldiers in action.

If there was one event that lost Hillary the presidency, it was her vote for AUMF. Like her husband on many occasions (but not all) she proved that short term currying of favour was more important than analysis and principle.

Now a thousand more americans have lost their lives, in addition to the three thousand on 9/11. Hundreds of British soldiers are also dead. And over a hundred thousand iraqis.

Don't make short term political spin out of these figures. It's unseemly. Shortfuse by name. Short attention span by content
 

[ Parent ]
Leadership (0.00 / 0)
is not talking from a State House with nothing personally at stake. Leadership would have been trying to stop the war with legislation when actually in the Senate. He never even tried and that is the harsh truth. Live with it.

His rhetoric pre-Senate and today rings hollow. Words don't mean shit unless you backed them with actions that may have consequences.

So he chose to do nothing because there would have been consequences and his future meant more to him than doing the right thing about something about what he said he was against. Just another Pol.

[ Parent ]
I love this... (0.00 / 0)
...the last counsel of despair. Just another pol.

It's a meaningless statement. Just another day. I think you made your own critique of yourself - 'words don't mean shit'

[ Parent ]
Funny (0.00 / 0)
One person stands by their actions. The other had their finger in the wind and then tries to pretend they never had their finger in the wind.

I think you have the candidates confused.  Obama is the tall African American. Does that help?

John McCain doesn't care about Vets.


[ Parent ]
And you are the (0.00 / 0)
blind man. Does that help?
[ Parent ]
The only answer to ad hominem (0.00 / 0)
..is ad baculum. OK. I get where you're coming from now.  
[ Parent ]
That's why, as Barack says: (4.00 / 4)
We're not just trying to end this war, but end the mindset that got us into this war.
Obama is trying to take our foreign policy in a new direction (0.00 / 0)
HRC offers Bush/McCain-lite.  A good article on what an "Obama Doctrine" would look like:

http://www.prospect.org/cs/art...

[ Parent ]
they gave their lives for freedom? (4.00 / 8)
'They gave their life for the greatest gift one can give to a fellow human being, the gift of freedom.'

It sounds like Clinton has bought into the Bush/McCain spin that we went into Iraq to rid the world of an evil dictator and provide freedom to an oppressed people.  If I remember correctly, we invaded Iraq to rid the country of WMD's.  The sad truth is that they gave their lives in order to do something that wasn't necessary.  Why can't we be honest with people and say that our soldiers' lives have been wasted?

I thought they gave their lives to save us (4.00 / 6)
The argument that got the public behind the war was the (imaginary) "smoking gun in the shape of a mushroom cloud."  If the American people hadn't been told Saddam was building nukes and a delivery system that could reach us, they would not have backed the war.  They certainly would not have supported spending 4,000 troops' lives, 20,000 seriously maimed and trillions of dollars to make the Iraqis free, and that's why the Bushies didn't go with that argument.  This is just revisionism, taking the rationale of the day and using it.

Hillary not only can;t admit a mistake, in her heart of hearts can't see that the war was a misuse of American power that has set us back immeasurably in terms of lives and treasure, the strength of our military, the goodwill of the international community, our own security and above all the strength of our economy.  If Hillary can't see that, and her statement certainly doesn't show that she can, then as Pres she would repeat the same mistakes.  Obama is right--we need to change the mindset that got us into war.  She was part of that mindset then and unfortunately seems to still be part of it.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
They gave their life for... (4.00 / 2)
There were different motivations for the various actors. We know W's personal motivation:

Two years before the September 11 attacks, presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer, who held many conversations with then-Texas Governor Bush in preparation for a planned autobiography.

"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said to me: 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He said, 'If I have a chance to invade·.if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency." Herskowitz said that Bush expressed frustration at a lifetime as an underachiever in the shadow of an accomplished father. In aggressive military action, he saw the opportunity to emerge from his father's shadow.

For the neocons - Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc. - the PNAC documents clearly lay out their motivation: They wanted a permanent military presence in order to control the oil in order to have economic leverage over Europe and China.

Then there was the added perk of the opportunity for looting Iraq and U.S. taxpayers for the administration's corporate cronies.

These are the grotesquely immoral reasons that our soldiers have died. No matter how Bush/McCain/Clinton try to polish this enormous bloody turd, that blood won't wash out.

Chomsky Fever!

[ Parent ]
These two quotes are SO telling.... (4.00 / 2)
It seems to me that Clinton's remarks are calibrated, at least in part, to be consistent with her recent attacks on Obama from the right w/rt foreign policy and 'experience.'  So the question I am left asking after reading her remarks is how much she believes in what she is saying.  

I'm not sure what is more disturbing: that she would basically buy into the Bush/McCain framing of the war in order to advance her political career, or that she honestly thinks the Iraq war was fundamentally just.    

If she believes everything she says, (4.00 / 1)
she would be certifiably insane. No one could possibly believe that an election with one name on the ballot (Michigan) was "fair."

Chomsky Fever!
[ Parent ]
Double-check (0.00 / 0)
You are certain that quote came from Clinton, right?  Sounds more like McCain - too wordy for Bush, or Cheney.

"Listen son, said the man with the gun, there's room for you inside."
Fundamentally different views of the world (4.00 / 3)
1) This is what is really important, not wonky policy details.  Our last two Democratic presidents, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, were arguably less effective than they should have been because they were too concerned with details.  (I'm reminded of the funny quote about Carter regarding how while some people can't see the forest for the trees, Carter was a "leaf man.")  Not that presidents should be unconcerned with details, but the stereotype of Democrats seems to be too many competent bureaucrats and not enough "big picture" guys.

2) The success of the Democratic Party lies in part with bringing together people who share some policy goals despite having different worldviews.  The wrong way to go about it is to enforce the sharing of an artificial DLC-style worldview which no one actually believes.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

This is exactly why - (0.00 / 0)
Obama is the weaker candidate in the general.  

One doesn't apply for the position of commander in chief by suggesting that men and women on the battlefield are wasting their lives:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/s...

One doesn't apply for the job of commander in chief by making statements that can be twisted to be anything other than enthusiastic support of the troops and their mission:

http://www.boston.com/news/nat...

Clinton's statement is wholly correct, factually and politically.  The soldiers who died in Iraq genuinely believe they were working to establish a democratic, stable government.  Obama's is an appeal to the anti-war vote.  Obama doesn't have to run as the anti-war candidate anymore.  He needs to be McCain's opponent, not Clinton's.  

Obama's is an appeal to the anti-war vote (4.00 / 2)
That seems like a good idea politically, since about 60-65% of the country is now the "anti-war vote," and another 70% think the Iraq war is causing economic difficulties at home.

And oh yeah:

One doesn't apply for the job of commander in chief by making statements that can be twisted to be anything other than enthusiastic support of the troops and their mission:

The logic of that statement is that it is impossible for presidential candidates to ever oppose any war America has entered. "anything other than enthusiastic support of the troops and their mission"? Really? So in order to win, we have to cheerlead the Iraq war?

That is a sad and disturbing place to be in as a Democrat.  

[ Parent ]
Pro-withdrawal is not the same as anti-war (0.00 / 0)
There is a group of voters who were against the war from the start - if polling at the time of invasion was accurate, that was small slice of the electorate.  That's what I mean by "anti-war."

Support for withdrawal has risen as the war dragged on.  However, people can support withdrawal for many reasons - people may feel that the Iraqis weren't up to the job, that the war was botched militarily, or that the US relied on bad intelligence in good faith, etc.  Current figures as to whether the war was "morally justified" are 52% NO, 48% YES (CNN poll about a third of the way down):

http://www.pollingreport.com/i...

In other words, there are still many people who don't believe the United States was morally or legally wrong to invade, just mistaken, or that the US conducted the war badly.  

Clinton is talking to that 48%.  Obama is talking to the 52%.  Which will the Democrats need to beat McCain?

It IS extremely difficult, perhaps impossible, for a Presidential candidate to successfully oppose the moral authority of a war currently being conducted.  Perhaps that will change one day, but it isn't likely to change this year.    

[ Parent ]
um (2.00 / 2)
52% is bigger than 48%, yes?

And Obama is a weaker candidate?

[ Parent ]
Yes. (0.00 / 0)
I should think this is self-evident.  If 60-70% want to withdraw, but only 52% believe that the war was not morally justified, you get the most votes by stressing withdrawal without making the argument that the war was not morally justified.  Making the argument that the war was morally unjusified risks losing some of the voters who fall between the 52% and the 70%.  
[ Parent ]
Has everybody forgotten that (0.00 / 0)
Obama can teach?  That he can explain WHY he thinks the war was unjustified.  Nobody has heard it yet.  And I think once they do, they aren't stupid, and they will understand that's it's not a question of being weak vs strong.  It's a question of being smart vs ignorant.

And too presume that Americans are idiots and the MSM will never let his story out is a defeatist mindset.

As he often says.  He is making a gamble with the American people. He trusts that they will understand and decide they've had enough of the old thinking. And, so far, that gamble has paid off.

He speaks to them as adults. Case in point: his Race Speech.

[ Parent ]
How many adults (0.00 / 0)
can you count on the Sunday political talk shows?
[ Parent ]
You make my point. (0.00 / 0)
Giving in. That's not the American people. They're talking points reciting robots. When the American people move forward they will slowly follow.
[ Parent ]
How can it ever be a good thing to be "enthusiatic" (4.00 / 2)
about a war based on lies?

Can you please explain how "enthusiatically supporting" a mis-guided and fraudulent use of the US military is a good thing?


"Listen son, said the man with the gun, there's room for you inside."

[ Parent ]
The Obama Doctrine (0.00 / 0)
Read it.  Your argument is exactly the politics of fear that Obama is trying to break away from.  Political fear.  The fear that Dems of old have shown when they try to be like Republicans, only a little bit different.

How about instead of the Orwellian "war brings peace", we chart a new course, that will take a little political courage at first, in which dignity breeds peace.

That's what Obama is trying to do.  So you can be fearful that words will be twisted so as to look weak in a commander in chief roll, the path Hillary has taken...  But where exactly has that mentality gotten us so far?

[ Parent ]
I encourage Obama to try it, then. (0.00 / 0)
He should come out again and say that American lives are being wasted, and see how it works for him this time.  

But until he does, don't credit him for political courage he isn't showing.

[ Parent ]
That's not my argument. (4.00 / 1)
There is political realism.  And number one is you don't say lives are wasted.  Even if they were.  You honor those who have given their lives.  They fought for their country and fulfilled their duty without question.

The political courage comes with taking a different tack on foreign policy as explained in the Spencer Ackerman article I gave.

[ Parent ]
Yes, (0.00 / 0)
and as I said below, I have no idea what Ackerman is saying.  I'll read it again.  Perhaps I'm just not getting it.  Campaigning beyond fear is one thing - but that isn't a foreign policy.  Dignity promotion just sounds like foreign aid - a fine idea, but not a departure.  
[ Parent ]
The Obama Doctrine (0.00 / 0)
Here's how I see the world:

The post-war Western world order was based on containment - international cooperation to tolerate but curb the expansion of states with expansionist or destructive agendas, with the hope that they will eventually die.  This strategy was effective with the Soviet Union, and it was effective with Iraq, at least in preventing the acquition of WMDs (at a great humitarian cost, of course).

The Bush administration adopted a radical unipolar world view, based on some sort of vague moral authority that the United States was destined to spread democracy, and adopted the novel idea of preemptive war instead of containment.

The reality is that, as long as troops are on the ground, and particularly when the public perception is that the United States can still "win" a war, it is very difficult to run against current miliatry endeavors.  I don't think this is unique to the United States, although the United States may have a more shallow and indignant strain of patriotism than other countries.

Kerry lost because he was unable to expose the Bush Doctrine as a radical departure from traditional, successful foreign policy frameworks.  Kerry adopted well-worn policy ideas, as has Clinton.  The UN is designed around these ideas.

I'm not sure what Obama means by "dignity promotion" beyond foreign aid.  I'm not sure if his approach differs from simple containment in concert with the world community.  Ending fear in political discourse sounds nice, but the reality is that fear is a potent emotion, and fear will always play some role.  In the end, the question of fear is a question of campaigning on the domestic front, not a question of foreign policy, isn't it?  In that way, the Obama Doctrine sounds like a campaign strategy, not a policy.

Does Obama's view differ from traditional strategies of containment?  If so, what is his view?

[ Parent ]
You give people dignity. (0.00 / 0)
They have less of a reason to turn to the evil side against you. You give them freedom from fear and freedom from want and they won't see you as the enemy.

Right now they are suffering.  In Iraq.  In Sudan.  AlQ comes along and says, "are you better off today then you were before the Americans invaded?".  You look around at the suffering and say 'no'.  They recruit you and you become an enemy to America.

If we give them dignity those recruiters have less to demagogue.  They can't take advantage of them the way they would normally be able to do.

And remember he's a "bottom up" guy.  He understand that change happens from the bottom up.  Traditional containment has been to just let them go as long as they aren't a direct threat.  I'm just speculating but I'm guessing his containment would to be diplomatically aggressive.  To speak to who we would normally not.  But also to build the people up underneath so that they may bring a homegrown revolution in their own land.

I would also suggest reading Samantha Power's book(s).  She brings a philosophy that we are at an era where there no long is quick dicisive victories or wins to huge problems.  There is no long ticker tape parades.  We can slowly work on a problem for the long view or we can make things worse as we have in Iraq.

So in a way, yes, it is giving aid.  But not just throwing money at whatever problem.  It's doing it smart and targeted. It's coupling it with diplomacy and a greater world involvement.  By that I mean bringing in more then just the US.

[ Parent ]
I'm still thinking about this... (0.00 / 0)
but it's still vague to me.  For example:

How do you give people dignity in countries where any financial aid is devoured by a political or religious tyrants and used to promote their ends rather than improve the education and quality of life of their citizens?  In countries like Iran, where much of their culture is at odds with our notions of human dignity, how can we help from the bottom up?  Groups that, for example, promote women's rights, are subversive and the United States would be seen as corrupting the culture by supporting them.  Giving money to groups that oppress women isn't helpful either.  We can't support Western style education without the help of the government.

Thanks for the article.  I'll see if I can find more information.  

[ Parent ]
The Obama Doctrine (0.00 / 0)
seems contentless, like everything else about Obama.

I read the article a couple times, then tried to find more detailed commentary online about "dignity promotion" etc.  The phrase "dignity promotion" doesn't mean anything concrete.  The phrase "ending the mindset" that led to the Iraq War means, as far as I can tell, trying to campaign on a basis other than fear.  That's a campaign strategy, not a foreign policy.

The article cites repeatedly Obama's statements that the United States should go into Pakistan to take out Osama if the Pakistani government does not.  This violates international law.  It risks further destabilizing the situation in Pakistan (a risk that would be worthwhile even if we succeed).  I agree it's ironic for the Republicans to balk at the proposal, because it is exactly what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan, and neither is working well.  In what sense is this different thinking?

Absent from the article is the concept that our foreign policy choices breed terrorism.  Instead, it's a question of "dignity."  I'm all for spending money so to pull all cultures out of poverty, and the role of aid is recognized - it's nothing new.  Unless you deal with the hard details of how you make the money serve the ends you want, it is less than meaningless.

If Obama wanted to say something "new" that would be a dramatic positive shift in foreign policy that would blunt the threat of terrorism, he would say "We need to dramatically alter our role in the middle east, stop blindly supporting Israel, and reevaluate out military role in the region."  That, of course, would be politically risky, even potentially fatal.  But, with some detail that isn't hard to imagine, it would be an actual foreign policy, different from what either Clinton or McCain proposes.

Instead, Obama wants to violate Pakistan's borders because it sounds tough.  He talks about dignity promotion because it sounds magnamamous. In other words, he is 100% politics, no substance, except that he borrows from standard Democratic policies.

If I'm wrong, please explain how.    

[ Parent ]
You are kidding, right? (0.00 / 0)
The Bush administration adopted a radical unipolar world view, based on some sort of vague moral authority that the United States was destined to spread democracy, and adopted the novel idea of preemptive war instead of containment.

Democracy was an after the fact rationalization for the war and containment was a fiction. If you think this war was about spreading democracy or as a substitute for containment, may I offer you some graham crackers to go with your cool aid?

John McCain doesn't care about Vets.


[ Parent ]
I always thought (0.00 / 0)
that part of the neocon vision was that the United States was uniquely morally positioned to lead the world, because of it's supposed liberal values.  I thought that the notion of "exporting democracy" was a strain of neocon thought in the 1990s.  Take, for example, this 1991 screed from the AEI published in 1991, Exporting Democracy: Fulfilling America's Destiny.

http://www.aei.org/books/bookI...

As I said, the war was a radical rejection of containment.  I believe you can find statements from Bush before the war talking about bringing democracy to Iraq.  I think that's consistent with neocon literature.  So, no, I'm not kidding, but I certainly could be wrong.

[ Parent ]
Didn't really think you were kidding and don't know if you are wrong (0.00 / 0)
But the democracy angle was second fiddle to fear.

I know this is sooo retro but true nonetheless: if there weren't oil in the mideast we wouldn't be in Iraq. WMD's was the excuse -- they couldn't sell invading a country simply because they weren't democratic and near oil.  Democracy was the cologne, to give that nice smell.

John McCain doesn't care about Vets.


[ Parent ]
So much for civilian control of the military (0.00 / 0)
One doesn't apply for the job of cammander-in-chief by lightly sending our troops to die based on trumped up intel and then admit you didn't even read that.

One doesn't apply for the job of commander-in-chief by suggesting that you would hesitate to exercise civilian control over the military;

One doesn't apply for the job of commander-in-chief by ignoring plummeting morale, rising suicide rates and increased reports fo PTSD among vets.

No, all it takes is happy talk and catchy slogans.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
She's a foreign policy hawk, it's as simple as that (3.00 / 4)
It's no surprise that she was the political protege of Pat Moynihan, who was affiliated with the neocons in the 60's and 70's, and ideologically aligned with the Scoop Jackson wing of the Democratic party. While I'm only speculating here, I view her as a product of her times and background, i.e. a conservative, Republican, religious, white, middle class, middle America, midwest, traditional family and sociocultural climate, during the height of the cold war, when the fear of total annihilation was present and real (and of communist infiltration and takeover far less real but nevertheless totally believed in by millions of people from such backgrounds), who by the time she came of age had the kind of paranoia that was typical of these times, and of people who came from such a background, and the deep belief in the need to maintain a very aggressive military and foreign policy stance--and if need be put it to active use--to prevent such annihilation, hard-wired into her psyche. While she might have moderated these core prejudices over the years to fit the times--she was a McCarthy Democrat by the last 60's who opposed the Vietnam war--they nevertheless appear to have remained, lurking in the subconscious, ready to become re-activated under the right circumstances. Which, of course, happened after 9/11 (although, of course, upon becoming a senator in early 2001, well before 9/11, she asked to be appointed to the Armed Services Committee, so it wasn't just 9/11).

Agree with her, disagree with her, this is clearly the operative core mindset and set of policy prejudices that she brings to any foreign policy, military or national security situation, that she either hasn't bothered to fundamentally question and reconsider, despite how it's failed her so utterly over Iraq--or, far worse I think, and quite possibly more likely, HAS fundamentally questioned and reconsidered this mindset, and not found it wanting. That scares me.

The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25)

Hear, Hear! (4.00 / 1)
Great post, Chris. This really highlights a fundamental difference between the two candidates. Do we want more of the same mistakes? I say no.
Read her statement (4.00 / 1)
She is describing the soldiers' mission as it was given to them by their commander in chief.  She is not endorsing the war.  She is attempting to help confer meaning on the deaths of 4000 men and women.  Not everything is about getting Chris Bowers' vote.  I much prefer her statement to Obama's, the main purpose of which is to once again brag about his 2002 speech. (That thing is to Obama as 9/11 was to Rudy.)
Clinton Still Believes In Iraq Mission | 45 comments
SEIU will donate $1 to OpenLeft for each individual who signs up for their campaign to pass health care for all Americans. Sign up here.
Donate to Open Left
QUICK HITS
PREMIUM AD
Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.


LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2008, Powered by SoapBlox