October 25, 2007
Hillary Clinton’s Bad Iran Vote (Brent Budowsky)
When Sens. Joe Lieberman and John Kyl offered the Iran resolution that Hillary Rodham Clinton and some other Democrats unfortunately supported, trust me, folks, Sen. Lieberman was not pushing for a diplomatic solution.
Sen. Clinton has a problem, and it cannot and will not be solved through oppo research about Obama, or through the assault of spinmeisters claiming, falsely, that it was a vote for diplomacy.
What Sen. Clinton wants to do is maneuver to the right for the general election, then, when the backlash comes, maneuver to the left with claims she has been wronged and claims she was voting for diplomacy, as she claimed when she supported the original Iraq war resolution.
The Lieberman proposal was a vote about war, not a vote about diplomacy. The Lieberman proposal was pushed by those who want to drive the country to war, with language that may well be used to someday, possibly soon, justify a war, by those who favor a war.
The Lieberman Iran proposal was done in a Washington atmosphere that borders on hysteria on matters involving Iran, with far too many senators on both sides of the aisle surrendering to the hysteria by voting for this resolution.
The Lieberman proposal was done in a Washington where the president speaks of World War III, and Democrats, far too often, fail to offer the opposition that voters sent them to Washington to offer in the election of 2006.
If other Democrats voted for this, it does not make Hillary Clinton right; it makes them wrong.
Virtually all Democrats around America and the overwhelming majority of independents as well believe they were disenfranchised after 2006, that the vote was effectively stolen after the fact by both parties — one led by a reckless president, the other unable to offer strong and effective opposition.
Hillary Clinton’s problem is that she maneuvered to vote for the Iraq resolution in 2002, which turned out to be an effective declaration of war. She maneuvered between 2002 and 2006 when she resisted the pleas from Democrats and countless Americans and continued to oppose the most important proposals to change the policy.
Now she maneuvers, again, in 2007, with an Iran vote that looks like, smells like, and sounds like the Iraq vote in 2002.
If Sen. Clinton wants the benefits of moving tactically to the right, she should accept the responsibility for the consequences, as should all other Democrats who took the same course and speak with the same uncertain trumpet.
If Hillary Clinton is nominated, I will support her, holding my nose with one hand and a certain part of my anatomy with the other.
The problem Sen. Clinton has is she is not trusted by many voters who could vote for her, to act with conviction, courage and clarity. As a result, she is a polarizing figure who might win a close election, but runs the risk, for herself and the party, of motivating more conservatives to vote, of turning off some Democrats and independents, and losing a close election the Democrats should win in a landslide.
The question is not whether Hillary is left or right, or whether she maneuvers this way or that way during this week or that week. The question is whether she is tough enough and principled enough to function as the credible leader of the opposition to policies that 75 percent of the American people oppose, without the endless maneuvering and calculations that make Americans cynical about her, about Congress, and about Democrats nationally.
Hopefully she will stand up, and Democrats in Congress will stand up, far more boldly than they have been standing up since George W. Bush began his obsessive march to war in Iraq with the support of Sen. Clinton and far too many Democrats in Congress.
No amount of spin can ever make the 2002 Iraq vote, or the 2007 Iran vote, a vote for diplomatic solutions. With a president who speaks of World War III, Democrats and independents throughout America want and deserve far better leadership than that, and far more respect for what the voters decided in the last election, in 2006.
Permalink TrackBack
Email This Post
Share this post
What's This 26 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
It isn't a question of her voting one way while she makes claims that it wasn't that way. It's just that she's a pathological liar, just like Bill Clinton. Birds of a feather flock together. Also, she's going to have major problems convincing the American public that she won't tax them to death in the midst of our current financial situation.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — October 25, 2007 @ 11:55 am
Hopefully Iran is reduced to a simple, agrarian status ASAP.
Comment by Igor R. — October 25, 2007 @ 12:04 pm
It's truly astonishing, if anything, Hillary is even more triangulating and politically conscious than even Bill Clinton is
If Hillary's the nominee, I can't guarantee I'd vote for her, not after all the symbolism over substance she seems to pursue
Clinton and Obama need to be leading on issues, not letting others-like Dodd-do the heavy lifting on issues like trying to stop further guttings of the 4th Amendment via FISA "revisions"
If showing a real spine is just too tough to do during the primary campaigns, then Clinton or Obama should get the hell off the stage completely
Comment by KingCranky — October 25, 2007 @ 12:28 pm
[...] the permalink. Follow comments here with the RSS feed. Comments are closed, but you can leave a trackback. ‹ McCain Calls for ‘League of Democracies’ Spot Space Shuttle And InternationalSpace Station In Night Sky › [...]
Pingback by Hillary Clinton’s Bad Iran Vote | Political news - democrats republicans socialists greens liberals conservatives — October 25, 2007 @ 12:54 pm
There goes Igor doing his daily killing. Let's bomb them into the stone age!
Mrs. Clinton's vote was deplorable, and she should be denied the nomination for voting that way. How do you trust an ignorant, failure of a President with something like this, after he has made us a lonely fool on the world stage?
Comment by Chris Calbi — October 25, 2007 @ 2:12 pm
saying that you will hold your nose and vote for her, is no doubt music to her ears and her handlers'. do you really think Hillary gives a flying f about about your nose?
Hillary will never get my vote, period. she's a warmonger, a phony, and basically a politician in the worst sense of the word.
Comment by dfong63 — October 25, 2007 @ 2:26 pm
Chris, oh well, the B2's are getting modified, the big bombs will be placed on them. We don't need to kill anyone, A'Mad just needs to do the right thing. But if he doesn't, perhaps he can check out an old tape of Dr. Strangelove at the Mullah's Corner Video Store and learn to love the conventional bombs as much as he seems to love the other kind.
Comment by Igor R. — October 25, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
I agree with many of conclusions reached by Brent in this article. I, however, will not be voting for Hillary in 2008. I’m convinced that Hillary is complicit in the war crimes in Iraq, Afghanistan, and possibly Iran in the future. In regards to Afghanistan, the forgotten war, the same crimes against humanity as those in Iraq have been perpetrated against the Afghan people, albeit on a somewhat smaller scale: namely, aggressive war fought under false pretenses, bombing of innocent civilians, the massive use of depleted uranium, and the brutal torture of innocent civilians. These policies will continue under Hillary, whose coronation is virtually complete. Sadly, if either Obama or Edwards were to somehow be selected in 2008, these same war crimes would continue to occur. As a voter, when faced with the choice of a Republican candidate, who will commit war crimes on a massive scale, or a Democratic candidate, who will commit war crimes on a somewhat lesser scale, I can not in good conscience choose either. I have no intention of being complicit in war crimes and I urge the readers of this column to strongly consider a similar course of action.
Comment by glutalgia — October 25, 2007 @ 3:07 pm
Hillary is Bush with an IQ above 50.
Her assertion of a "yes but no" vote should trouble everybody who is sick of war and saber rattling.
Of course, whomever her opponent is from the fascist side other than Ron Paul, has indicated that it will be war in perpetuity.
The cheers from the hollow-eyed zealots of the lunatic right when the red meat of war is thrown to them ring loudly.
Sad.
Comment by fascismisdead — October 25, 2007 @ 4:03 pm
Dead Fascist, you consistently try to present a picture of anyone who opposes your ideology being a mindless zombie-like lemming. Ever considered that maybe they understand something you don't, with their own functioning brain?
Comment by Igor R. — October 25, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
It is difficult to imagine the US presidency going from Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton. It is monarchical in nature. If the US populace votes for Clinton, I think she will be Bush-light in some respects, but heavy on war.
The US relies too much on military might rather than diplomacy. The current Bush-Cheney administration and many in Congress are stuck in the Cold War mentality. They support and implement reflexive measures using out of date formulas in a world that tried to move on long ago. Apparently Clinton is stuck in that same mentality which is counterproductive to the nation and the world.
The US wields influence where others follow suit. Bush moved the world backwards in such a fashion it may take decades before we to reach the point before he came to the WH.
We sorely need fresh, innovative forward thinkers with avant-garde ideas to move us into a new era where opportunities can abound and war and violence become obsolete. It is a long process that will not happen overnight, but it is necessary to begin before man annihilates himself and the world. Changes are coming fast and furious. The world community is ready to catch-up. But world leaders are mired in yesterday's thinking. And with Clinton as president war presumably war will continue to rage on.
What we choose to believe affects how we behave and how we behave shapes personal, national and world events. The world does not have to be a dangerous place. Yet many are comfortable believing otherwise, however, in doing so it keeps the rest of us stuck in a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Comment by serena1313 — October 25, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
Serena, fresh thinking is always good, particularly after eight years of dumb dangerous governing, but that monarchial argument doesn't hold water. Glut, you are correct that she is complicit. She should be denied the nomination and the Presidency. I do think, however, if she is President, she will meet the extreme ire of the left, if she continues positioning herself as she does. I will not vote for her in the primaries, but of course, I will hold my nose, tightly in the general election.
There is only one thing that would be great about her being POTUS. It is the reaction of Igor and that whole crowd. they will whip themselves into a frenzy. Judging by how afraid of her that they are, we might see things like immolation. They certainly will find some extremist Ken Starr type figure to haunt her until the day that she leaves office. Remember what they did to this country in the 90's.
Comment by Chris Calbi — October 25, 2007 @ 6:22 pm
Ignore,
Yes, I constantly try that approach but every time I do it a zombie-like lemming brings me back to the realities of the day.
When the Republican party was NOT in the grips of the KKK, Hitler-was-right crowd a respectful dialog was possible.
Mutual shared interests were generally agreed upon.
Those days are over though.
The words and actions of division and hate have come back to haunt you.
So the party of "family values" is led by perverts, druggies, and multiple divorcees.
The party of "law and order" is highlighted by illegal wiretappers, war profiteers, thieves, and convicted congressmen.
The party that freed the slaves presents its face in the ex-slave holding states as the "states rights party" with a wink of the eye.
Finally the party that always warned against foreign entanglements now advocates perpetual war.
It used to be my party but not anymore.
Can anyone in their right mind tell me that Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Ike would be allowed in this party today?
Comment by fascismisdead — October 25, 2007 @ 7:04 pm
Serena & Chris
"What we choose to believe affects how we behave and how we behave shapes personal, national and world events. The world does not have to be a dangerous place. Yet many are comfortable believing otherwise, however, in doing so it keeps the rest of us stuck in a self-fulfilling prophecy."
I guess times and human beings have changes over the last many thousand years, where the world and mankind has alway been a dangerous place (many many millions dead at the hand of others). Let's put our heads in the sand and pretend it is different now. And as for Igor and the whole crowd whipping themselves into a frenzy over Hillary, I might observe no more of a frenzy than the Hate Bush crowd whips themselves into daily. History will treat Bush well. Hillary will come out as a footnote to Bill. How I hope the Democrats nominate Hillary. America is to smart to go down that road again. Besides, as a nation we are much more comfortable when the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch are ruled by differert political parties, both having blown it in the not distant past.
Comment by John B — October 25, 2007 @ 7:36 pm
From Fareed Zakaria in Newsweek
http://www.newsweek.com/id/57346
“Here is the reality. Iran has an economy the size of Finland’s and an annual defense budget of around $4.8 billion. It has not invaded a country since the late 18th century. The United States has a GDP that is 68 times larger and defense expenditures that are 110 times greater. Israel and every Arab country (except Syria and Iraq) are quietly or actively allied against Iran. And yet we are to believe that Tehran is about to overturn the international system and replace it with an Islamo-fascist order? What planet are we on?”
Let me add also that its Saudi Arabia who'se responsible for most of the attacks in Iraq. Yet every day we're BRAINWASHED into thinking Iran is a greater threat. Why isn't anyone calling for an attack on Saudi Arabia?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/16/eveningnews/main3063845.shtml
Comment by Larry from C — October 25, 2007 @ 7:39 pm
Clinton considers giving up some powers
NEW YORK - If elected president in 2008, Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton would consider giving up some of the executive powers President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have assumed since taking office.
In an interview published Tuesday in Guardian America,…Clinton denounced the Bush Administration’s push to concentrate more power in the White House as a “power grab” not supported by the Constitution.
Asked if she would consider giving up some of those powers if she were president, Clinton replied, “Oh, absolutely … I mean, that has to be part of the review that I undertake when I get to the White House, and I intend to do that.”
**Brent, please take note!! Excuse me??!! She’s going to review which illegal powers to give back when she’s in the White House?? She’s unable to tell us NOW which powers are illegal and will be conceded? She plans on keeping, or trying to keep, some of these unConstitutional powers?? And the reporter didn’t press her and ask which illegal powers she desires to retain? And none of the “news” programs have mentioned any of this??
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200…..mGzHas0NUE
Comment by Larry from C — October 25, 2007 @ 7:42 pm
Brent, here's the main reason Bush is going to order the attack on Iran:
Iran completes move away from dollar reserves
Washington: Iran's central bank governor has said that the country has completed the process of diversifying its external reserves away from the dollar.
Tahmasb Maaheri, who took over as the central bank governor of the country, told Washington-based Emerging Market magazine the process of diversification is almost 100 per cent.
"We have done our best to implement this diversification in both our resources, instruments and forex reserves in order to get maximum out of our assets," he said.
Currently, most of Iran's trading partners are making payments for oil in currencies other than the dollar.
Iran's move to diversify away from the dollar has been partly motivated by political tensions with the US and partly due to the weakness of the dollar in the past two years.
In recent years, Iran has been calling for reserve diversification and pricing of oil against a basket of currencies.
Although many countries in the Middle East are not as vocal as Iran, recent statistics from US Treasury Department indicate that many of them are diversifying their reserves away from dollar denominated assets.
http://www.gulf-news.com/business/Economy/10162044.html
Comment by Larry from C — October 25, 2007 @ 7:53 pm
Brent, are you getting the point how dangerous Hillary is? And I'm an Independent/Progressive. Not some authoritarian whack job like Rosencrans or Igor.
Hillary Clinton’s Bush Connection
NEW YORK, Oct. 19 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The Real News Project reports exclusively today that the engineer of George W. Bush’s rescue from financial disaster—a man who would propel Bush on the path to elective office—has quietly moved into Hillary Clinton’s inner circle of key financial backers. The engineer is longtime GOP backer Alan Quasha. His mysterious Harken Energy drew intense scrutiny from investigators and the media in the early 90’s and again during Bush’s first term because of its dubious financial practices and board members connected to the corrupt Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI). Along with a business partner, Quasha has been forging new links with Clinton and her associates for several years. Among other things, they have raised substantial sums for her, and in 2005 they discreetly hired Clinton confidant and longtime Democratic Party money man Terry McAuliffe, providing him with a lucrative temporary perch until the Clinton campaign formally launched with McAuliffe as its chairman.
“That Hillary Clinton’s campaign is involved with this particular cast of characters should give people pause,” says John Moscow, a former Manhattan prosecutor. In the late 1980s and early ’90s, Moscow led the investigation of the BCCI global financial empire—which included Harken board members among its prominent shareholders.
“Too many of the same names from earlier troubling circumstances suggests a lack of control over who she is dealing with,” says Moscow, “or a policy of dealing with anyone who can pay.”
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/27855
Comment by Larry from C — October 25, 2007 @ 7:57 pm
I for one will not vote for Hillary. As much as I want a Democrat as President, I will not vote for her in the primaries or the general election. I cannot. She is the best thing the Democrats can do to rejuvenate the Republican Party and I will have no part of it. If the Republicans have any chance of winning in 08 they need Hillary as an oponent.
Comment by Cliff Young — October 25, 2007 @ 8:05 pm
Serena, here is a wonderful, avant-garde idea: a hundred million people repeat the word "peace" all at the same time? You think that might work?
Chris, immolation due to a Hillary win? You've got to be kidding! No Ken Starr for Hillary either, even ol' Ken was a little cautious when dealing Vince Foster's early retirement.
http://www.swlink.net/~hoboh/
Comment by Igor R. — October 25, 2007 @ 8:50 pm
Does anoyone remember the DLC? Well, there you go, therein lies a huge portion of the problem. Hillary is no more than a Bush with a brain.
What is funny, if not hilraious, is the neocon-nutballs criticizing Lil' Miss Hillary, when she sees the world in the same light as these neocon crackpots.
RR, Igoe, and Simmons, the resident water-carrying, neocon-wannabe's really ought to consider supporting hillary as she is to the right of Fred, Rudi, and Mitt.
The dem party seems to be over run with the same fascists that rules the GOP.
Comment by Chris in NM — October 26, 2007 @ 12:36 am
It's a very special day on the Hill. I agree with most of what everyone has written.
Comment by Chris Calbi — October 26, 2007 @ 10:30 am
Senator Clinton's "yes" vote on the Kyl-Liberman resolution on Iran was deliberate and calculating. Her claim that she did not intend to authorize President Bush to use force in Iran is a white lie. She knows full well that she was doing. Senator Liberman has openly advocated the use of military force against Iran. President Bush will interpret the "yes" vote as approval by the senate to attack Iran. Senator Clinton understands the possible consequences of her vote quite well. She is an intelligent woman. Her "yes" vote was intended to set herself apart from her democratic rivals, and to portray herself to voters as someone who, like her Republican rivals, is tough on national defense. She lies, deliberately lies, when she asserts that her vote was not intended to authorize President Bush to attack Iran. After Iraq, she knows full well how President Bush will interpret that vote. If Senator Clinton believes that war with Iran is desirable, she has an obligation to say so openly, and to justify her thinking to voters. However, she is now at the stage in her campaign where victory is in sight, and the process of securing that victory must be carefully managed. If that means standing up before an audience and lying, then so be it. In fact, Senator Clinton is now at the stage in her campaign where her best strategy might be not to campaign in person at all. Since her answers to questions are carefully rehearsed, and do not deviate from the script, she could send out dozens of life-size replicas of herself around the country that are programmed to repeat canned answers on any topic ranging from the war in Iraq to social security. These dummies will be controlled from a central office where the operator will press the appropriate button to a specific question. Since her "spontaneous" gesticulations, like punching the air with both index fingers extended are also carefully rehearsed, she could have the robots programmed to make spontaneous gesticulations on demand as well. The disturbing aspect of this scenario, is that such a person might actually become president of the United States.
Comment by John Commissiong — October 29, 2007 @ 12:51 am
The Clinton vote for the Lieberman bill was bought and paid for by bucks from Zion. Her pathetic efforts to justify it not only corrupts the political process, but to the extent so little of the political dialogue represents truthful, honest, rational thought, it further debases the English language as the basic tool of communication.
Comment by JayHoward — November 3, 2007 @ 1:44 am
[...] Brent Budowsky added an interesting post today on Hillary Clintonâs Bad Iran VoteHere's a small reading [...]
Pingback by Democrats @ 2008 Presidential Election » Hillary Clinton’s Bad Iran Vote — November 5, 2007 @ 5:25 pm
Dubya's Iran Plans, NIE-capped….
"Tehran's decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have……
Trackback by Ghost in the Machine — December 4, 2007 @ 4:59 pm