Letters to the Editor
-
RE: Ktwdawg
Your points about Hillary's "hawkishness" doesn't prove the accuracy of the broad-sweeping statements by Slackie, or the fact that those points have been made ad-naseum by other non-Hillary supporters which are based on a dearth of facts. An "editor's choice" should be far more insightful, based on facts than that post, and that was my criticism.
But I see you see this as an opportunity to bring up points for Slackie, because my complaint didn't offer "any". You see, I didn't need to cross-reference and footnote to dispute a post that offered none itself.
Oh yes, her Iraq War vote. That sticks in the liberal craw. But her real fault lies in not back-pedaling away from it, such as John Edwards did. John Edwards was even on the senate Intelligence Committee at the time and knew Bush was bloviating, but he still voted for it. But he apologized and therefore he is forgiven. God forbid us liberals forgive Hillary for this sin. This sin practically shows how hawkish she is!
Somehow, as a liberal, I've moved on and forgiven her. ^o) If she was president and making a case for war, she would assume that the congress would be perceiving her as a straight-shooter, which is the presumption she gave to Dubya. But he wasn't. He lied. He manufactured consent. Get over it. It doesn't prove that she is trigger happy.
And Hillary's quote you provided to make your case? It actually shores up her diplomatic tact. You didn't answer, do you really think Hillary would invade Iran? No one could say 'yes' with a straight face. So you're conflating a non-binding resolution that was paired with Webb's resolution (she voted 'ay') of demanding that the President seek Congressional approval before any military action against Iran and prohibiting the use of funds for military operations in Iran. Hmmm, that omitted fact seems to neutralize the very thing you are accusing her of.
Hillary is making those statements about being sure Bush would pursue diplomacy and inspections first and being on record about no pre-emptive actions, so what? What is the beef with that? Should she be on the senate Armed Services committee and get all this information about the Iran Revolutionary Guard supplying weapons and troops to attack Americans in Iraq and then say to Bush, I'll vote against giving you this power because you are a liar? Or should she hope that the national interests and protecting troops transcends her obvious dislike for the president, and his party?
You can read about the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in good ol' wikipedia here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolutionary_Guard_Corps#Involvement_in_the_Iraq_War
In a Guardian article dated Oct. 14th the article said,
Clinton said the was vote was consistent with her negotiating strategy. ``They are supporting sending weapons into Iraq right now that are used against our troops,'' she said, adding that the resolution gives an opening to future penalties and ``leverage when we negotiate with them.''
Responding to a woman's question about such a hypothetical Iranian blockade, Clinton said it would be ``devastating to the world economy.''
She said she would ``immediately open diplomatic negotiations with Iran over all of the issues we disagree with them on,'' and said she thought such talks would be indispensable to American credibility in the region, particularly if tougher actions had to follow.
And meanwhile, Obama criticizes but doesn't even bother to show up and vote for that resolution.
Look, at worse, she'll operate like her husband, who is more of a centrist than she (and yet way less divisive apparently). At best, she will be Bill Clinton v. 2.0.
People like you, who have become prosecutor, judge and jury of Hillary Clinton, are looking for that stained blue dress in the closet to condemn her with. Why don't you try looking at her with a glass-half-full attitude for once and we can get stuff done in this country.
Please don't respond with attributions, quotes, or facts of your own as I'm not interested in getting into a back and forth with you. My post, as I said before, was to criticize the choice of an "Editor's Choice" letter when it was only banal complaining of Hillary that I've heard and seen over and over. Salon should really offer up better and more unique insights than that one when they 'star' letters. My original point was not to debate Hillary and her stance on Iran and war.
-
Under no circumstances
Under no circumstances will I vote for Hillary Clinton. If she manages to get the Democratic nomination I will either leave the top of the ballot blank or vote for a third party candidate.
As Bill Clinton's closest advisor she cannot run away from his legacy of pro-corporate economic policies and criminal foreign policy: attacking poor women with their "ending welfare as we know it" act; increasing corporate media concentration with the Telecommunications Act of 1996; the sanctions on Iraq that, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, by 1995 had killed more than 550,000 children (Clinton's Sec of State Madelyn Albright pronounced this "worth it"); Bill Clinton was the first president to use "extraordinary rendition"; the creation of the WTO with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) of 1995 - Hillary shares responsibility for all of it. And of course for NAFTA, as well.
In 1992 I believed Bill Clinton when he said he had reservations about NAFTA and wanted tougher worker and environmental protections in the bill. So I held my nose and voted for him. Once elected Clinton added labor and environmental "side agreements" to NAFTA that have never yet been enforced, because they are unenforceable. According to Harper's Magazine publisher John R MacArthur in his book The Selling of "Free Trade", "the day of the House vote on NAFTA, Clinton behaved in many ways like the leader of the opposition Republican Party".
Never again. If we reward this kind of duplicity, we are just asking for more knives in our backs.
Hillary's record in the Senate has been scandalous. She fell all over herself handing increased powers to Bush: she voted to give him open-ended war-making power, she voted for the PATRIOT Act. Now she's joining in the campaign to promote war with Iran! In all this Hillary is either acting totally cynically or she's actually a committed war-monger and enemy of civil rights. I really don't care which it is, both motivations are equally despicable.
Is it any wonder Hillary gets so much respect from the corporate media? She has shown that she is committed to their agenda. Which is why Rupert Murdoch held a fund-raiser for her campaign. The mainstream media are trying damn hard to manufacture an aura of inevitability around Hillary. When they say a candidate is "electable" what they really mean is "acceptable to us"
Yeah, I'll stand back and let a Republican win rather than vote for Hillary. Don't let the corporate sycophants in the media fool you, I'm far from the only one.