Letters to the Editor
-
@ Joan Walsh: I Have To Agree With 'Jonathanseer'
I wasn't happy that the majority of our Congress voted "Yea" on this resolution, including Hillary Clinton. In fact, I was furious and wrote my senators and congresspeople, urging them to vote "No." I also wrote editorials for my small newspaper and wrote letters to the editor of larger newspapers.
I'm curious to know how many of the posters in these threads actually did something except complain about their elected representatives' votes.
I'm also curious to know how many of the posters in these threads who viscerally hate Hillary Clinton for anything and everything, put themselves in her position (or in the position of other elected leaders during that period) before passing their liberal, armchair judgment. Yeah. I know it's a tough thing to do, but it's worth a try.
I have to agree with Jonathanseer on this: Clinton had no choice but to follow the will of her constituents. New York was in a state of shock. Over 3,000 people died in 9/11; Congress was receiving anthrax mailings; F-15 fighter jets and BlackHawk helicopters were patrolling the skies over D.C., for god's sake.
If we think the American people were under pressure to conform to Bush's worldview and were intimidated, just imagine the pressure in Congress to conform. Obviously, it worked!
Finally, Sen. Clinton's record since that authorization vote has been consistent and true. She never took that vote as a "game," as some seem to imply in these threads. She has actually worked to address the problems, from the get-go, even before the authorization was imminent.
Frankly, I'm unhappy that she voted in favor of the authorization, too. But what kind of apology would ever be satisfactory? She is vilified in right-wing Republican tactics and talking points by so-called liberals in our own Democratic Party. Apologizing would just feed the hatred. It's the classic Catch-22: Political suicide to NOT vote in favor of the authorization; Political suicide to apologize for having made it.
Would I like to hear her give a speech admitting her "flawed" vote? You bet! It would truly make my day. And maybe we will still hear that. I'm not convinced that we won't. Still, I'm not holding my breath for it.
Finally, at the end of the day, I think that if she is elected president, she will bring this war to a speedy and safe end AND probably find a creative way to bring some stability, sanity and peace to Iraq, drawing on ALL sources to do so.
-
Rose Law Firm, etc.
I think you're wrong in claiming that Hillary's Iraq War vote is her major stumbling block.
Should she be the nominee, the media will be dominated by questions about why her Rose Law firm billing records mysteriously appeared in the White House living quarters -- only a couple days after the statute of limitations expired. She will also have to revisit her quasi-miraculous $1000 commodity investment, which produced $100K within days.
McCain appears to succeed when he explains his mistaken involvement in the S&L scandal, but thus far, Hillary has only dealt with her problems by refusing to answer -- an option that will vanish.
-
to ljwalker53
"If we think the American people were under pressure to conform to Bush's worldview and were intimidated, just imagine the pressure in Congress to conform. Obviously, it worked!"
Indeed it did work for some, but not everyone.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237
21 Democratic Senators voted no. Almost 1/2 the Democrats at the time.
I agree she shouldn't apologize. She did what she did and had her reasons. But she certainly had a choice whether to follow or not follow Bush's White House.
Whether her perceived lack of choices were due to fears for her political future by being from New York or clouded judgment by being from New York, neither serve as acceptable explanations.
As I posted before and very likely will again, be a follower regarding some domestic issue, but don't authorize force without evidence that it's needed. Moreover that evidence needs to be presented to the American people, not behind closed doors.
"I'm also curious to know how many of the posters in these threads who viscerally hate Hillary Clinton for anything and everything, put themselves in her position (or in the position of other elected leaders during that period) before passing their liberal, armchair judgment. Yeah. I know it's a tough thing to do, but it's worth a try."
A great defense for every Republican senator who voted the same. It's those nasty liberals who don't understand hard decisions while they drink their lattes. I'm not a liberal and I understand that no one forced Hillary Clinton to run for Senator of NY and no one forced her to put herself in a situation to make difficult decisions. She fought for that right and that honor. She is no victim, and there is an alternative.
-
No point
As Joan says, Clinton voted in the context of being "cowed" by the politics of Bush's "security" agenda. She was one of the ones who was cowed, and there really isn't a way to apologize for this honestly without admitting that she failed a crucial test of character. Strictly from the standpoint of honesty, it would be better if she owned up to her own weakness, I suppose. But, really, the cat's out of the bag. She can't be trusted to take a stand on something important that she really believes in. It's easy enough to picture other scenarios in which an aggressive, militarist agenda that is both popular and wrong is being foisted on her. We know how she acted in the past. Who's to say she'll act differently in the future? This poses a real dilemma for people who prefer her in general to Obama, but are horrified by her actions in the run-up to the war. The path that the other candidates took more definitively than Clinton ("Bush lied and I believed him") is not really any better. Does anyone really believe that people like Biden, Dodd, and Edwards were snowed?