Letters to the Editor
-
Obama often only voted "Present" on controversial issues
Apparently, there were numerous times where he even hit the "wrong" voting button, when they are as large as golf balls, and the "Present," button is in the middle.
One of the leaders of the Illinois Senate said Obama made it plain that he had Presidential ambitions from the start.
He has been just as ambitious and calculating.
If he had been in Hillary's shoes - not just a national Senator, but a New York national Senator during 9-11 who knew the ways of Saddam Hussein well - with Presidential ambitions - I think it's very likely he also would have voted for the authorization of the Use of Force.
You really can't compare when the situations - the extreme pressures of the situations - are so different.
He had it easy.
-
The weight of falsehood
Before we invaded Iraq, we were in the middle of another war that many felt righteous. That's where OBL and the rests of the terrorist were.
Iraq was never an eminient danger to the US, with or without WMD. Many said invading would be a big mistake. Brent Scowcroft said it publically in 2002 and Dick Cheney said it in 1994. Scowcroft was the NSA security advistor to Bush 41, hardly what I would call an armchair lightweight. Saying that it is only hindsight is untrue.
As far as Kyle Libermann goes, fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Only the leaked NIE stopped the war drums and a strike on Iran.
The origins of the Islamic terrorist anger is fundamentalist-based - they are socio-religiously based even more often than they are soley politically based.
Why aren't we going after Saudi Arabia then? They've had a relationshp with the Wahabist extremists for over a 100 years.
I think that many of those voting in Congress thought and felt they and the military would have more say and mitigating power in the weeks and months to come than the Bush administration allowed.
Well, then they obviously didn't read or understand the legislation they passed. Hillary and the rest of the Senators gave a loaded gun to the president. They yielded their judgement to his. I don't buy the claim that they didn't know he wasn't itching to pull the trigger. Richard Clarke and the former Treasury Sec. claim that invading Iraq was discussed before 9/11. I don't see why we should reward failure or excuse it, especially in regards to an unnecessary war.
I've saved the first for last:
I think the reason why so many fail to grasp an understanding of these choices - is because their lightweight armchair analysis fails to register the gravity of other possible outcomes. (And even more so with the easy convenience of hindsight.)
War is the most serious undertaking of the State. That's why the Founders placed it in the hands of the Congress away from the Executive. Most wars have a horrific cost, such as the Civil War, World War I, World War II. And look how Vietnam turned out. We got lucky with Gulf War I and the initial invasion of Afghanistan, though now it looks like it is rapidly going downhill. The average citizen doesn't have to study at West Point or the US Army War College to know that. And one of the possible outcomes was exactly what Scowcroft predicted and what Dick Cheney said in 1994.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY
The idea that nobody could have predicted an unfavorable outcome is crap, certainly not "experienced" professionals who are supposed to be fluent in diplomacy and war.
-
@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!
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...."
But, here is the dilemma for Clinton: How does she convincingly say that she voted for the authorisation without having been coerced by a post 9/11 zeitgeist or having calculating that, despite the very real possibility [considering the nature of the person sitting in the Oval Office] that massive human suffering and material destruction could result from a blank check given to the administration, a "yea" vote could help her win the Presidency?
Again, if she says she was coerced, then she raises the question of whether she's suited enough, ie., strong enough, to lead and if she backs away from that particular horn of the dilemma, she's right back to the question of whether, as a progressive Democratic national figure, she ignored the likely outcome of giving a war vote to George W. Bush and did the expedient thing for the advancement of her career [which, of course, once again raises the old bugaboo about the Clintons and their tried and true tactic of triangulation]? From the perspective of the 2008 Democratic electorate, she's been firmly on the horns of a dilemma since that 2002 vote, and they see no way in which she's gotten free of them.
Hence, the rise of Obama and her present electoral predicament.
-
Dodd and Richardson
The two Democratic presidential candidates who knew the Clintons best have both endorsed Obama: Dodd, who Big Bill chose to head the Democratic Party, and Richardson, who was in the cabinet and also UN ambassador. They know hillary and her "experience" better than any of us, certainly. They have no doubts about Obama's ability to deal with the horrendous mess Bush and Dick have left. It will actually take a generation to clean up, but it starts next January. Riddle me this, Walker and your ilk: why did Dodd and Richardson support Obama? Duped? Dazed and confused? They both have far deeper resumes than Ms Rodham's joke of 35 years of "experience". Does watching basketball make you tall? Duh.