[Marxism] Clinton to anti-war activists [and US majority]: 'I don't need you'
mdriscoll at earthlink.net
Sun Feb 25 10:39:16 MST 2007
*[*"If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who
did not cast that vote or said his vote was a mistake, then there are
others to choose from..."
*Clinton To Anti-War Voters: Bring It On*
*By Amy Goodman <http://www.alternet.org/authors/5721/>, King Features
Syndicate <http://www.kingfeatures.com/>. Posted February 21, 2007
Hillary Clinton is a once and future warrior. Campaign events in New
Hampshire suggest the majority anti-war electorate has problems with her
vote for the Iraq War and with her position on Iran.
On Feb. 10, New Hampshire resident Roger Tilton asked Sen. Clinton at a
town-hall meeting: "I want to know if right here, right now, once and
for all and without nuance, you can say that war authorization was a
Clinton responded: "Well, I have said, and I will repeat it, that
knowing what I know now, I never would have voted for it. ... The
mistakes were made by this president who misled this country and this
Congress into a war that should not have been waged."
A week later, in Dover, N.H., she dug in:
"If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did
not cast that vote or said his vote was a mistake, then there are others
to choose from. But for me, the most important thing now is trying to
end this war."
Her tough talk to anti-war voters is reminiscent of President Bush's
taunt to the Iraqi insurgents: "Bring it on."
People's concerns about Clinton's Iraq War vote is of more than
historical interest. History has a frightening way of repeating itself.
Drop the "q," add an "n." Iran.
New Hampshire Peace Action director Anne Miller asked Clinton about her
recent comments to AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
Clinton told AIPAC: "We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran
to build or acquire nuclear weapons. And in dealing with this threat ...
no option can be taken off the table."
Miller, who has visited Iran, expressed "deep concern ... that we have a
Democratic presidential candidate who is a militarist of this nature and
that she isn't coming out and saying we need strong diplomatic action
with Iran, which is really the only answer."
Clinton continues to invoke the now largely discredited Bush
administration claim that the government of Iran is supplying high-tech
weaponry to Iraqi insurgents. Even Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, says there is no evidence of Iranian government
Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., fought the resolution authorizing the use of
force in Iraq. He said the president wants "to have the power to launch
this nation into war without provocation and without clear evidence of
an imminent attack on the United States, and we're going to be foolish
enough to give it to him." Byrd seems to have known then what Clinton
says she knows now. He called the resolution "dangerous" and a "blank
check," and now, with more than 3,145 U.S. soldiers killed, and with
Iraq War costs through 2008 projected at more than $1 trillion, it
appears he was right.
Reps. Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey also seemed to know then what Clinton
says she knows now. They were lauded by the 50 activists who, on Jan.
30, 2007, occupied Clinton's Senate office, weaving a web with pink yarn
"to symbolize the senator's web of deception and the innocent people --
Americans and Iraqis -- caught in it." Protesters have promised to
"bird-dog" Clinton at all of her public appearances. These actions
recall the student sit-in at Clinton's New York office on Oct. 10, 2002,
while Clinton stood on the Senate floor and made her case for war.
Fully a year before she died, columnist and arch Bush critic Molly Ivins
wrote: "Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation.
Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone. ... Sen. Clinton
is apparently incapable of taking a clear stand on the war in Iraq, and
that alone is enough to disqualify her."
And then there's Ralph Nader. He admits that there are good anti-war
candidates, but that if Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, he would
be more likely to run.
Sen. Clinton has drawn the line in the sand over Iraq. She will not
admit that her vote to authorize Bush to use military force in a
unilateral, unprovoked war based on lies was a mistake. She is open to a
military strike on Iran. Her latest message to voters: "There are others
to choose from." Anti-war voters already know that, and are lining up
behind candidates Barack Obama, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich and,
perhaps before long, Ralph Nader.
*Hillary’s Calculations Add Up to War*
*By Robert Scheer <http://www.alternet.org/authors/2676/>, Truthdig
<http://www.truthdig.com/>. Posted February 21, 2007
Clinton refuses to admit her mistakes about Iraq and proceeds to make
the same ones with Iran. Let's face it: No matter how much many of us
who oppose the war in Iraq would also love to elect a female president,
Hillary Clinton is not a peace candidate. She is an unrepentant hawk, à
la Joe Lieberman. She believed invading Iraq was a good idea, all
available evidence to the contrary, and she has, once again, made it
clear that she still does.
"If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did
not cast a vote [to authorize the war] or has said his vote was a
mistake, then there are others to choose from," she said in New
Hampshire last week, confusing contempt for antiwar Americans -- now a
majority -- with the courage of her indefensible conviction that she
bears no responsibility for the humanitarian, economic and military
disaster our occupation has wrought.
As a candidate for '08, Hillary clearly calculates that her war chest,
star power, gender and pro-choice positions will be sufficient for her
to triumph in the primaries, while being "tough," pro-military and
"supporting our president" will secure her flank in the general election
against those who would paint her as that horrible beast, "a liberal."
A winning strategy? That remains to be seen. It certainly does not bode
well for the future of the nation, however, should it be. Consider the
parallel case of President Lyndon Johnson, who can be heard on tapes of
his White House conversations ruminating that he never believed in the
Vietnam War and pursued it only to deny Barry Goldwater and the
Republicans a winning campaign issue.
In fact, whether out of such callous political calculations or sincere
beliefs, mindless militarism has been a bipartisan majority position in
Washington for a half-century, and counting. With the end of the Cold
War, its acolytes went searching for a new enemy to serve as a foil.
When one emerged, those with aspirations to the presidency fell in line
"Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are
not in doubt," New York Sen. Clinton stated in her October 2002 speech
when voting to authorize a war the White House had already decided to
launch for bogus reasons, and which Clinton dutifully endorsed. "In the
four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons
stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program. He has
also given aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida
That none of this was true is now airily dismissed by Clinton as the
result of her being misled by "false intelligence." Yet Clinton had to
be aware that the case for Saddam's WMD and ties to al-Qaida was weak,
when not obviously misrepresented. Surely she was in contact with the
intelligence and diplomatic sources from her husband's administration
who were telling anyone who would listen that the Bush team was obsessed
with invading Iraq.
Leaving aside the absurdity that Democratic senators such as Clinton and
'04 presidential candidate John Kerry didn't have the access and means
to do the same basic fact-checking of Bush administration claims that
independent journalists, intelligence analysts and published skeptics
such as ex-arms inspector Scott Ritter undertook, how is it that they
could have ignored the historical evidence that occupying Iraq with the
vague goal of "fostering democracy" was a phenomenally dangerous
endeavor? Had Clinton caught the "fever" for invading Iraq that
Secretary of State Colin Powell attributed to Vice President Dick Cheney?
If not, Clinton certainly forgot her role as a senator to balance the
power of the president, instead blindly following his lead: "I will take
the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a U.N.
resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible," she said.
Yet, when the president clearly broke his word five months later,
blindsiding the U.N. inspectors on the ground in Iraq who had found no
evidence of WMD, Clinton simply cheered him on.
No, Congress failed to take seriously the obligation built into its
constitutionally mandated exclusive power to declare war, and Sen.
Clinton's refusal to admit that is not a minor issue. This paired with
her strident support, ever since the invasion of Iraq, for a huge
increase in the standing army to fight other wars, including a possible
confrontation with Iran, shows a fondness in Clinton for war and
bullying adventurism that vastly overshadows her sensible stances on
many domestic issues. As Barry Goldwater supporters stated in kicking
off the Republican revolution, what we need is a choice, not an echo.
More information about the Marxism