Let's look back at the history of the Iraq resolution to assess what a gross negligence of duty it was for Senator Clinton to have voted in favor of it. The resolution, which was explicitly called "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq", did not come from out of the blue, but followed the foreign policy program set up by neoconservatives from as early as 1993. And this was not an uknown fact, as Bush's major policy advisers were all part of a neocon group called the Project for the New American Century that had listed as one of their principle goals a ground invasion of Iraq. Among the members of this group were prominent administration figures Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfield, Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney and even Jeb Bush. Look at the numerous letters they wrote calling for a ground invasion dating as far back as 1997. In fact, if you look at their statement of principles (it's still online, click here to see the names and the advice they give) you'll see that among the reasons they support using military force is "to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad". I don't recall "economic freedom" (a.k.a. free markets) ever being a threat to my national security! If anything, it leads to large corporations leaving the country to hire cheap labor and brings about the inevitable loss of American jobs. Why is it that the right questions were not asked when these same documents were available for all to see? Why did 23 other senators realize that it would be a mistake to trust a President who had surrounded himself with the most famous neoconservatives out there? Why is it that Senator Clinton, who was the foremost figure in the Democratic Party at the time, failed to lead and take a principled stand? Why did she repeat the mistake of trusting the president with the recent Iran resolution-- that were it not for the NIE report--would have paved the way for another war?
This is the kind of failed leadership that triangulation brings. Just because 2/3 of the country was scared into believing that war was the only option, does not mean that Senator Clinton should not have asked the right questions. It does not mean that she should have voted for the war just to appease the electorate and to be able to look tough on foreign policy. All the evidence was there. If she did not see it, then she failed to fulfill her duty. If she did, then she showed an unbelievable lack of judgment. Either way, no form of revisionist history on her part can make it ok. And to see her repeat the mistake with Iran should convince even the most skeptical that she is not fit to lead.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
The Iraq War Resolution - Senator Clinton's Refusal to Lead
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
![[TenReasonsLogo.jpg]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKMmTKaMm-Ro9e8EsteDmpm9XFFa4WphkpBFq6IgvxZ0cqASTpQGOj-UxFRMjlac2OHkuTY1YqoifmShqT58hTdy7X2nSjnUIrUUEjONkpAjmYUxMSk4z8NVEY0XwNv9wNXFHZkw/s1600/TenReasonsLogo.jpg)
7 comments:
I hate Clinton. My profile picture on Facebook is of her after winning New Hampshire. Looks like the devil.
I always dislike articles about PNAC. Reminds me of my earlier years; I always felt feeble and lost hope when reading about things like that. And it was so dissonant you never knew what to believe.
An important part of our history, for sure. It still makes me shake my head and wonder.
But let us not get caught in the past. Focus on the future!
Hey Chad, I wrote this bit because it seems as though the new Clinton strategy is to attack Obama on this very issue. And I'm not so sure it's a case of the past. With all the recent chatter about Iran, I think it's a sign of terrible judgment to not have learned from your mistake and to be willing to trust (in the form of Iran Resolution) the President again. I actually find it odd that she would bring the focus back to Iraq. I think she wants to rewrite the narrative and cast Obama out to be dishonest on this case. He did say that he's not sure how he would've voted had he been in the Senate, but this was in 2004 at the request of party leaders at a time when Kerry and Edwards didn't want to bring attention to the issue.
And wait up, you said the PNAC reminds you of your past? Tell us more, are a reformed neocon!?! lol...
Woops, I meant to ask, are your a reformed neocon. I left out the "you".
Wow, in trying to clear up a typo I make another typo. You, not your. Ugh...I need to get more sleep.
Hah... far from a hawk.
I was in 8th grade during 9/11. We had just gotten cable internet a year prior. I disliked the idea of going to war from the get go. So did most the kids in my classes (we were the smart kids in the AP classes). For me, it was just a big disconnect. 9/11 and Iraq (or any country) had nothing in common. I just remember thinking to myself... "huh... why?" as it was such a disconnect for me.
My disdain is an emotional one. PNAC reminds me of stuff that makes me lose faith in government. Like reading IAEA reports in 2005 about how Iran basically has never had any nuclear weapons, or a weapons program (at least with results that could be found by inspectors). Then hearing your president talk about the Iranian nuclear weapons program. Or yes, learning that most members of Bush's first term White House were PNAC members. Do you realize how crazy I sounded? Telling classmates that our government is run by people that want to use the military to push ourselves to the top by beating others to the ground. Try telling that to someone who thinks the war is about fighting terrorism.
I couldn't really do anything, I was in high school. So I just read. I wanted to know why we attacked. I read everything there was on the internet. I'm a pretty big skeptic, and you wouldn't believe some of the explanations out there. One night it got to me, I lost hope, cried, and was apathetic about everything outside my local world from then on. I found humor in it later from the Daily Show.
I think I went about 4 years being apathetic. I thought my government was stupid, but there was nothing I could do. Government was something so absurdly out-of-wack that you laughed at it from the comfort of your couch; I couldn't care about because it was beyond repair.
Then one of my friends forced me to see Obama, and I had hope again. All's I really needed was one person to say something that made sense. It was amazing. Hope instead of fear! And you'd what?!? Talk to Iran! Yes!
I bookmarked my senators and congressman and e-mail them. I didn't even know who they were. But from their issues pages, the only one of them that I like is the one that beat a Republican incumbent in 2007. I'm excited. I want to make a difference.
But anyway... I'm rambling with my political life story.
Ramble away, that's what this site is for. But honestly, I think a lot of us who have felt that things were/are hopeless have gone through sustained periods of cynicism, apathy and depression. But I think that today is far different than ten years ago. And that's why I don't think that our generation (I'm 25) has the right to be cynical. With the widespread use of the internet, knowledge is rapidly becoming decentralized and it's now not at all difficult to bypass the crap that the mainstream media feeds us by skimming through a couple of blogs/alternative news sources. Ten years ago it would not have been fathomable to have someone like a Lieberman kicked out of the Democratic Party. Nowadays we can challenge the big money influence of corporations by having hundreds of thousands of people give small donations in a matter of minutes. Today when a tape like the Iran boat fiasco is released millions of us can analyze it on our own and quickly pass the word on to our friends, forcing the pentagon to come out and admit the truth. That's why I think that it's more important than ever to be hopeful, and to look towards bigger changes. I honestly don't see anything about health care that would go contrary to the values of those in the red states, it's just that the way the media has framed the issues in such a partisan framework that it has caused us to immediately be cynical as to how much can accomplished. That's why I think that it's important that we be politically active. Obama is a step in the right direction. He hasn't proposed anything drastic (like cutting a bit of our ridiculous military budget to help pay for our roads, schools, and/or health care), but he is willing to take the first step to break us out of the mentality that our there are limits to what we can accomplish, that there are certain foreign policy rules we must abide by. Again, if it were up to me he'd stand up and say a lot more (I don't think profit should play a part in the equation when it comes to health care), but even just having someone like him get elected is a great sign that pandering to the status quo is not the only way to get elected. That the influence of small donors can collectively be as significant as major corporations. With the newly decentralized forms of knowledge that are out there, the most important thing that can happen is to have politicians realize that we fund them, and that we have access to information and can as quickly de-fund them if we see it fit. Him winning would be the clearest signal that this change were taking place.
Anyways, now I'm rambling, but I think what I'm trying to say is that while I don't think that Obama is the perfect candidate, he is someone who is both substantially different and someone who--as importantly--symbolizes a new movement in politics. One which has reinstilled faith in the people that if they organize they can bring about the necessary pressure needed to move our politicians in the right direction.
Post a Comment