Voices from the Flats – The Hypocrisy of Hillary Clinton
The following is an op-ed by Donald Craig Mitchell, an attorney and historian who lives in Anchorage. He is the author of Sold American: The Story of Alaska Natives and Their Land and Take My Land Take My Life: The Story of Congress’s Historic Settlement of Alaska Native Land Claims, which in 2006 the Alaska Historical Society named as two of the most important books that have been written about Alaska.
***************
Senator Hillary Clinton’s Iraq War Vote and
Secretary of State Clinton’s Iniquitous Hypocrisy
by Donald Craig Mitchell
In the 1981 cult film Cutter’s Way, Alex Cutter, a one-armed, one-legged, one-eyed, alcohol-riven, Vietnam war veteran played by John Heard, explains to his Ivy League-educated slacker pal Richard Bone, played by Jeff Bridges, how America works: “It’s never their ass that’s on the line. Never. It’s always somebody else’s.”
Alex Cutter’s view of that crossed my mind last week when I watched Secretary of State Hillary Clinton move through Pakistan on her self-congratulatory “bridge-building” tour during which she shrugged off the accusation that C.I.A. predator drone attacks that kill Pakistani civilians are a form of terrorism and then lectured the Pakistani government that it has not been doing enough to assist the United States in its fight against al-Qaeda. Secretary Clinton then flew home via Abu Dhabi, Jerusalem, Marrakech, and Cairo on her personal jet. Back to her mansion in Washington, D.C., to resume her rich-girl life as one of the world’s most well-known celebrities.
On February 11, 2003 a colleague and I who had flown from Alaska to Washington, D.C., to attend a meeting on Capitol Hill had dinner above Dupont Circle at Restaurant Nora. It was a Tuesday night, blustery, and getting ready to snow, and when we arrived the dining room was only half full. Shortly after my colleague and I were seated, Bill and Hillary Clinton walked in and were shown to a table in the back corner of the room. Two days later The Washington Post reported that Bill ordered curry and Hillary grilled shrimp.
An hour later when the Clintons stood up to leave only three tables still were occupied. My colleague’s and mine, a table at which three Marriott Hotel executives were seated, and a table occupied by a man and his wife who were out on a date.
On her way out, when Hillary reached my table she looked back and saw that Bill was chatting up the Marriott executives. So she stopped and made small talk with me until Bill arrived with the Marriott executives and the couple from the third table in tow. For the next ten minutes the seven of us had our Primary Colors moment with Bill, standing around with after dinner drinks in hand discussing the issues of the day.
Four months earlier Congress had passed the “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution,” which granted George W. Bush authority to decide on his own to use the Armed Forces “to defend the national security of the United States against the continued threat posed by Iraq.” A week earlier Secretary of State Colin Powell had presented the Bush administration’s case for war to the UN Security Council. The previous day in Paris Jacques Chirac and Vladimir Putin had called for the UN weapons inspection commission’s work in Iraq to continue. And in Brussels NATO had rejected Turkey’s request that the alliance move Patriot missiles to Turkey’s border with Iraq. So the major issue of the day that evening was whether the United States would invade Iraq.
When I asked Bill Clinton what he thought was going to happen next at the UN, he told me that I should forget the UN. That the United States was going to war because “these people [George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld] came here to do this.”
The former President then offered two additional insights.
The first was that the United States had only one national security interest in Iraq. And that was to prevent Saddam Hussein from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. But the good news was that Saddam did not have a nuclear weapons capability. The second was that the most important national security interest of the United States was to stop al-Qaeda; that everything the Bush administration had been saying about the danger al-Qaeda posed was absolutely true and then some.
As the conversation wound down, Bill Clinton concluded by predicting that the real tragedy of the coming Iraq war was that to wage it the United States would have to take its eye off the ball in Afghanistan, thereby allowing the Taliban and al-Qaeda to regroup.
We now know that former President Clinton was prescient that evening. But what does that have to do with Secretary of State Clinton?
The Senate debate on the Iraq war resolution began on October 3, 2002 and concluded early in the morning of October 11 when, by a vote of 77 to 23, the Senate voted to accept the version of the resolution that had passed the House ten hours earlier.
Throughout the debate Senators Edward Kennedy and Robert Byrd, the most vociferous critics of the rush to war, repeatedly reminded their colleagues that a vote for the resolution was a vote to allow George W. Bush to wage war unilaterally. Kennedy railed: “Make no mistake about it, this resolution lets the President go it alone.” And Byrd lamented: “I never would have thought I would find a Senate which would lack the backbone to stand up against the stampede, this rush to war” and “put it into his [George W. Bush’s] hands alone, to let him determine alone when we will send the sons and daughters of the American people into war.”
After presumably listening to those admonitions, on the final day of the debate Senator Hillary Clinton went to the floor to explain to the Senate why she would vote for the resolution.
She first announced that she accepted the Bush administration’s intelligence reports which purported to document that Saddam Hussein not only had worked “to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program,” but also had “given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members.” Senator Clinton later would admit that she had not read the National Intelligence Estimate which would have cautioned her that none of that was true.
The fact that through laziness or negligence Hillary Clinton allowed herself to be bamboozled so easily by the Bush administration about why war was necessary is disturbing. But her rationale for agreeing to give George W. Bush the blank check to take the United States into war against which Senators Kennedy and Byrd had warned is even more disturbing. Because she next explained that, rather than war, she thought the “best course” was for United States “to go to the United Nations for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections, with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq.”
On October 7, 2002 in Cincinnati George W. Bush had delivered a nationally televised speech in which he had again beat the drum for war by again conflating Iraq’s purported weapons programs with the September 11 attack and al-Qaeda. The speech concluded by noting that Congress soon would vote on a resolution whose passage would authorize him, at his discretion, to attack Iraq. But he then asserted that “approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.”
Three days later Senator Clinton would tell the Senate: “President Bush’s speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth from the administration since they first began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible.” (my emphasis).
But four months later, with Senator Clinton standing at his side, her husband would tell me and six other strangers that war was inevitable and we should forget about the UN because “these people came here to do this.”
Since it is reasonable to assume that Bill Clinton gives his wife advice that is more candid than the advice he offered us that evening, two possibilities suggest themselves.
The first is that, without talking with her husband about it, Hillary Clinton really did take George W. Bush at his word. If that is what happened, her gullibility calls her fitness for high office into question.
But the second possibility is worse. And it is that Hillary did talk with Bill and she understood George W. Bush’s duplicity and she understood his agenda. But with her reelection in 2006 on the horizon and a presidential bid in 2008 on her mind, and at a time when, according to a Washington Post poll, 6 out of 10 Americans supported George W. Bush going to war on his own in Iraq, Hillary Clinton voted yes in order to be viewed as “strong on defense” when she knew that Senators Kennedy and Byrd were right that she should have voted no.
If that is what happened, subordinating the nation’s interest to her own (as she assessed her interest at the time) was not a dereliction. It was a craven act of calculated self-promotion so awful that the thought of it should haunt her into the grave. If America were Japan, Seppuku would be the sanction. But America is not Japan. So instead of retiring from public life in disgrace and accepting personal responsibility for the deaths of the more than 100,000 Iraqis and 4,600 service men and woman who have died in Iraq for no reason related to the national security interests of the United States, as well as the deaths of the 55 service men and women who died last month in Afghanistan who might not be dead if, as a consequence of her vote, in 2003 George W. Bush had not taken the nation’s eye off the ball in Afghanistan, Senator Clinton was rewarded with appointment to one of the most prestigious offices the nation can bestow.
That rankles me. And my bet is that it rankles the legendary passenger on the ferry to Martha’s Vineyard who in the dead of night in 1972 threw Robert McNamara, another political celebrity of Hillary’s rank, over the ferry railing but then at the last moment thought better of it before the former Secretary of Defense, a war criminal who should have been in a cell in the Hague, fell into the drink. But it would not rankle Alex Cutter. Because Alex understands that in America, for politicians of Hillary Clinton’s and Robert McNamara’s high station, no matter how morally abhorrent, actions only rarely have consequences.
Because, unlike for the rest of us, it’s never their ass that’s on the line.
I have always believed the 2nd possibility was the truth. which is why I have never supported hillary.
if you think about it – ex-presidents still have access to the best intelligence in the world. and bill clinton, like him or not, has a lot of friends in very high places in this world. one would have to be very naive to think that bill didn’t check in with his well-connected friends when all of this was going on. look at the number of countries that didn’t believe us about saddam next to those who signed on to the “coalition of the coerced.” if the majority of the world would have gone along with us, then there may have been some validity to our claims, because that would mean that their intelligence matched ours. but only a small minority came on board. the clintons surely knew that our intelligence was cooked up.
I will never forgive her for that vote. she knew better. still don’t trust her one bit.
Thanks for this information. It explains a lot about how (why) Hillary lost her bid for the Democratic nomination last year. In her position as Secretary of State, can she redeem herself in the eyes of those of us who want Pres. Obama to succeed for the sake of the US of A?
very surprised that Mudflats would provide a forum for Mr. Mitchell, who has been very much on the fringe of reality in Alaska politics forever. For Don to characterize Hilary as “morally abhorrent” speaks to the point I am making. The piece by Mitchell to me is “intellectually abhorrent”.
I agree with you, emrysa. She is constantly aware of her public standing, and will do what she feels necessary to keep that standing high, including reinventing herself at will. I have never trusted her.
I have conflicting feelings about the Clintons, and have wondered about a lot of political figures and their actions with an eye to elections over the years. And I think it’s reprehensible that we went to war in Iraq.
However, I did want to point out that there is a third possibility about the Clintons’ opinions and actions that you didn’t explore in your piece:
Four months went by between Hillary Clinton’s statement to the Senate and Bill Clinton’s comment to you.
In the political arena, that’s a life time. As one possibility, for example, they may well have read the NIE on Iraq in that time. A careful read of that could well have convinced them both that the Bush administration had meant to strong arm the country into war.
I didn’t like the fact that she voted for it at the time, but I think it’s only fair to leave a window open where there is uncertainty.
(Oh, and BTW — your “rich girl” comment got my hackles up a bit — why call her names if you’ve got a legitimate point to make? Cheapens everyone, and your argument, in my book. And, out of curiosity, would you have made the same reference to Bill as having “rich boy lifestyle”? Because if not, it’s a strange legitimization of Hillary Clinton’s needing a public persona of toughness to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate…)
All the best,
Leigh
This is why I didn’t support her presidential candidacy.
Biased much? While the author of this piece brings up interesting points, he more than over-simplifies a complex series of events. One point to consider is that if Hilary had intentionally voted with Bush with the purpose of securing her own presidential bid in 2008, she would have to have been incredibly stupid to not see how the vote could blow up in her face somewhere down the road. Considering her previous eight years under siege with her husband in the White House, it is hard to conceive of her making that calculated step onto a land mine.
Mr Mitchell has no problem condemning McNamara, Hilary Clinton and citing a film from 1981…What happenend Mr. Mitchell did Kissinger and Rumsfeld fall off your historical map? Oh,yes, and speaking of ” “It’s never their ass that’s on the line. Never. It’s always somebody else’s.”… where oh where is the 5 time draft deferment specialist Dick Cheney in your critical equation?
The “Iraq war” resolution authorized Bush to “use force” against Iraq if Saddam Hussein did not allow UN weapons inspectors back into the country. But the inspectors did go back to Iraq. And they couldn’t find any WMD.
As the summer war deadline approached, Bush panicked and yanked out the inspectors even though they had requested more time-the fact that there were no WMDs to be found was proof enough of Saddam’s mendacity.
Yes,”the fix was in”: Bush was going to get his war. But would the war have been averted had Hillary voted alongside Byrd and Kennedy?
Hey Don,
I still got that letter, on State of Alaska letterhead, from when you were out in Bethel, back in the 70′s, working for the Attorney Generals office… hummm, funny how personal and professional can mix. Ain’t it?
I too am suprised with a posting by Mitchell on Mudflats.
So is Don trying to change his politics? Or did he just really need to get something in, cause you know, the previous post is about Alaska Natives and well, how can I put this nicely… Don’t let Don fool ya cause he wrote about Alaska’s First Peoples…
#6 Mag, exactly how I’ve always felt. I remember way back when the dems started lining up, best friends and neighbors leaning towards Hillary, hubby leaning towards Edwards and myself, I didn’t think he had much of a chance, but really liking that Obama guy. Now the best friends have always been on the same wave length politically as hubby and me so I never questioned their choice. Finally one day the neighbor hubby asked me why I wasn’t for Hill. As diplomatically as possible I told him I always loved Bill, voted for Bill but always knew they were not very honest and that I felt that Hillary was less honest than Bill. I’m glad hubby came to his senses regarding edwards soon after. Being “good dems” the neighbors threw all their support towards Obama after it became apparent he had the nomination. To be honest Hillary being SOS makes me a little nervous.
AKM can you provide the context for this? It says it’s an op-ed but doesn’t say when and where it was published. Is it recent?
I have to say that for the first time in the 15 months that I’ve been a regular reader and commentor on this blog, this is the first time that a post has made me uncomfortable. It has a harsh edge that I’m not used to finding here.
To be sure, posts on ethical lapses, down right lies, harsh treatment or non-treatment of Natives, Seniors, etc. have made me very uncomfortable over time. But this is different.
I had issues with Hillary Clinton’s campaign during the long, hard slog that was the Primary Season and she pissed me off a lot. But I thought all that came to peace.
Wondering where this came from.
I’ve written a lengthier comment below, but to answer the question here, yes it is recent and has only been posted here. See my comment below for more regarding the rest of your comment. AKM
As with A Fan From Chicago and a couple of others, this piece also makes me a tad uncomfortable. The rich girl comment is a denigration that wasn’t necessary to get his points across. As the author points out, there were 77 votes in the Senate, of which Hillary was only one. Granted, she is now the Secretary of State and in a visible and vitally important position, but I am left wondering exactly why the author has singled Hillary out in this manner and on this forum.
#8 BigPete, I would have to agree with you on that. She’s taken a lot of hits and still is capably doing her job. She currently has a higher approval rating than Pres. Obama, if I remember correctly. She wasn’t some lame, 1/2 term quitter who couldn’t answer questions in a debate.
I agree with A Fan From Chicago and others; the tone of this op-ed is nasty, not just critical. When and where was it published? Big Pete correctly points out that Bush changed the rules of the game after the resolution was passed. Mitchell states: “The fact that through laziness or negligence Hillary Clinton allowed herself to be bamboozled so easily by the Bush administration about why war was necessary is disturbing.” There were many, many votes in favor- not just H. Clinton’s. The political climate in Washington and beyond was toxic: anyone against going to war was unpatriotic, and worse; I remember hearing the words “traitor” and “pro-terrorists”.
Clinton is not the only one who made a mistake.
“But the second possibility is worse. And it is that Hillary did talk with Bill and she understood George W. Bush’s duplicity and she understood his agenda. But with her reelection in 2006 on the horizon and a presidential bid in 2008 on her mind, and at a time when, according to a Washington Post poll, 6 out of 10 Americans supported George W. Bush going to war on his own in Iraq, Hillary Clinton voted yes in order to be viewed as “strong on defense” when she knew that Senators Kennedy and Byrd were right that she should have voted no.”
BINGO.
This is why the United States is in very big trouble. BOTH political parties have completely failed the American people and counting.
Bill, Hill, Obama, all of them are politicians and quite frankly because of that label none are trustworthy.
Anyone who runs for public office sells their soul to someone and sorry if that is really cynical but that is what I believe.
Until the system is changed then we will always elect people who are beholden to others rather than to their constituents.
At the time of the vote I was at first surprised that Hillary voted the way she did, then as our thought processes work, in a nano second I thought……although she has always denied a run for the POTUS…this confirms it…..my gut feeling…that everything she has done since Bill left office has been orchestrated for the 2008 election.
I just never thought that anyone would buy it.
Her lackluster personal history should never qualify her for POTUS…..good grief…she failed her bar exam, then it passed in Arkansas after Bill was deeply ingrained in the political scene there. Gee wonder how THAT happened….
Then Bill handed her health care to look after and basically……her overbearing manner and inexperience was ore than a large factor in it’s failure…remind you of anyone?
Hillary may be a trooper but never the sharpest knife in the drawer.
I see allot of similarities between Palin and Hillary
She did indeed ride her husbands coattails and I have no respect for her for that.
During the primary it bothered me to no end that she really believed she was entitled to POTUS and boy oh boy did Obama EVER pi$$ her off.
Who does he thinks he is? This is mine!
I watched her in Pakistan too….. saying “well there IS a war going on” ….yeah Hillary NOT in Pakistan, you condescending bit(h!
When the people asked her to have America stop killing civilians with the drone attacks and why were they doing this…Hillary said ” I’m not here to talk about military technology” brushing them off with no regard or respect.
These people were afraid, sincere and polite.
Hillary was back to being the old Hillary, with a capitol “C”.
This did not go well at all, neither did her unwarranted praise of Israeli’s restraint in settlement encroachment….everyone knows is not true.
I am just as glad that SHE is not POTUS as I am that McCain/Palin did not win.
Obama handed this position to handle her…..I really hope she does not screw it up!
It is hard to forgive anyone who voted for the Iraq war. The spin was enormous, the pressure was intense if you were worried about your future in politics. It was still the lazy or weak way out.
That said, it is totally uncalled for to compare Hillary Clinton with McNamara. It is not even close, and ones credibility is shot right there.
You see allot of this style lately, even some here on the forum, of people basically whining about what has not been done when they offer no insight into the problem or new ideas, and how would you get these ideas implemented. Otherwise it is just talk. I am a pessimistic optimist, I want things to go well, and am surprised when they do.
I think insightful criticism is fine when it is presented in a way that acknowledges the circumstances of the time and the overall accomplishments of the person. You could find something to criticise about anyone that is human. This article offered no useful information, and was a waste of time to read would be my only problem with it being here.
I like Hillary but her fervent, over the top supporters, fail to recognize that at heart she is a politician and will do and say whatever it takes to get ahead. Not that this is anything new to anyone in the political arena, we have all come to appreciate that about any pol who captures our attention.
It is also one of the main reasons, I believe, why Ted Kennedy threw his support to Obama since he was one of the 23 solidly opposed to the war when the votes were counted.
Kerry and Hillary both voted “yes” and the predication that this would be a travesty has become fact.
I see allot of similarities between Palin and Hillary”
I also think any comparison (large or small) of Hillary Clinton to SP is not even close to reality. You certainly can’t compare résumé’s, education, or experience. So you don’t like someone fine, why bring someone else into it.
Why say “allot of similarities” and then list none.
“Hillary was back to being the old Hillary, with a capitol “C”.”
Comments like the above don’t belong here.
I see absolutely no similarity between Palin and Hillary C. Not any one itsy bit. Palin and Prejean, yes.
It is fitting that someone falls from their own character flaw. Hillary felt it wouldn’t be possible for a woman to win without being hawkish, so she voted for the war and the DEM base gave the nomination to Barak Obama who opposed the war from the beginning. Even though I bet he had fears that any DEM has about not being hawkish enough.
She lost because she did not stay true to principals.
As it should be.
OMG, someone is comparing Hillary to Palin!!??
My husband went to the white house to a small dinner the night that Bill went on TV and said he didn’t have sex with that woman. Hillary was the hostess and she was cool and charming and spoke for 20 minutes without notes on the history of the White House or something, but she was GOOD. No word salad.
Hillary is smart, too smart to have sold out her war vote.
She has paid her dues and then some where Palin avoids all dues.
Hillary went to the senate and laid low, did her job and all the other senators commented on how well she fit in and how much they all liked her.
She has flaws, all politicians do, but she cannot be compared to Palin in any way that I can think of.
Hey all,
I have not had a chance to catch up with AKM, I am sure she will drop in with a note and some context for this when she has a chance.
In the meantime, I would just like to remind everyone that we have comment guidelines here on the blog. They are available here –
http://www.themudflats.net/comment-guidelines/
In particular –
It is never OK to engage in ad hominem attacks on other commenters, the moderation team or the community at large. If you have a gripe, I’m all ears. Email me at akmuckraker(at) yahoo(dot)com and we can hash it out. If you post a comment, you’re griping to thousands of people which is generally disruptive and inflammatory.
I suggest if you have questions regarding this post, that you email AKMuckraker as suggested above. Please bear in mind that AKM receives hundreds of emails each day, but she will get back to you when she has the time.
Thanks for keeping it civil guys.
Snoskred
Sorry forgot to highlight the quotes
“I see allot of similarities between Palin and Hillary”
__________________________________________
I also think any comparison (large or small) of Hillary Clinton to SP is not even close to reality. You certainly can’t compare résumé’s, education, or experience. So if all you can say is you don’t like someone fine, why bring someone else into it.
Why say “allot of similarities” and then list none.
_________________________________________________
“Hillary was back to being the old Hillary, with a capitol “C”.”
_________________________________________________
Comments like the above don’t belong here.
Nonsense! So now it’s Hillary’s fault Bush & his Neocons started the Iraq war.
Let’s try to put this is context. Bush was vacationing in Crawford in August 2002. He realized the Republicans were going to take a beating in the mid-term elections and he stood little chance of a 2nd term in 2004 because if elections were about the economy, it wasn’t going to be good for the Republicans.
Bush then beat the war drums. He demanded Congress support his effort to get inspectors back into Iraq, claiming (intelligence fabricated by people working under Rumsfeld) indicated Iraq was in violation of UN resolution. Bush promised he would not go to war without first coming back to Congress for their approval. We all remember slam dunk Director of CIA and Condi Rice saying how important this was. We didn’t want the first warning to be that in the form of a Mushroom Cloud.
Republican leaders in both Houses of Congress refused to adjourn to allow incumbents to campaign for re-election in the mid-term elections until Bush’s resolution was passed. Senators and House Reps up for re-election were stuck in DC while their challengers were campaigning.
Hillary was a refreshment Senator having no clout.
Hillary has been consistent and very clear that she was for getting inspectors into Iraq. And she made a speech on the floor of the Senate a week or two before Bush’s Shock & Awe invasion, in which she stated there was no justification for war while inspectors were in Iraq performing their work.
Clydedog, similarities between Palin and Hilary? They’re both women and both born in America. Other than that, nah, I don’t think so. In fact, your comment is very insulting.
WakeUpAmerica @27 – Actually, it was Martha @17 who stated similarities between Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. (I see allot of similarities between Palin and Hillary) Clydedog was merely including that statement in his postings and giving his opinion and opposition to the statement.
Thanks for the reminder Snoskred – I can’t remember any topic in recent months that has generated the sorts of negativity that this one has.
#27
WakeUpAmerica Says:
November 4th, 2009 at 5:15 PM
Clydedog, similarities between Palin and Hilary? They’re both women and both born in America. Other than that, nah, I don’t think so. In fact, your comment is very insulting.
___________________________________________________________________________
I was quoting #17 which I guess I did not do very well. But what I wrote should have shown I did not agree.
I can’t remember either GG2C, when we have had a topic that we all don’t agree with. Maybe we can have some great, but civil, discussion. We don’t always have to agree, and don’t ever need to insult.
Hi Everyone,
I haven’t gotten through all the comments yet, but wanted to post a quick note. I don’t always agree with everything a guest blogger writes about. If I did, then I’d be writing everything myself!
On the occasion that I post something that is controversial, or raises strong emotions, it’s in the hope that it will spark some conversation, and even debate. I think it’s good to be able to learn how to converse together about issues that make us uncomfortable.
So, the challenge is to agree or disagree respectfully. Or just choose not to comment. Either way, I think it’s always good to get the grey matter working a little bit. New information and opinions will either make you rethink your position, or reinforce what you thought before, but it keeps you from being lazy. Just my humble opinion.
And to answer a previous question, this was not posted anywhere else.
Thanks,
AKM
Well Clydedog, I don’t want to “get into it with you” here, but this is what I said in my post and I thought I was clear without “a list”;
Then Bill handed her health care to look after and basically……her overbearing manner and inexperience was more than a large factor in it’s failure…remind you of anyone?
Hillary may be a trooper but never the sharpest knife in the drawer.
I see allot of similarities between Palin and Hillary
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hillary had no background or education to qualify her for this enormous task.
Like Palin.
If you know the history of it you will know that Ted Kennedy did all the real work on this.
Hillary decided to formulate the health care plan behind closed doors, to hide the fact that this was the case.
Like Palin.
Then she took it to congress and tried to run roughshod over them whilst she had not included them to begin with.
Like Palin
In the end President Clinton changed his mind, refused funding to protect his own political career .
Ted Kennedy was promised by Hillary that Bill was still on board only to find out she betrayed him because she knew better.
Like Palin
THAT’S why he endorsed Obama.
If there had been no Obama Kennedy would have endorsed Hillary because party comes first.
Hillary’s sense of entitlement is very much like Sarah Palin.
Her unwillingness to concede to Obama when she knew it was more than over……Obama having to take the stage as nominated delegate without her concession and party bosses having to to TELL her to concede …is more like Sarah Palin then just about anything else.
Hillary was the one who brought up Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers long before McCain/Palin….where do you think they got it from?
In my opinion that is behavior that deserves the capitol”C” title.
Her paranoid “vast right wing conspiracy” that turned out to be more of Bill’s sexcapades, is more than reminiscent of Palin.
I applaud AKM for presenting differing views and ideas on her blog for civil discussion. Afterall, blogs exist for discussion and sharing, hopefully in a intellectual and civil manner.
Look at ocean of pee and “the other one”. They do not allow any discussion or ideas that don’t conform with their ideology. I’m glad and hopeful this blog can address all issues and allow engaging discourse without becoming one-sided.
“Back to her mansion in Washington, D.C., to resume her rich-girl life as one of the world’s most well-known celebrities”.
Well now, do you have to be a writer to know were that was going? This is not to bad. The fact it’s not up to Limbaugh standards, and will never fly, it’s not a bad attempt. It all seem very long and stretched on assumptions after a few drinks with the boys.
Secretary Clinton has always been too conservative for my taste. It seemed to me that she was trying to display her big brass ones to the boys when she voted for war, but really Don, to characterize her as a celebrity is just shabby and petty. Especially when bookended by your movie synopsis and fan-boy account of meeting the president. To extrapolate from that conversation that you know the only two reasons why Sec. Clinton could have voted for war is quite a stretch from someone I know from my reading to be much, much more reasonable. What has changed?
I like both of the Clintons.
power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Hillary certainly cast her vote for personal political ambitions. But now President Obama is at the pinnacle of power is he fulfilling the promises that he made to help get him elected? I am still hopeful that President Obama will still come through but I am not naive enough to expect that to happen. He has a lot of obstacles to navigate and it must be easy to start making decisions based on the tactics of getting around obstacles rather than the strategy that you started with in the first place. The runup to the Iraq war was a joke and many people in congress knew it. But they were all afraid to stand up. Even Colin Powell let the country down. A lot of good people were afraid to do the right thing and it cost very dearly. I hope Obama recalls how not following his better insticts can cost all of us in the end.
Peace.
You still make no relevant comparisons to SP. And why would you use a term (the c word) that has been used to denigrate women for to long. Is there no other way to express your opinion.
This is the first time since coming to this wonderful forum that I am rather sick at heart and a bit pissed of. We all have the right to our opinions and how we put things together, but I totally disagree with the op-ed piece. It certainly is easy for all of us to Monday morning quarterback and insinuate nefarious motives to those we disagree with. I wish I had the energy at the moment to dispute the many nasty points, but I don’t and see no point in it anyway.
If it hasn’t happened to any of you, one of the coolest things on the blog is to agree with, or challenge, what’s going on, and have AKM comment on one of your comments.
That happened to me today. My post and question happen at #11 and those yellow boots show up at #31.
Touche.
Given what last night’s elections results gave us I was pretty surprised to see the the diconsruction of of Hillary Clinton .
Petty sure AKM was thinking out side the box.
Still think the post was harsh. But I get that it was a teaching moment.
Sorry, Clydedog, I should have read more carefully. I guess my remark goes to Martha. I think you are really stretching to make the comparison, Martha, with all due respect. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
The problem with Mr. Mitchell’s post is that it is too simplistic and so obviously biased. Less emotion and more objectivity would have improved the piece a great deal. IMHO
I wonder how much money Hillary raised from grumman, boeing and the rest of the military industial complex? That is what the USA’s oversea mis-adventures are really all about.Ellaell… that along with global hedgemony and keeping Americans consuming a disproportionate amount of the worlds natural resources.
“History would suggest that we deserve to be punished.”
I agree with AKM that we need to stretch our minds and try to look at differing opinions more often, and she can certainly offer publication space to anyone of her choosing. We may not always change our minds by reading every article, but the ability to at least consider options, and respect our oponents is very important. As others have mentioned, when we look at various websites, we see either absolute scrubbing of opinions that are in contrast to the blog’s view, or we see vile language and personal attacks. Thank God this site hasn’t lowered to extremes like those.
I have never been a big fan of Hillary, but in the last couple of years, my respect for her has increased. She’s handled a lot of adversity from way back when she was accused of complicity in Vince Foster’s death, problems at Rose Law Firm, Bill’s peccadillos, and so forth, and has come through it a better and wiser person. She was an absolute lady in handling the loss of the nomination to President Obama and I admire her for that. If I was to dislike or distrust every politician who voted or acted differently than I would prefer, then there wouldn’t be many out there to like or trust at all.
There is no changing what has gone before that led us into this morass of wars on several fronts, and I personally have no interest in rehashing the hows and whys again, but if anyone (such as Mr. Mitchell) wishes to, then that is his/her right.
It is possible that this is a first step for Mr. Mitchell in trying to reason out the whys and hows, and where to go from here to try to get our troops home and get us out of the mess we are in. Often when we feel passionately about an issue, we make statements that aren’t always wise or in the best of taste. In retrospect, he might wish he had worded some things differently or even eliminated a few unnecessary bits.
The ending of the wars should be the goal for all of us, and ‘though many of us can’t do much on a large scale, we can still make our voices heard by letting our elected representatives know how we feel.
In the meantime, I will enjoy reading the differing opinions that are put forth in a civil manner.
The wars won’t stop. Obama is going to do as the MIC and their lobby has told him and double the amount of troops in Afghanistan. Just wait for it. Killing brown people will be a big part of the coming ‘putting Americans back to work’ act that must be in the works, or perhaps even part of ‘stimulus 2.0′. And for every combat shock trooper deployed on foreign sand, there will be 10 jobs created back here in the homeland, making explosives, building tanks and shipping ammo. War is the only export this husk of a country has left, everything else has been looted by the banking oligiachs and croney turbo capitalist pigmen.
You know, dispite all their faults, at least the regressives come right out with it and tell you all they care about is money and killing.
Wow. Interesting post to find here. I don’t really have a problem with it. But then again, I am an independent and never vote along one party line, so I don’t take this criticism personally. I think the description of Hillary as essentially removed from the public is accurate. Most politicians exude the same aloofness. I have always thought she put on a public persona and rarely let the public glimpse her true self. Bill pulls it off better, but they both play the part very well. They do run in a different pack than the rest of us. They are not independent thinkers and do have others in their peer group that they answer to. All have an agenda. Behind closed doors with their peers, there really are no defining party lines.
I do feel differently about Obama, Grayson, Weiner, and a few others. I feel they are more sincere and compassionate. It may just be they can pull it off better, but my sense is they are truly public servants.
I do believe Hillary “earned” the presidency, and Obama took it from her. I am grateful for that. She did concede very professionally. That demeanor and her intellect places her miles ahead of winky, IMO.
All this happened before I ‘awoke’ to politics. I was THE poster child for political disaffection, literally until August ’08.
This is a fascinating discussion. I have to agree, however, with those who criticize the author for the pettiness inherent in some of his remarks; they truly detract from the cogency of his argument.
Political neophyte that I am, I believe that the layers upon layers of motivations, influences, stresses and counter-stresses of the DC political environment at that time surely cannot be broken down so (I don’t want to say ‘simplistically’, but I can’t think of the proper word at the moment).
What I DO know, however, is that to compare Hillary and Palin is absolutely ridiculous. Lack of Y chromosome and political ambition aside, these two women are polar opposites in far too many ways to list here. I would ask any who would argue that to google and compare Hillary’s and Sarah’s early adult lives. Heck, while you’re at it, throw Bill in there, too. Of all these high-powered, dynamic people, Hillary was the only one who worked FOR the less fortunate, even while still in college. Where Palin unblinkingly plowed through door cracks, Hillary seemed to prefer to work change quietly from within. (As one who also tends to do so, I know from experience how easily that can be misconstrued.)
Palin is flashy, Hillary’s brilliant. BIG difference.
I would like to see some comment here from Mr. Mitchell. I’m rather surprised he hasn’t checked in.
Hillary is bright, no doubt about that.
But she’s had the negativity following her around since forever.
I’ve known women who knew her when she was at Wellesley. And I’ve known people who worked with her or for her. Few actually like her. Seems she does not have a pleasing personality. And more than a few have described her as being as duplicitous as her husband. Without the Monica under the desk.
I don’t know Mitchell. Nor have I ever read anything by him. But his description of things sound just about right. Back then, everyone wanted to avoid looking like a weakling. Everyone wanted on the bandwagon of war. Including Hillary.
Remember also that she was shot at on the tarmac.
not.
Amazing that an Attorney can jump to only two conclusions based on pure speculation and a casual post dinner conversation. It seems the only point of the article is to claim some kind of self importance and knowledge for having talked to Bill Clinton.
This was post 9-11. Hillary is the Senator from NY which was attacked. Over 3,000 New York citizens were killed. Ground zero was still being cleared of debris. Could she realistically tie the Presidents’ hands to protect NYC at a moments notice? Could she as a Senator refute, the intelligence claims coming from the Administration and intelligence agencies? Did she do as her constituents wished? To be protected from another attack?
Senator Hillary Clinton was also working tirelessly to get all the Federal support and funding to rebuild NYC. She & Schumer made NYC’s case for receiving tens of billions of dollars to President Bush.
Hillary didn’t start the Iraq War. Bush did. The resolution was to give Bush enough power to force Iraq to allow UN inspectors into the country. Inspectors had not been in Iraq since ’97. Bush met with leaders of both Parties and promised he would seek UN approval and do all possible to prevent war. Bush obviously lied. He didn’t even allow inspectors to complete their work. Had they completed their work, they would have proven Iraq was not violating UN resolution. There were no WMDs or nuclear program.
We learned from the Downing Street Memo’s that Bush would sex up the intelligence to go to war. Douglas Fieth, under Sec of Defense was tasked with this work.
sauerkraut Says:
November 4th, 2009 at 8:21 PM
Hillary is bright, no doubt about that.
But she’s had the negativity following her around since forever.
—————-
As so did Amy Carter, Chelsea Clinton and Valerie Plame All the negativity coming from the Republicans and Rush Limbaugh.
I was surprised to read this here. Certainly, I applaud AKM for allowing guest columnists to get exposure, and certainly it’s good to consider a variety of viewpoints. But it seems to me that all of the other guests, whatever my reaction to their work, have introduced some new information along with their opinions. This piece is just another illustration that there are people who just really don’t like Hillary Clinton. It is certainly Mr. Mitchell’s right to share that dislike, and to write about it, and even to be snarky about it; but I question how much useful debate will arise from this rehash of the same old “gullible or hypocrite” meme.
I wonder if Mr. Mitchell has written similar pieces — including the “must be either unfit for high office or a maleficent self-promoter” choice — about VP Biden (who holds an even higher office than SOS), or Senator Kerry (who came close to doing so). Or Senators Cantwell, Dodd, Feinstein, Reid, Rockefeller, or Schumer. Or John Edwards, or Max Cleland. Should they all commit suppuku?
Incidentally, “she shrugged off the accusation that C.I.A. predator drone attacks that kill Pakistani civilians are a form of terrorism….”. She’s the Secretary of State. That means, among other things, that she is really unlikely to acknowledge that Administration policy is a form of terrorism. It also means that she is expected to support the President, who is, BTW, the person who authorizes the use of Predators.
Another thing about Hillary. We know she made up a story about Chelsea on 9-11 being near the twin towers. She also claimed on 9-12 in her speech on the floor of the Senate, “I don’t think any of us will get out of our minds the images that we saw on television of the plane going into the first tower, the plane going into the second tower, the plane going into the Pentagon.”
We know W made the same claim, and yet the image of the first plane going into the first tower was not available yet, and we have never seen images of a plane hitting the Pentagon.
I personally think much of this was rehearsed prior to 9-11 and certain people in our government were aware that the events of that day were going to happen.
Poolman … there were definitely images of the plane that hit the Pentagon and tons of footage. It simply wasn’t as dramatic as the towers and wasn’t shown as much. I watched a lot of it on DC local news over the internet.
Is this like the moon landing was filmed at Disney? Butterfly nets anyone? This is the old “if me or my Aunt Fanny didn’t see it, it didn’t happen”. Twilight zone!
SameOld @ 55…My point here is that she can lie like the rest of them, without batting an eye. But if you have a link to video showing the plane going into the Pentagon, I’d like to see that.
” Secretary Clinton then flew home via Abu Dhabi, Jerusalem, Marrakech, and Cairo on her personal jet. Back to her mansion in Washington, D.C., to resume her rich-girl life as one of the world’s most well-known celebrities.” – from the article.
OK, my take on the op-ed piece: Donald Craig Mitchell might be a bang-up author about things Alaska, but this piece sure does seem to have quite the bias…and, frankly, seems to be lacking more than a bit of reality.
First off, as quoted above, he uses the same old tired “personal jet” meme (a big fav of the “fiscal conservatives”) that implies she is ‘too good’ to fly on a regular plane like the rest of us. That she is so high and mighty, she uses a “personal jet.” At tax-payer’s expense. What he fails to mention is that, *by law*, certain high-ranking officials of any adminstration are required to use ‘private’ transportation to get from Point A to Point B. It isn’t a choice to use a “personal jet,” it’s a requirement. So, right off the bat, he’s got me thinking he’s going to be none too fair and balanced in his comments. The “rich-girl life” comment, then, didn’t change my initial thought.
And, sorry, but when he comes out with: “Since it is reasonable to assume that Bill Clinton gives his wife advice [...]” and “[...] without talking with her husband about it, Hillary Clinton really did take George W. Bush at his word,” I wanted to sit Mr. Mitchell down and explain to him that women are FULLY capable of making decisions without their husband’s input! That little gals really and truly are able to think all on their own, now, thank you very much. How insulting!
Although I agree with the premise of the article, [that 'we' can be all lofty in our rhetoric when it isn't our ass that's on the line/paying the price in the outcome of what we do and/or say], I think he totally loses his way in making the point. He starts off with HRC and what she is doing *today*, but quick as a wink, veers off in another direction entirely.
Instead of taking HRC to task for embracing/espousing *current* US policies (use of drones, etc.) that he (Mitchell) -apparently- feels are unwise, he goes off on a tirade about what HRC (and the majority of the rest of our elected officials!) did when she was a Senator – trust that Bush would NOT lie about something as momentous and serious as reasons for going to war. If she is, as he writes, “morally abhorrent” for her decisions then, then so is every single *other* person in Congress who voted as she did. Does he take *them* to task? No. Only HRC gets his vitriolic treatment.
I think Mitchell forgets HRC is now the SoS and that she represents the Obama Administration. She is not in charge of making policy; she advises, helps form, and then carries out the policies the POTUS decides on.
All in all, I’d say Mitchell had an ax to grind with this op-ed piece. And I’d also say that by his opening with a salvo at HRCs mode of travel (without explaining why she uses a “personal jet”) and then continuing to slam her, personally, for what almost the entire Congress did, shows how petty that grinding is. Hey, he might not like HRC –there are many who can’t stand her– but for heaven’s sake, an article like this?
He might just as well have written: “Mrs. Clinton should just listen to her husband; Bill knows what’s going on and he’ll keep her straight. Better yet, she should just stay home and be quiet like a good little woman.” Leastwise, that’s what I got out of the op-ed.
I’ll go, now, and ask my spouse what I should think about the piece…after all, I’m just a flibberty-jibbet woman who couldn’t possibly have a thought all by my little ol’ self…
No, I was not at all impressed with the op-ed piece. (Could you tell?) beth.
[Wolf Pack @51, you said what I was thinking. And much better than I.]
Hindsight is 20-20, and it is very easy to look back at a situation and criticize with what we know now. Assuming facts not in evidence, and then pillorying someone based on those “facts” is, well, hypocritical.
Reading Mitchell’s essay between the lines, I think he simply doesn’t like Hillary Clinton. That is certainly his prerogative. He is also very angry about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and seems to be looking for someone to blame. Okay.
But putting the two together is tricky at best, and isn’t working here. The opinion Mitchell has presented is so flawed it throws his motives into question, revealing much more about him than about Hillary Clinton.
The piece invites dissent just by being so obviously biased and laced with emotion-charged words. We are all used to AKM’s gentle, well-resourced, and usually humorous articles. This essay is in clear opposition to AKM’s style.
Hilarious. Today is was announced that Hillary is just featured on the cover of Newsweek with a glowing story about her. The military loves her. She was the most informed senator regarding war issues. She is doing a great job as SOS. She is a team player. Clearly, this idiot didn’t receive the memo.
I have spent some time..reading first..the first post..then the assorted comments..all the way through..then a bit of reverse..study the word choices..possible inflections..and/or..realigned comments statements. The unnamed board I was on for 5 years..had this sort of thing happen..freq. and it was far less..’constrained’..so..it (political views) was abolished. That board flourishes now..simply..doing the depts and sections it was..orig. designed to serve. Here..there is wide-angle ..lensing. Many views from many angles and life experiences, political coloring and educational backgrounds. So..here I sit..looking at the moniter..and I have this wonderful feeling of having hiked through a portion..of a cave complex..with assorted stalagmites, rising up from the floor of the ‘cave of political awarenesses’..each unique..each showing us..a human brain and mental-emotional ..’processes’..captured..at This Moment..in..Time. Pretty amazing really.
I must admit I am a little confused, is it still 2002? I don’t see how this particular essay pertains to anything current. The US is faced with an array of serious problems, arguably some of the most serious are entirely domestic in nature. Setting all of that aside to discuss the wars in Asia is fine if it is realistic or insightful.
I don’t find either realism or insight here. IMO realism indicates that our problem is how to extricate ourselves from these counterproductive and unaffordable wars. There are far more that two alternatives and one of them is the unfortunate alternative that there is no “good” way to do it. An insight might be that both wars are far off track but specifically in Afghanistan we are now just interlopers on an internal power struggle that has been characteristic of that country for — well centuries I think it is. Worse still all the evidence points towards the conclusion that the faction we are supposedly supporting is not legitimate.
We could go on to debate whether the domestic or foreign agendas should be addressed simultaneously, or in sequence. Realism again indicates that the former is the only actual choice. However, given the apparent climate in the US itself, one has to wonder what the hysteria from the right wing would be like if Obama unilaterally began to draw down forces in both countries at an accelerated rate in order to #1 save a few warehouses full of money, #2 stop killing our people and some of “their” people, and #3 redirect resources into creating a few million jobs.
I guess I just don’t see the point of this article at all.
I personally like to have my assumptions challenged.
In the runup to the war in Iraq it was disappointing to me
to have so many Democrats jump on the Bush bandwagon.
I lost respect for Colin Powell after that show in the UN. Only
later did I learn he was put up to it by Bush and Company.
It is a sad fact that many of our politicians will do what ever is
politically expedient for them without any consideration of what
the impact is for the future of the United States. We must find a
way to get the money out of politics so we can elect more
average citizens instead of millionaires.
JMHO.
DD
The Obama administration has committed to an international effort via the United Nations in Af-Pak, a remarkable change in US foreign policy. General McChrystal has set out the military possibilities as objectively as possible. At the very same time, Pakistan has committed 30,000 troops to drive the Taliban and Al Qaeda out of Waziristan. The fighting is reported to be intense. At the same time, our own troops, thousands strong, are just across the border from Waziristan, confronting extremist Taliban and Al Qaeda trying to escape the Pakistanis. And just as all the rabbits are being flushed from their holes, the Predator program is being stepped up, exactly the right military moment to use the Predator. At the same time, a controversial and extensive review and realignment of U.S. strategy in Afghanistan is underway. At the same time, diplomatic messengers have been in constant contact in the region, including a sanctioned mission by Sen John Kerry to Kabul, and a sanctioned mission by Secretary of State Clinton to Pakistan. The operative phrase here is “…at the same time…”. This number of simultaneous events does not occur happenstance. Something large and coordinated is underway. You would think a historian, of all people, would add it all up and realize the gravity of the moment. This is a moment for us to be careful, and measured, and supportive of good people in harm’s way. I say lets give the Obama administration the trust, the time and the space to finish this combined diplomatic, politcal and military action. Historian Donald Mitchell’s energy might be better spent in observing this moment.
wow! this was a goody. i love it. so many people able to speak clearly but kindly toward one another. imho Mr. Mitchell was a tad overwrought but his op. ed. made for great conversation.
Donald Mitchell: You need to get back on your meds.
Please, no more tripe from Don Mitchell.
This has been interesting…
the post and the comments…
The post reminded me how deeply disappointed in HRC, amongst many, many others, I was over her vote in the Senate to let President Bush loose with his Iraq war scheme.
It was not sufficient then, or now, to explain that she really wanted all diplomatic and UN type avenues exhausted first…
I don’t care WHY she did it… the action alone is what we are left with.
Comments here reminded me that her presidential primary campaign used the arguments which whatzername later took up and turned into “pallin’ around with terrorists.”
There’s a nasty sector in the Dems we try to pretend doesn’t exist and that was right out there in the open … with HRC at the helm…
I don’t care IF she approved the message, missed it, whatever- it is the action we are left with.
As much as I admire HRC on certain levels, I have come to think she lacks large vision .
I don’t think that qualifies as hypocrisy…
And so have to disagree with Mr Mitchell.
As to the:
” Because, unlike for the rest of us, it’s never their ass that’s on the line.”
framing of this post…
That’s because WE do NOT put their hineys on the line!
Singling out HRC to yap about when all those other “leaders”, of whom so many are still there in DC being all leader-y, is disingenuous at best…
Unless of course, HRC was expected to perform above all others because she shares the same toilet as the past pres…?
PHHHTT