Personal attacks on Clinton: deja vu
Markos essentially declares Senator Hillary Clinton to be a nonstarter. I think he's wasting the netroots political capital; and that decision isn't his to make.
Kos argues,
The thing is, that by insisting that her vote was wrong, Kos is the one who is legitimizing the war, not Hillary.
Clinton's position - that she stands by her vote, but in retrospect realizes she was misled by the Administration - is reasonable. The context of the AUMF was that the Administration would try diplomacy, would consult with allies, would allow the inspectors to do their job, etc. That was the case that the Administration made to the Congress, using Colin Powell as their straight man.
In hindsight all that was bogus and Bush took the AUMF and ran. And we are supposed to blame Clinton for that?
I feel like the insistence that Clinton say her vote was wrong is in essence buying into the GOP frame that the AUMF was an immediate authorization for military aggression. It wasn't. Demand that Clinton apologize and you are essentially giving Bush political cover, and legitimizing the war!
Clinton's argument is essentially that the war was illegitimate because it was sold under false pretenses. We should be embracing her for it.
I should note that I do not support Clinton for the nomination, for other reasons, but on this matter, she's within her rights and Kos is out of line. There are far better critiques of substance to be made.
UPDATE: As Ron notes, what use is political capital if you don't spend it on matters of principle?
UPDATE 2: I find it rather disingenuous to suggest that Hillary is somehow back-tracking or being a hypocrite for calling for troop withdrawals now, given that she explains her vote for AUMF as being misled. In fact its perfectly consistent - and the same principled stand - to call for the war to end now that she knows she was misled. Too much backbone for your taste, Don?
Kos argues,
I don't want her to apologize. I want her to say, "I made a mistake." Edwards did it. Just about every other Democrat who idiotically trusted this president and supported the war has done it. Had Hillary done this last year, the issue would be moot.
And does she really want to argue that her vote wasn't wrong?
The thing is, that by insisting that her vote was wrong, Kos is the one who is legitimizing the war, not Hillary.
Clinton's position - that she stands by her vote, but in retrospect realizes she was misled by the Administration - is reasonable. The context of the AUMF was that the Administration would try diplomacy, would consult with allies, would allow the inspectors to do their job, etc. That was the case that the Administration made to the Congress, using Colin Powell as their straight man.
In hindsight all that was bogus and Bush took the AUMF and ran. And we are supposed to blame Clinton for that?
I feel like the insistence that Clinton say her vote was wrong is in essence buying into the GOP frame that the AUMF was an immediate authorization for military aggression. It wasn't. Demand that Clinton apologize and you are essentially giving Bush political cover, and legitimizing the war!
Clinton's argument is essentially that the war was illegitimate because it was sold under false pretenses. We should be embracing her for it.
I should note that I do not support Clinton for the nomination, for other reasons, but on this matter, she's within her rights and Kos is out of line. There are far better critiques of substance to be made.
UPDATE: As Ron notes, what use is political capital if you don't spend it on matters of principle?
UPDATE 2: I find it rather disingenuous to suggest that Hillary is somehow back-tracking or being a hypocrite for calling for troop withdrawals now, given that she explains her vote for AUMF as being misled. In fact its perfectly consistent - and the same principled stand - to call for the war to end now that she knows she was misled. Too much backbone for your taste, Don?
Comments
Uh, no--but nice try at whitewashing history. Everyone knew that the end result of the resolution would be removal of Saddam's government by whatever means. For that matter, regime change was official US government policy since the second Clinton administration.
The Democrats' claim of being "misled" is risible, and doesn't become more credible with repetition. That "Vote for us; we're gullible!" is taken seriously is a sad commentary on the current political scene.
If you have Kos' stance on the war, he is absolutely right, Hillary is excluded from serious consideration.
It's funny that within hours of Kos' posting, Hillary announces a new "start leaving in 90 days" position. Pathetic. She seems scared to death.
Are you saying our Senators were easily fooled by Bush on Iraq?
Clinton was outsmarted by Chimpy McBushitler?
Are you saying that Clinton as a Senator had flaws that led her to easily believe what a Republican was telling her?