Sen. Clinton is currently taking a bit of flack on the road. The issue is her decision to vote FOR giving the President support in dealing with Iraq. As we should know, the vote was meant to show solidarity in the American voice in negotiating and diplomacy with Iraq. The mistake was in thinking the administration wouldn't go whole hog and bring suffer here and abroad to prove a point.
Big mistake, as history now demonstrates. This was even more egregious online where people had the most freedom to question and show the counterpoints to the "evidence". On TV and in the street talk against the war was stifled. People were chosen for interviews and debates who were either soft or able to be beat back soundly, rigged matches. In the papers the evidence was shooed to the back of the paper. And various authorities were vilified, with fake claims (including being child molesters), or had their families humiliated.
In this situation, the bloggers and websites were the last bastion of clear argument against the suspect logic of war. And people like Clinton (almost the entire Congress) dismissed it, and then either bought into the fear or into the political expediency of giving Bush backing.
For some this is unforgivable, though their are plenty of other excuses people use to justify turning on the senator as well. But the isolation has been a long biting issue.
On Daily Kos they go into some of the concerns they have about why she, on the road now, won't just admit she was wrong then.
It is confusing to see it. Some say, as a women, it will be used to ridicule her femininity (The old tripe - A woman's prerogative is to change her mind - Yeesch!), or she doesn't want a mistake to mar her record. I don't know what to think. Seems it would be better to say it, and deal with any hits with her potent strength of will.
An advisor:
There was James Carville on CNN's Situation Room, desperately trying to explain why Sen. Clinton voted for the war, even though other senators who had been given the same faulty intel she had, voted against it: "But they weren't from New York," he said. "Their state wasn't hit. They didn't have to deal with the grief of these 3,000 people."
First, Carville? Why? Uh. But trying to tie the terrorist of 9/11 to Iraq is just disingenuous. Sure, the people of NYC wanted action and to be protected. But this war has not done that. Let's at least cop to this.
Of course this week, she has been working to show a stronger backbone in dealing with Bush's next potential war. IRAN.
Sen. Clinton:
It would be a mistake of historical proportion if the administration thought that the 2002 resolution authorizing force against Iraq was a blank check for the use of force against Iran without further Congressional authorization.
Nor should the president think that the 2002 resolution authorizing force after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 in any way authorizes force against Iran. If the administration believes that any, any use of force against Iran is necessary, the president must come to Congress to seek that authority.
Video here.
No comments:
Post a Comment