Such Fickle Political Lovers

[babylonsister]

Such Fickle Political Lovers


Posted on Oct 28, 2007

By Bill Boyarsky

Why, when a majority of Americans oppose the Iraq war, are the political correspondents so eagerly awaiting the nomination acceptance speech of Hillary Clinton, the Democratic candidate most likely to continue the conflict?

Soon we’ll be reading about the brilliant thinkers and literary stylists who will write her acceptance speech. Team Hillary members, such as her chief strategist, Mark Penn, are becoming the subjects of admiring pieces by writers wanting to suck up to power.

The political correspondents—mainly those based in Washington—go along with what everyone else thinks. Their professional lives are spent nervously eyeing the Conventional Wisdom Express, desperate to climb on before the train leaves the station.

The polls show that a majority of Americans want out of Iraq. A New York Times/CBS survey taken in September found that 30 percent wanted our troops out and 35 percent favored a reduction in the force. Just 41 percent felt that going to war was the right thing to have done, and only 34 percent felt it was worth the cost. Other surveys show much the same. The cautious Clinton is probably worried about the almost 30 percent of people in the survey who favor either keeping our troops at the same level or increasing our forces. Barack Obama and John Edwards show the same caution. All of them say they worry about departing American forces leaving behind a hopelessly chaotic Iraq. But what do we have now?

Clinton said she would quickly convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her defense secretary and her National Security Council to come up with a plan to bring troops home. I assume all these people would be part of a Washington establishment afraid to veer too far one way or the other in policy matters. Clinton’s top strategist, Penn, is worldwide president and CEO of Burson-Marsteller, which helped prepare the chief of Blackwater USA for his congressional testimony; in that testimony the Blackwater executive defended the way that company employees killed 17 and wounded 24 while fulfilling its contract to provide security for the State Department. It’s all very clubby.

I’d say it would be a hawkish plan. Clinton voted recently for a Senate resolution condemning the Iran Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, a stand that has been interpreted by some war critics as giving President Bush authority to attack Iran. Enough Iowans were upset by the vote for her to send out a letter explaining her stand. Trying to hold on to a slender polling lead for the Iowa caucuses, Clinton said she voted for the measure only after the removal of language she felt would give Bush power to take military action against Iran without congressional approval. “I was there; I exercised leadership ...,” she said.

more...

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20071028_such_fickle_political_lovers/

[pnwmom]

1. The writer claims Clinton is the Democrat most likely to continue

the Iraq conflict. Then he says that "Barack Obama and John Edwards show the same caution."

The truth is that Clinton's position is not very different than the other major candidates, and that none of them support a continuation of Bush's failed war.

[Windy]

2. Clinton does not favor pulling all troops from Iraq...

she also signed on to Kyl/Lieberman. If you want more of the same, vote for Clinton. It shocks me that so many support the most hawkish candidate on one hand, but vehemently oppose the continuation of the war in Iraq and the potential for war with Iran...

[pnwmom]

3. I disagree that she's "the most hawkish candidate." As I said, I don't

find her positions to be much different from the other major candidates. The Kyl/Lieberman statement that she signed onto had been gutted by the time she signed it, in order to address the concerns that were expressed by progressives. And as long as we have an embassy in Iraq, we'll need SOME troops there to protect it. That's what she has said and that doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

[Windy]

4. How has it been gutted? It declares the army of another country

a terrorist organization and states that its the sense of the senate the military might can be used from "inside iraq" to counter the actions of the "terrorists" inside iraq. Calling the military of another country a terrorist organization is akin to an act of war. Further, attacks against iran can be launched from inside Iraq.

Hmm..what do you know that Jim Webb doesn't? (and Mr. Webb stated on Hardball, as an example, Hillary's agreement to sign onto his bill which is concurrent with a house bill to force bush to come to the congress before going to war with Iran is simply cover for her mistake in judgment in voting for Kyl/Lieberman.

You may want to read the actual final draft. Mrs. Clinton's judgment in signing on to Kyl/Lieberman was very poor.

Look, if you want more of the same, vote for Mrs. Clinton. I want a change in policy. A true change, not just a butterfly band aid.

[pnwmom]

5. HRC says it doesn't authorize war against Iran.

Though I can see why people are afraid that Bush could take it that way.

Here's info about the revised version of the bill.

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/09/kyllieberman_iran_amendment_passes_by_huge_margin.php

The bill's backers had tried to mollify its critics by taking out some of its most incendiary language, particularly the idea that "it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies."

Also removed from the measure was a provision "to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments" in support of the above.

SNIP

Also added to the final version was this conciliatory-sounding language:

"Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated on September 16, 2007 that "I think that the administration believes at this point that continuing to try and deal with the Iranian threat, the Iranian challenge, through diplomatic and economic means is by the preferable approach. That the one we are using. We always say all options are on the table, but clearly, the diplomatic and economic approach is the one that we are pursuing."

SNIP

[Windy]

19. I read it myself... I don't rely on what "some people say"

You may want to read it yourself. Just because Hillary says its so, does not make it so...

pull up the bill

[JTFrog]

7. I go with most hawkish.

Gore, Clark, Obama, Kucinich, Gravel knew from day one that the IWR was simply a pretext by Bush to invade and occupy Iraq. Richardson didn't vote on it. Edwards was a co-sponsor but has since admitted he was wrong. And Clinton is the only one supporting the Kyle-Lieberman amendment.

How again is she not the most hawkish?

"If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from," Mrs. Clinton told an audience in Dover, N.H., in a veiled reference to two rivals for the nomination, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina.

Yes, Senator, there are others to choose from. I accept that invitation.


*edit html

[0007]

17. It must be those gals that love camel toes, 'eh?

....and most of us know who were talking about.

[reprobate]

6. How is it possible that Democrats will nominate the most divisive candidate in history?

And that's just what the Rovian Right has wanted.

Remember that they've been pushing for Clinton to run against them for the last two years? Why do you suppose that is? Could they be on the same side? After all, she is/was on the board of DLC,and they can hardly be classed as progressive.

The fact that the repugs have been pushing for her to run means to me that they already have a playbook of dirty tricks ready to hit her with during the campaign. That's how Rove works; he takes his opponent's strengths and turns them into their weaknesses. I think this has been planned for two or three years now. And the media loves the horse race, cheering her on all the way, even though so many democrats are afraid of her running.

I'm afraid that once again, Democrats are about to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.

[stevenleser]

8. Rhetorical, demagogic nonsense...

as if the press has got together to try to push Hillary. "The press" as a group are pushing for no one. That pretty much guts the entire premise of this article.

[JTFrog]

9. Yes, "The Press"

is fair and unbiased. :eyes:

[stevenleser]

12. I didnt say fair and unbiased

Each of us are very biased. But we arent biased in favor of the same people.

[babylonsister]

10. Do you ever watch msm? I beg to differ, but 'the press' are practically

salivating over Clinton. Google the leading Dem candidates, count the stories, and get back to me.

[stevenleser]

11. Go back and google leading candidates from past elections

and compare their article coverage to Clintons. At this time four years ago, everything was about Dean. There is no difference or bias. The press cover who seems the most important vis-a-vis support.

[babylonsister]

13. You're of course entitled to your opinion, but I don't share it. Read this:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/102907H.shtml

[stevenleser]

14. They said pretty much the same thing that I did

The media love front runners.

[babylonsister]

15. To the exclusion of everyone else! Clinton's getting the press,

from the media and the rethugs. And if you don't think they're piling on, I don't know what to tell you. Have a nice day.

[stevenleser]

16. Let me try putting it another way...

I'm in the Edwards camp. But I have also written about Hillary a lot. Why? Well, she might very well be the standardbearer of my party and the next President. Right now she is the favorite to do that, so I am going to get my thoughts out there about her, criticisms, suggestions, all. Articles about Kucinich, Tancredo, Hunter, etc., aren't as compelling either to read or write. I'm not motivated to write an article exploring what foreign policy under a Tancredo administration might be like because the chance of it happening is next to nil.

[0007]

18. ...and guess who controls the media. n/t