Aug. 18, 2007
Clinton's Hawkish Stance Unwelcome
The Nation: Democrats Should Be Wary Of Their Front-Runner's Militarism
-
Play CBS Video
Video
"Female Factor" Boosts Clinton
A CBS News/New York Times poll shows women see Hillary Clinton as a strong leader, putting her ahead of her Democratic challengers and Republican rivals. Kelly Wallace has more.
-
Video
Obama: I'd Go Into Pakistan
In the face of criticism from rival Hillary Clinton, presidential hopeful Barack Obama says he'd go into Pakistan to fight terrorists, even if that upsets an ally. Karen Brown reports.
-
Photo
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., at a May 2007 campaign event in Iowa. (GETTY)
-
Photo Essay
Hillary Rodham Clinton
The Democratic Senator from New York and former first lady sets her sights on the White House.
What in the world was Sen. Hillary Clinton thinking when she attacked Sen. Barack Obama for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons in going after Osama bin Laden? And why aren't her supporters more concerned about yet another egregious example of Clinton's consistent backing for the mindless militarism that is dragging this nation to ruin? So what that she is pro-choice and a woman if the price of proving her capacity to be commander in chief is that we end up with an American version of Margaret Thatcher?
In response to the 9/11 hijackers, armed with weapons no more sophisticated than $3 box cutters, American military spending, with Senate Armed Services Committee member Clinton's enthusiastic support, has catapulted beyond cold war levels. Senator Clinton has treated the military budget as primarily a pork-barrel target of opportunity for jobs and profit in New York state, supports increased money for missile defense and every other racket the military-industrial complex comes up with, and still feels no obligation to repudiate her vote for the disastrous Iraq war.
Given her sorry record of cheerleading the irrational post-cold war military buildup, do we not have a right, indeed an obligation, to question whether Clinton is committed to creating a more peaceful world? Don't say that we weren't warned if a President Hillary Clinton further imperils our world, as she has clearly positioned herself as the leading hawk in the Democratic field. What other reason was there for first blasting Obama for daring to state that he would meet with foreign leaders whom Bush has branded as sworn enemies, and then for the attack on Obama's very sensible statement that it would be "a profound mistake" to use nuclear weapons in Pakistan and Afghanistan in the attempt to eliminate bin Laden?
Isn't that a no-brainer — or can Clinton conceive of an occasion where even the threat, let alone the actuality, of a nuclear attack in the immediate neighborhood of nuclear-armed Pakistan and India would send the right message? And what about the dangerous message of Clinton's assault on Obama: "I don't believe that any President should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons." Huh? Just exactly how does one make a compelling case to other nations against the proliferation of nuclear weapons when members of the nuke club, particularly the President of the one nation that has killed hundreds of thousands of people with two of these ungodly weapons, will not, at the very least, promise to abstain from first use of a weapon that could quite easily eliminate most life on this planet?
Of course Obama was right, and it was no different than Senator Clinton's statement in April 2006, when she said, "I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table," in relation to preventing Iran from developing such weapons. Back then, she recognized that nuclear weapons are weapons against civilization, not a means of ensuring its survival. "This Administration has been very willing to talk about using nuclear weapons in a way we haven't seen since the dawn of a nuclear age," she said. "I think that's a terrible mistake." Yes, indeed — and Hillary's supporters will no doubt insist that this statement reflects her true feelings on the matter and that "militarist Hillary" is just an act to get elected.
Act or reality, it's working. Pundits for the National Review, The Weekly Standard and other pro-war outlets have come to applaud Clinton. A host of political scientists and other campaign hustlers have also approved this image makeover; as a recent Boston Globe headline put it, "Tough talk drives Clinton effort: National security stance seen adding to image of strength." One political scientist from Texas stated: "She's come off as credible and serious on national defense — an issue that two years ago most of us would have thought would be a liability for her." The Globe noted that "When Geraldine Ferraro was the Democratic candidate for vice president in 1984, she was dogged by questions about whether she could 'push the button' to launch an attack if the Cold War turned hot." The paper then quoted Ferraro as saying that Clinton, whom she supports for President, has passed that test: "You can't do that with Hillary Clinton. Hillary is in a totally different place."
Great, so forget the hope that a woman President might prove to be more enlightened than macho men in the matter of peacemaking, and instead rest assured that Hillary would have the cojones to "push the button" that would kill us all. Once again, the old Clintonian tactic of triangulation: positioning oneself politically instead of taking a position of integrity.
By Robert Scheer
Reprinted with permission from the The Nation.
| If you like this article, check out www.thenation.com for more investigative reports, timely editorials and incisive columns |
Video and Galleries from Opinion
-
Video
Rooney: Eat More Fruit!
-
Video
A Day To Remember
-
Video
Jackson Memorial In Context
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 113 CommentsYes! Why the blind masses ignore this is beyond me.
Yes! Why the blind masses can''t see it that way I will never know.
Yes! Why the blind masses ignore this is beyond me.
The "blind masses" have been shown that there is nothing they can do about it. Vote the traitors out? they''ll simply rig the voting machines, and have the media lie about the results, a la Bush/Gore. Mass protests? the "patriot act" was enacted to prevent such, by forbidding protests against the war. Organized resistance? the FISA spy program will monitor your phone and internet.
It will take anger unseen since the original revolution to cause the "politicians" to understand, and organizers and leaders willing to sacrifice, up to and including their freedom and their lives.
let%u2019s instead compare Democrat vs. Democrat,, let%u2019s say Clinton(s) vs. J.F. Kennedy.
The Clinton(s) and current Democrat philosophy on governing/government is:
%u201CBig Government will provide for you%u201D, &
%u201CFrom cradle to grave, Big Government will take care of you%u201D, &
%u201CIt takes a Village%u201D(Big Government)
Whereas J.F. Kennedy said :
%u201CAsk not what your country can do for you, but rather what you can do for your country%u201D
These two philosophies (both Democrat) are complete polar opposite of each other.
I would much rather be a J.F. Kennedy democrat than a Clinton democrat.
Sounds to me like the NeoCommies and MoveOn.org have hijacked a Democrat party that I once knew and respected.
...
The GOP will win in 2008 because the Dems have moved all the way to the "left"
My friend in Aspinwall says LSD is very easy to obtain in Pittsburgh. YOur comments verify that she is correct. Americans will not vote GOPig in 2008. You fascist condumbs have moved so far to the reicht, that only dumbed down Reaganites will be voting GOPig, meaning those in their early 40''s, 30''s, and your idiotic parents. How are those kalidiscopes on that acid you obviously have taken? Vivid? Green? Purple?
Hillary seems to be saying she is not that person--it''s like code for supporting writing huge checks to the defense contractor lobby.
I''m so tired of people bringing up the past...we don''t live in the past!
Conservatives won''t vote for Hillary because she is "too far left".
Moderates won''t vote for Hillary because she is too "extreme".
And, you can''t ignore how America will gag at the notion of Bill Clinton becoming "First Gentleman" of the White House...Americans have to be smart enough not to invite a renowned womanizer and alleged rapist into the White House - a second time!
Karl Rove was right; even though she will most likely be nominated by the Democratic Party, Hillary IS "fatally flawed" and unelectable.
Isn''t that the argument why Iran and terrorists shouldn''t have nukes--because they won''t use them "responsibly" ?
Americans CAN''T WAIT to vote the GOP out.
That''s why the dems are collecting more money.
That''s why interest in debates and primaries is so high.
And that''s why the states are moving their primary dates forward.
If we could vote the GOP out today, they''d be gone.
So, what is she doing? Trying to get elected. I really do not think she is wedded (not even to her husband....) if any of her current issues becomes a drag on her election. She will do whatever it takes to get elected. She would even banish Bill to the back row if it means getting elected.
She senses the war is turning and she is trying to stake out a political position to allow election in the primaries and in the general election.
Nothing but a long time politician. Not a visionary nor a prophet.
Who is the "we" here, dumbo. You think the players in Washington are on your side? Do they listen to you before they decide who to bomb or what to do? Do they do things for Americans, please, you are indeed a dumbo or have never been to Washington DC. That town is run by money, s$x, and power, the government is of, by, and for the rich and connected.
Try eating in a restaurant in DC, they''ll put you back by the kitchen, they''ll mock you as a nothing. The nuclear weapons and other weapons are pointed just as much at the American public as the rest of the world; they hate and fear us as much as they do everyone else.
Spend some time with some of the decision makers (you''ll probably have to clean their cars or shine their shoes as you are not even human to them). It''ll open your eyes. The rich and powerful are a minority and their greatest fear is the American middle class, the public in general. If one of these guys shook hands with you, he would go wash his hands afterwards. They fear, despise, and hate you. You don''t have any nuclear weapons, dumbo, they do.
you can''''t ignore how America will gag at the notion of Bill Clinton becoming "First Gentleman" of the White House
Spoken like a TRUE FASCIST! When you say "you", please qualify your ignorance by instead saying "we neocons". This should help to improve your credibility, because as a GOPig, you have ZERO crediblity.
C''mon America, after eight years of George "the white collar criminal" Bush, most of us would vote for Jeffery Dalmer for President before voting Republican.
A d a m n cannibal would be better than what we had under six years of a Republican Congress, Senate, and President. And for those of you who want to complain about the Democratic controlled Congress and Senate, you should count your blessings that the Republicans don''t have control. We probably would have invaded Switzerland by now because of more Saudi Arabians attacking the United States again.
Posted by jtaucrkn
We only have Socialism for the wealthy, the rest of us have to pay through the nose. We work our a.s.s.es off and end up paying a higher rate in taxes than they do, only to see our money given away to the rich in the form of corporate welfare, no-bid cost-plus contracts and other Military-Industrial complex schemes.
Not to mention what we are paying for gas and medicine. If we really had a free market with real competition, we wouldn%u2019t be paying these prices.
Well put. It is strange that so many defend the idea that welfare and handouts from the government are good for the rich and bad for the poor.
Let prejudice be done with, everyone is entitled to make a choice for themselves and I can only hope that the choices to be made next year will be based on common sense and not, as we currently have, self centered - self entitled people who do not care about what the majority of Americans want.
Let the Republican agenda be viewed in the history books that it ended...2008!
What was Hillary Clinton thinking when she attacked Sen. Barack Obama for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons in going after Osama bin Laden? She was thinking what every one else was thinking, what a dumb a-- Sen. Barack Obama is.
I hope the Republicans continue to try to undermine her strengths and integrity - just makes them look like the creeps they really are.
Hillary is simply not "qualified" to be president.
Only two Senators in all of American history have ever been elected as President of USA. So throw out all the Senators running from both parties and in the balance you will find our next president.
Conservatives won''t vote for Hillary because she is "too far left".
Moderates won''t vote for Hillary because she is too "extreme".
And, you can''t ignore how America will gag at the notion of Bill Clinton becoming "First Gentleman" of the White House...Americans have to be smart enough not to invite a renowned womanizer and alleged rapist into the White House - a second time!
Karl Rove was right; even though she will most likely be nominated by the Democratic Party, Hillary IS "fatally flawed" and unelectable.
He did a fairly good job, what with saving the union and all.
Democrat candidates for president...none of them are even qualified.
My freind in Aspinwall tells me that LSD is easy to obtain in Pittsburgh. YOur confusing comments prove that she is right on.
Mitt Romney''s qualifications: has enough money to buy his way to victory in Iowa straw poll. Gulliani''s qualifications: typical GOPig LIAR, your fearmongering Fascist candidate. Problem with GOPigs for presidnet, they offer NOTHING NEW! Same old Corporate welfare party bought and payed for by Corporate Fascism. For example: These ISRAEL FIRST Republican Senators are all up for Reelection in 08. Ask them how much Israel influences their vote on Iraq? Also, ask them how much US DEFENSE CONTRACTORS influence their votes in needless defense spending. These sell out America for Israel traitors and sell out America for the US MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX are listed below:
Alexander, Lamar- (R - TN)
Allard, Wayne- (R - CO)
Chambliss, Saxby- (R - GA)
Cochran, Thad- (R - MS)
Coleman, Norm- (R - MN)
Collins, Susan M.- (R - ME)
Cornyn, John- (R - TX)
Craig, Larry E.- (R - ID)
Dole, Elizabeth- (R - NC)
Dominici, Pete- (R - NM)
Enzi, Michael B.- (R - WY)
Graham, Lindsey- (R - SC)
Hagel, Chuck- (R - NE)
Inhofe, James M.- (R - OK)
McConnell, Mitch- (R - KY)
Roberts, Pat- (R - KS)
Sessions, Jeff- (R - AL)
Smith, Gordon H.- (R - OR)
Stevens, Ted- (R - AK)
Sununu, John E.- (R - NH)
Warner, John- (R - VA)
Hillary is not taking this Hawkish stance to appease the FAR left. She''s saying it because she''s already on the national election. She doesn''t need to pretend to be dovish to earn the nomination from the radical elements of her party.
As a person who appreciates her WORDS on a committment to strong defense and appropriate action....I don''t believe them. I can''t believe any of the rest of you believe them either....
That repetitive sort of hex spell trick is not going to work on her. Try as you all may, she will very likely reflect it right back at you.
--Perception5--
Unqualified to run for POTUS? Look at the Constitution sometime. The qualifications are:
1. At least 35 years old.
2. Born in the United States.
That''s it. Those are the qualifications.
Let''s pick a couple of examples:
Chester Arthur (Republican)-- Lawyer, whose only prior government experience was 6 months as Garfield''s VP.
Woodrow Wilson (Democrat)--Teacher, whose only prior government experience was a 2 year term as Governor of New Jersey.
All of the candidates (both parties) today have more government experience than either of these past 2 Presidents. I can come up with more.
Look at America''s "deep blue" cities when there is nothing but poverty and despair. Deep blue cities that have been under single party DEMOCRAT rule for decades and generations. Cities like Detroit where only 25% of the children in public schools ever graduate from High School. Deep Blue cities like Washington DC where less than 50% of the children graduate from High School. In "deep blue" cities like Baltimore where 72% of Black male children "never" graduate from High School. Baltimore has the second highest murder rate in America. Detroit with their 25% graduation rate has the highest murder rate in America.
Americans are sick and tried of rich liberals %u201Clying%u201D about how much you care about poor people yet in the very cities that you control and have controlled for %u201Cdecades and generations%u201D they is noting but poverty and neglect and yet the rich white liberals ignore the poor living in the same cities only stopping to help the poor every two years when they offer them free bus rides to the %u201Cpolls%u201D with instructions to vote for the candidate with the %u201CD%u201D behind their name..
When is this crime going to be %u201CVISIBLE%u201D TO THE DEMOCRATS AND THEIR ENABLERS, AMERICA''S CORRUPT LIBERAL PRESS? Is this social justice?
Posted by perception5 at 12:58 PM : Aug 18, 2007
This, coming from people who voted for a one-term governor with zero experience when he took office, and who is still unqualified seven years later.
AMERICA''''S CORRUPT LIBERAL PRESS? Is this social justice?
Liberal press? That went out 25 years ago, during the Neocon Fascist Ronald Reagan regime. My friend in Aspinwall says there are only 2 good public schools in all of Pittsburgh. Her $240,000 house costs her $9,000 per year in property taxes. If you know (which I doubt) who''s running the show in corrupt Pittsburgh?
"Liberal Clinton" posturing for more military mismanagement, "Conservative who ever" agreeing to increased deficits to fund an illegal war, they are putting on each others'' underwear, and the losers are those of us too dogmatic to see the real situation, they are all destroying the US.
Wake up, partisans, you all are being played for suckers...
--Perception5--
Actually, 14 Presidents have been elected Senators, with 13 having actually served as Senators (Garfield was elected Senator, but never served). That''s almost 1/3 of all US Presidents:
Andrew Jackson
Martin Van Buren
William Henry Harrison
John Tyler
Franklin Pierce
James Buchanan
Andrew Johnson
Benjamin Harrison
Warren Harding
Harry Truman
John F Kennedy
Lyndon Johnson
Richard M Nixon
--Perception5--(again)
Yes, let''s. I live in Denver, CO. We haven''t had a Republican House Representative in over 80 years (due to the KKK scandal of the 1920''s), and only 2 Republican Mayors in the same time frame.
Our high schools have a graduation rate of 77%, which is above the national average of less than 70%. If a parent or child doesn''t like our schools, they can attend a school in a neighboring suburban district, but few do.
We have some socialism here. I pay $80/year or so for trash collection through my property taxes. Residents of neighboring cities get to pay $40-$80/MONTH for private trash collection. They also have to pay extra to have extra bags or large items picked up, and we don''t.
We have one of the largest municipal parks systems here, including 6 18-hole golf courses (greens fee $4 for residents), and the world famous Red Rocks Amphitheatre.
Suburban police departments frequently call on our police for assistance, especially our CSI and homicide units.
Not bad for a socialist, Democratic Party dominated, "Deep Blue" city.
the den of evil, Washington D C.
Don''t worry Libs.
Let me ''splain it to you: Hil has to pretend and act like she''s conservative to get elected.
The simple fact is that Liberals cannot get elected in the US by telling us what they REALLY believe, so they lie to us while they are campaigning.
Once she''s elected, then she can govern as the true liberal she is.
...
Here''s the PERFECT SCENARIO:
1. Flip-flop-flop-flip Romney and Family Values Giuliani knock each other out of contention for the Repug nomination.
2. O-BOMBA and Conniving Calculating Clinton knock each other out of contention for the Dem nomination.
3. The country then focuses on quality candidates who are worthy of being elected president.
Of course, this would only happen in a fantasy land as removed from reality as the one in which Dumbya lives.
They ALL lie, not just the Liberals.
What a sickening, war-mongering, Wal-Mart loving, AIPAC concubine of a woman.
Yuck.
What a sickening, war-mongering, Wal-Mart loving, AIPAC concubine of a woman.
The more you comment, the more you sound like a Southerner, ie: no brains, full of hate, inbred, a pure bigot!
We are a republic not a democracy. There is a difference. The problem with us today is that we have strayed for our republic ideals and become a democracy.
she will say anything to get elected
shes going to destroy our nation as if bush hasnt done enough of that already.
ConDumism,
I understand that many Democrats see Hillary as an alternative to our current disaster course. I don''t.
I would love to see and intelligent and courageous woman as a leader for our country. Women like Clinton and/or Rice hardly qualify on either count, they make me sick, and I think that it would be a tragedy for our country and for women, if she were elected.
If you support her, fine. Just understand that she is a war-mongering, former Board member of Wal-Mart, and an eager tool of AIPAC. This is a fact, and that is why she sickens me.
If you will automatically assume that anyone who does not support her is a GOP''er, then you are badly mistaken.
Bush...Clinton...Bush...Clinton...give me a f''ing break!
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 113 Comments