Be Wary Of Clinton's War Record

(The Nation)  This column was written by Robert Scheer.

---

It should mean a great deal to progressives that in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination Senator Ted Kennedy favors Senator Barack Obama over two other colleagues he has worked with in the Senate. No one in the history of that institution has been a more consistent and effective fighter than Kennedy for an enlightened agenda, be it civil rights and liberty, gender equality, labor and immigrant justice, environmental protection, educational opportunity or opposing military adventures.

Kennedy was a rare sane voice among the Democrats in strongly opposing the Iraq war, and it is no small tribute when he states: "We know the record of Barack Obama. There is the courage he showed when so many others were silent or simply went along. From the beginning, he opposed the war in Iraq. And let no one deny that truth."

But that is precisely the truth that Senator Hillary Clinton has shamelessly sought to obscure. Her supporters have accepted Clinton's refusal to repudiate her vote to authorize the war, an ignominious moment she shares with other Democrats, including presidential candidate John Edwards, who at least has made a point of regretting it. It was a vote that has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, 3,940 U.S. service members -- five more on Monday -- and a debt in the trillions of dollars that will prevent the funding of needed domestic programs that Clinton claims to support. And it doesn't end with Iraq. Clinton has been equally hawkish toward Iran and, in a Margaret Thatcher-like moment, even attacked Obama for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons against Osama bin Laden.

Clinton's apologists include Gloria Steinem and too many other feminists, who should know better than to betray the women's movement's commitment to peace in favor of simplistic gender politics. It is disturbing, not because they conclude that Clinton is the best candidate, but because they refuse to challenge their candidate to be better. Does it not matter that Clinton's key foreign policy advisers are drawn heavily from the ranks of the neoliberals, who cheered as loudly for President Bush's war as did the neoconservatives? Are they not concerned that Richard Holbrooke, who exploited his experience and access to secret information during the Clinton presidency to back Bush's Iraq invasion, is a likely contender for secretary of state should she win?

Sandy Berger, a key Clinton adviser, played a major role in convincing Kennedy's congressman son, Patrick, to vote for the war authorization against what the younger Kennedy said was the advice of his father and his own better instincts. According to a Knight Ridder report at the time, "Patrick Kennedy said the most persuasive arguments for attacking Iraq came from members of the Clinton White House," including former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who is often described as the foreign policy expert closest to Hillary. Patrick J. Kennedy refuses to be burned twice and now supports Obama.

Yes, if Hillary Clinton is the candidate, she probably will be better than the Republican alternative and, as Ted Kennedy made clear, deserving of our support. But isn't it troubling that she can't hold a candle to Sen. John McCain when it comes to fighting Pentagon waste or pushing for campaign-finance reform to curtail the power of lobbyists? Isn't it disturbing that Senator Clinton has received more money than any other candidate of either party from the big defense contractors, according to a report on the Huffington Post? Why have the war profiteers given her twice the campaign contributions that they sent to McCain, if not for the expectation that she is on their side of the taxpayer rip-off that has seen the military budget rise to an all-time high? It's for the same reason that the bankers, Wall Street traders and other swindlers who produced our economic meltdown fund Clinton.

Hillary Clinton has made "experience" key to her claim to the presidency and tells us she will do the right thing from "day one." The reality is that her extra four years in the US Senate hardly provides better experience than Obama's eight years in the Illinois state Senate battling for progress with the nation's most hard-boiled politicians. And if she lays claim to her husband's presidency, then she must also take responsibility for caving in to big media with the Telecommunications Act, selling out to the banks with the Financial Services Modernization Act, and killing the federal welfare program -- a political gambit that deeply wounded millions of women and children. Her political career began with the Senate and she hit the ground running, but, as her craven support for Bush after 9/11 shows, it was in the wrong direction.
By Robert Scheer
Reprinted with permission from The Nation

[hbevis]

I WOULD LIKE TO SAY, AMEN, TO WHAT "OLDTHOUGHT" SAID.

[Netterz]

The last 20+ years our nation has all but been destroyed under 2 families...The Bush''s and the Clintons. We CAN NOT do even another 4 yrs. Because she was married to Bill and is a woman, one with a big mouth, promises plans that no president in the next 20 years can accomplish. Every one LOVES to Bash Bush, for doing what everyone wanted, was to start the extraction of revenge for 9/11. BUT, he did not single handedly start a war. Everyone had the SAME info given to them. MANY law makers from BOTH parties agreed it was the right thing to do. isnt like Bush had one person single handing him fake reports, that he passed out as proof. I think deep down, every one agreed that Saddam had to go, and he was the first of many other radical leaders. Was supposed to be an example of how powerful we are, and that all countries will abide by our beleifs and way of life, or...we will kill your leader and give you Americanize you to our way of life. We need to stop sticking our nose in where it doesnt belong, and start taking care of our problems here at home.

[hbevis]

HOW ABOUT THIS.....

BE WARY OF "THE" CLINTON''S. PERIOD

OBAMA MAY NOT BE EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT. BUT AT LEAST HE DOES NOT BRING AN EX-PRESIDENT ALONG WITH HIM.

[pcbirdsall]

I spoke out against the Iraq invasion, also, but nobody listened to me because, just like Obama, I wasn''t in the Senate at the time and my opinion didn''t matter. Hindsight is 20/20 and we all know now that it was a mistake to invade Iraq. It''s easy to criticize others when you have no idea what it''s like to be in their position. If you think it was an easy decision, then you run for public office and get yourself elected to the Senate and see how you vote on such issues.

[truedemocrat]

Read below this ambitious jr Senator didn;t get elected to any office until 1996. Ha So after tweleve years of political experience we should elect him Prsident. Are you out of your mind? Secondly Those who balme HRC for the war vote must remember that the Bush Administration claimed there were wmd held by Iraq. In fact Saddam wnated us to beleive that he ehld WMD to keep the Iranians from attacking him. What if he did have WMD''S HRC vote would look like the right thing to do. Given the facts that we had it was the righ thing to do. Bush lied to us but how were we to know. Obama didn''t know. If they had weapons that no vote for war vote would have been a huge mistake. So Americans now should elect him president becasue he was lucky. The next time he votes yes or no to force we (America) might not be so lucky.


Obama married Michelle Robinson, a fellow Harvard Law School graduate whom he had met in Chicago, on Oct. 18, 1992. The Obamas have two daughters, Malia, born in 1999, and Natasha, known as Sasha, born in 2001. Four years after they married, Obama won a seat in the Illinois state legislature, sponsoring legislation on the death penalty and racial profiling. (Photo: Family Photo)

[denn034]

Stories like this can only help Obama.

[heartlight3]

Rowdy Texan- Obama did not vote against the war as he was a State Senator at the time, but he definitely spoke out against it in a speech on October 26, 2002. You can read it here:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama''s_Iraq_Speech

[tibu987]

No fan of the Kennedys, but I, like them, do not want four more years of the Clinton twins.

Washington needs new, young, idealistic, not yet corrupted leaders. The same-o, same-o of the current, old crop of pols, shows us how inept they are. We need a change and McCain and the Clintons do not represent change.

And, how does being the First Lady for 8 years extrapolate into all the experience Hillary would like us to believe. She did not sit in on any national or international meetings. Being a shyster lawyer and a Senator for a brief time time do not experience make.
And, no tears are allowed in the oval office.
And, how many foreign governments will feel comfortable dealing with a woman president?
That many women will vote for Hillary simply because she is a woman is frightening and not all are blondes and l^sb^ans. How simple minded.
Sheeeeesh! Gimme a break.

[rowdytexan2]

Obama wasn''t even in the freaking Senate when they voted on the Iraq war, and he was ABSENT when they voted to delcare Iran forces as terrorists!!!!

And yet now as the Iraq war is a disaster HE CLAIMS he spoke out against it!!!! Doesn''t that tell you something?

[rowdytexan2]

Posted by andor3 at 01:29 PM : Jan 31, 2008

OK, sir, then you go out and get an apology from every congressman and representative that also voted for it.

This reasoning makes no sense!!!

Obama hasn''t a freaking clue how to run this country! And you want to have another George W. Bush in the White House that has not clue how to move legislation??? Does voting over 130 times ''present'' to avoid taking a stand on an issue constitute solving a problem???