Hillary's Hill of Beans: Victim or Enabler?
Hillary Clinton is out on the campaign trail attempting to make a pivot on the war in Iraq.
Not an easy task because, cutting through all the hooha, Clinton has been a supporter of the war from the onset.
OK, so now she's hustling to catch-up with her own constituencies and sync up with overwhelming majority opinion. And leave it to Hillary, we now learn she's been a victim of the war policy.
When she voted in 2002 to authorize the use of force by the administration, we are now shocked to learn, she didn't really mean force. She says she now "regrets" the vote because GW Bush "misused"Â the blank check she helped hand him. Get it?
There's an AP report out on this latest ballet step by Clinton. On Sunday afternoon, however, I heard her interviewed in Iowa over C-SPAN radio and she said if we all knew back then what we know now she would not have voted yes. President Bush tricked her and deceived her so what's a well-meaning Senator to have done?
Leaving aside just what sort of numbskull you have to be to get snookered by Bush, Hillary knows very well that there were 23 other Democratic senators and more than 175 Democratic representatives who were NOT so bamboozled, who did not fall for Bush's line, and who did not vote him authority for this catastrophic war. Are they just smarter than she is? Or what? Maybe they weren't planning to run for President so they actually voted their conscience, silly things.
Oh, says Hillary now of the notorious vote for war: "I accept responsibility."
The AP report doesn't indicate if, at the time she uttered that phrase on Sunday, she did or did not bite and chew her lip like another Clinton who comes to mind.
This, of course, begs a burning follow-up question from some enterprising reporter: "Senator Clinton, just exactly for what are you accepting responsibility? For the 3,000 American lives? The 25,000 wounded? The hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis? The hundreds of billions of dollars poured down the rat sewer? Could you, ma'am, be a bit more specific as to what your responsibilities are in this Gotterdammerung?"
It's morally repugnant, if not wholly predictable, that Clinton would fancy herself a victim rather than a victimizer in this small matter of the war in Iraq. At least take the rap as an enabler for the Victimizer-in-Chief.
Just for the record: Back in October 1998, President Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law, making regime change the official policy of the United States. The Senate passed the measure unanimously and Democrats in the House waited patiently in line to approve. So, actually, this whole idea of getting rid of Saddam didn't begin in 2002, not did it wholly originate with Republicans. nor has the Clinton family been an innocent bystander.
Two months later in December 1998, purely coincidentally 
as Congress took up his impeachment Clinton, ordered Operation Desert Fox and began a four-day bombardment of Iraq (overlapping the onset of the holy Ramadan season). As the cruise missiles slammed into Iraq, ambien-addled U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.) took to the House floor and argued that criticizing Clinton for the Lewinsky matter at that moment might be giving aid and comfort to the enemy -- suggesting that Congress seek prior permission from the CIA before going ahead with impeachment debate! It was almost word-for-word the same scurrilous language used in 1966 by LBJ when Kennedy's uncle Bobby spoke out against Vietnam and got his patriotism questioned.
Sorry for the digression.
Dubya frequently cited Clinton's 1998 Act as a basis for his 2002 authorization of war.
You should also take a read at Clinton's speech announcing the commencement of Desert Fox. Sounds pretty damn familiar to you-know-who. Would Hillary now suggest that Hubby Bill was also misusing public trust at the time?
January 29th, 2007 at 12:26 am
The Department of Defense has identified 3,061 American service members who have died since the start of the Iraq war. It confirmed the death of the following American on Saturday:
FAIRLIE Nathan P., 21, Pfc., Army; Candor, N.Y.; First Cavalry Division.
January 29th, 2007 at 12:31 am
Uh oh, Marc, you can get away with attacking Hillary, but taking a crack at Bill is likely to get you into big trouble with his fan base. They are nostalgic for a time that never was.
January 29th, 2007 at 12:38 am
On Hillary, I would have to say that the more she fudges on Iraq the happier I am, because I think she would be a disaster as president. Her opportunism is not just a thing of the past, even on war and peace issues, as demonstrated by her craven, unqualified support for Israel’s barbaric invasion of Lebanon last summer. This is the kind of “leadership” she provides, and would provide, were she elected. If she wants to let other Democrats provide real leadership on Iraq, that is fine with me.
January 29th, 2007 at 12:42 am
Michael….LOL. Oh no it was golden time of non stop triangulation and prosperity. He was a genius, a mastern a humanitarian, a judge of fine horses and beautiful women. Oh yes, he was also a victim of sexual Mccarthyism. Much ado about nothing but a blow job and certainly not suborning perjury. Y’know Hilaary explained it all. It was the VRWC!
January 29th, 2007 at 4:37 am
“They are nostalgic for a time that never was.”
Marc seems to be the one who relishes reliving those times. I sure as hell don’t, even as I’m being treated to these flashbacks.
I have a nasty feeling a part of Marc couldn’t be happier than to have Hillary to kick around. One reason I don’t want her to gain the nomination is because of people like Marc and Hitchens – and untold legions of morally-retarded Coulter clones, Limbaugh addicts, RNC Operatives, et. al. – who break out into sweats when the name Clinton is mentioned. And the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy ? Figment of Hillary’s imagination. No soulless wonders angling for a payday there. A damned shame that the vital efforts of St. Ann and The Olsen’s to out the rapist in the White House and bring integrity back to our nation appeared so tarnished at the time in the fickle public’s mind.
I’m going to end the irony and say it outright. The fools who climbed on the Clinton-Derangement Bandwagon claiming some decent or higher intention are, if in a few cases inadvertantly, responsible for the fact that today this country has the worst leadership at the top one could possibly imagine.
For most of those involved in that crusade, the plan ultimately worked – with a large assist from Bill Clinton’s ridiculously bad personal habits and judgement. For their “admirable” efforts to bring the contents of Bill’s drawers to the forefront of our public life, my only words are “Get lost.” The upshot – at least the only one that should matter to sentient adults – has been far, far worse than anything we could have imagined from the Clinton years.
(I found little to like about either Clinton – until there was a context gained from recognizing the motley composition of an aggregation of cranks and perverts who strove obsessively to bring a Democratic presidency down by any means necessary, even if it meant turning public discourse into a sewer and torturing the political process over very tired and near-total bullshit. Coulter and Rush are the tribunes of Clinton Derangement Syndrome. And Hitchens is the prime example of how utterly absurdist and politically venal it’s manifestations have been from the left.
One benefit of the whole mess was that I began to see belatedly just how tawdry mainstream journalism around Whitewater had been and how infected with cynicism and, what appears to be a form of low-grade self-hatred too many establishment “liberal” journalists had become. Also how narrowly elitist and ultimately hollow the David Broders and other Beltway doormen are in their fine wisdom and tender sensibilities.
Simply put, the notion that a years-old sexual harrassment charge, dug up and dragged into civil court solely on the efforts of a gang of the most craven political operatives on the planet should become the stuff of national crisis is insane.
I won’t defend Bill Clinton because I don’t have to. Just stand him against the clowns who made it their sole business to bring him down and compare him to what folllowed. For all of his bullshit and manifest weaknesses, measured in that company the man is a giant – a paragon of competence, of political leadership and even a winner in the realm of integrity. Which is a very sad – even absurd – fact.
The only person from the “Left” who joined that party and fully got what he seems to have wanted out of a surreal and unseemly episode was Christopher Hitchens, whether or not he understood at the time the significance of his achievement. His great gain would be the hefty career boost, entry of a “left-wing” wunderkind into the circles of power, and unavoidably enhanced paychecks. Or simply, if we’re to take his “idealism” at face value, the “exhiliration “of a Holy War Against (Islamo)Fascism in which he can daily dip his pen in the blood of others while imaginiing himself Orwell.
Good show fellas. Remind us all over again of how stupid those of us who failed to share the hysteria were and what heroes the forces arrayed to bring down the walls of Clintonia have been as that halcyon era faded and the attendant farce devolved into real tragedy.
As for Hillary, she is exactly who she is. There is no mystery there, nor frankly anything really worth the venting of one’s outrage. If in our Toonland political discourse, a piece of work like John McCain can be construed as a “straight talker”, or Rudy Guiliani is considered to have “national security credentials”, sane people can at least be forgiven it they take Hillary as nothing more or less than a better-than-average Democratic pol who’s been angling her serious White House ambtions.
Any elaborate drama or angst around such an utterly predictable and conventional politician is manufactured, self-indulgent horse pucky. (Not sure that metaphor stretches under the weight of those particular adjectives, but you know what I mean.)
And any journalist who’s tempted to imagine Hillary Clinton as That Woman epitomizing political opportunism and moral corruption in the context of our too-familiar political system might consider an alternative career teaching Sunday School in Colorado Springs in the event of Hillary’s ascent to the White House.
As for the bogus “Iraqi Liberation Act”, as sponsor Trent Lott stated on the Senate floor, ” Today, we are empowering Iraqis to liberate their own country.” Followed by Jesse Helms: “This bill will begin the long-overdue process of ousting Saddam. It will not send in U.S. troops or commit American forces in any way. Rather, it harkens back to the successes of the Reagan doctrine, enlisting the very people who are suffering most under Saddam’s yoke to fight the battle against him.”
How that notion as articulated by it’s sponsors, even on it’s own meager terms of providing material support to the great freedom fighter, Chalabi, et. al., squares in any way, shape or form with Bush’s war totally eludes me. Maybe Woody will show up in these comments to explain it to me better than Marc can. Unfortunately I’ve got a travel day and won’t have much any chance to read it.
January 29th, 2007 at 4:43 am
The first part of that was motivated not by Marc’s post but by his comment – and the fact that he peddled a piece of scurrilous crap entitled “The Worst Family” on this site as, apparently, one of the most important books one should read.
January 29th, 2007 at 5:05 am
“Leaving aside just what sort of numbskull you have to be to get snookered by Bush ….”
Well, that would make about 75% of Americans numbskulls, wouldn’t it?
Hillary is not, of course, a numbskull. She is decidedly a politician, and a pretty smart one. A vote to authorize the use of force against Iraq was a win-win proposition: either BushCo was lying, and you could later complain of their betrayal and/or incompetence, or BushCo had the goods on Saddam, and you could later cite your record on defending America against terrorists and nuclear proliferation. (Admittedly, in Hillary’s case, there was added pressure: if she had voted against authorization, there would be renewed scrutiny on Desert Fox as little more than a Monicagate smokescreen, and charges of hypocrisy that she could hardly deflect by saying, “Well, but that was *Bill’s* decision …”)
She is right on one point: she has to put together some *attempt*, at least, on presenting a bipartisan front in Congress opposing Bush’s Iraq policies. First, nothing else is likely to get much traction. That’s just reality. Talk all you want about cutting off funding for surges and whatnot, it just won’t fly with a decisive majority of Americans unless a lot of Republicans sign on as well. Second, if it turns out that GOP loyalties make it impossible to craft a bipartisan resolution, she can run on having at least *tried*. Finally, if she gets elected, even a failed effort to go the bipartisan route on this issue gives her a friendlier Congress to work with, when in office.
And that last is her whole schtick now. Like it or not, Bill Clinton was a great vote-counter, and squeaked out a lot of deals with Congress on tiny vote margins. It’s not like she isn’t well equipped by temperament to make it work. Quite the contrary. She was a Goldwater Republican at age 16, head of College Republicans at Wellesley until her conversion to liberalism. She knows the conservative mindset from the inside — she was a Rodham before she was a Clinton.
January 29th, 2007 at 5:47 am
“The fools who climbed on the Clinton-Derangement Bandwagon claiming some decent or higher intention are, if in a few cases inadvertantly, responsible for the fact that today this country has the worst leadership at the top one could possibly imagine.”–reg
Whoa, wait, I thought that the people who voted for Ralph Nader were responsible. Get your story straight, reg!
January 29th, 2007 at 6:01 am
Hillary: I did NOT have, er, vote yes with that man!
(Later): It depends on what you mean by “vote.”
January 29th, 2007 at 6:24 am
MB – this hole is so deep I wouldn’t hold a single individual responsible for digging it in its entirety. Clinton himself helped his enemies. The “MSM” played along. And Gore got stuck in the muck for that matter. Leaving aside the usual suspects who are “the other side” pure and simple.
My problem is with any and all who contributed to the current crisis of “leadership dearth” by exercising absurdly and predictably bad judgement at various junctures. That sure as hell includes the hysterical Clinton-phobes and the knee-jerk Naderites who lined the fairly crowded path to this version of perdition we’re currently experiencing. Some people were aiming to do their worst, some folks couldn’t help themselves and some people simply should have known better.
Compared to what we’ve got, Hillary as President would be a Godsend. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either a GOP deadender or living in a dream world.
January 29th, 2007 at 6:46 am
I think the whole debate around who voted for war or why or what they say now overshadows a more important debate we should be having: what happened to Congress’s right to declare war? When did Congress abdicate this?
January 29th, 2007 at 6:58 am
“what happened to Congress’s right to declare war? When did Congress abdicate this?”
Very good question, very simple answer. Every time Congress votes for something like a Gulf of Tonkin resolution or an “authorization” to invade Iraq, it is deliberately and consciously (and cravenly, love that word) abdicating its responsibility to the American people and the rest of the world. No need to look further, other than into the vapid, vacuous souls of the Congressmen and women who do it.
January 29th, 2007 at 8:46 am
“Compared to what we’ve got, Hillary as President would be a Godsend.”
I find it disturbing to herald someone based on a standard of “compared to what we’ve got.” Foghorn Leghorn might be better “compared to what we’ve got,” that doesn’t mean that either deserve our votes.
January 29th, 2007 at 9:00 am
So Reg,
It was OK for Clinton to lie to America about Iraq’s weapons, and then bomb them? OK to bomb an aspirin factory in Sudan?
January 29th, 2007 at 9:04 am
I guess I’m a GOP deadender when I notice that Hillary is often to the right of Bush on Iran.
January 29th, 2007 at 9:29 am
MB …
“No need to look further, other than into the vapid, vacuous souls of the Congressmen and women who do it.”
Totally agree. I appreciate Reg’s partisan histrionics for what they are — the dying, bitter breaths of the Clintonista regime. Hopefully, there is better leadership with considerably more integrity around the corner.
January 29th, 2007 at 11:25 am
To be fair to Hillary some time ago she did say that if the Congress knew then what it knew now they would NEVER HAVE BEEN A VOTE. My objection is her unwillingness to do what John Murtha and Edwards have done – admit they made a mistake and call for a withdrawal. It seems she is just too timid here and I believe she is getting that “Advice” from the same crowd that thought it was a capital idea to vote the resolution so the Dems could get to the important stuff in the 2002 election – oh, you know, things like prescription drugs!
But I have to agree 100% with Reg (I know you’re all shocked) but his little rant was a pretty good precis of what Bob Sommersby and Dighby have demonstrated over and over again – there was a concerted effort in the media – fueled by the right-wing smear machine – to get the Clintons and that led directly to Dubya being the “Decider” we all know and love.
And I’ll say no more because I’m tired of arguing with fools who want the messiah in the oval office rather than a flawed but above average man whose record, in the face of a hostile congress I might add, was one of the best in the last century as the numbers speak for themselves.
But what good are eight years of peace and prosperity when he was a “Serial” something or other who did something bad according to somebody or other’s reports (all false of course like Whitewater) and abused the tender sensitivities of the fastidious Left and the DC kewl kids.
January 29th, 2007 at 11:28 am
I don’t agree with everything Reg said in that post, but he’s not way off base. And I’m certainly one of those who couldn’t stand the politics of indictment that plagued the Clinton years and culminated in the ugly Lewinksy episode. Sorry if it make me an unwavering, blinded Clinton supporter to believe that issues deserve more prominance than character assissinations and prosocutorial adventurism – even if that particular character may personally deserve such reprobation.
January 29th, 2007 at 11:31 am
All those who are defending Clinton but have never read Hitchens’ “No One Left to Lie To” please raise their hands. Okay, now go read it, and forget that it is by Hitchens. And if you haven’t read it, then don’t comment on it until you have–please.
January 29th, 2007 at 11:37 am
So let me get thid right. Some of u would rather argue what a hero bill was instead of fretting over the blood on Hillary’s hands.
As long as we are on the subject… I find it hilarious that mone of u Dem apologists ascribe ANY resposnibility to Clinton himself for the Republican surge of the 90s.
Do u really believer that loss of the Congress 4 yrs before Monica, the loss of a majority of stae houses and state legislatures was all the work of Fox News and Ken Starr?
I’m curious to know how a political giant like Clinton presided over one of the most accelerated GOP surges in history?
January 29th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
“So let me get thid right. Some of u would rather argue what a hero bill was instead of fretting over the blood on Hillary’s hands. ”
This is cheap and irrelevent.
Marc’s other point is better. Sure, Clinton bears some responsibility because
a. he had these (ultimately political) weaknesses to being with, and
b. he allowed Republicans to exploit them for political gain. Again, a political failing.
But the latter was a political failing born in the cynical political antagonism of the right wing and fueled by a sensationalist media that preferred headlines to news.
Certainly Clinton could have behaved and governed much, much more to my liking. And I like to believe that had he governed as such, his political weaknesses might have mattered less. Hell, it would have been nice if he didn’t have those personal/political weaknesses at all – both on a moral and political level. But he did, and the exploitation of those for political gain may be fair game, but it doesn’t really indict Clinton in any meaningful way. Stick to harangues about triangulation and Operation Desert Fox and I’m back on board.
January 29th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
One of my favorite thinkers, Slavoj Zizek often talks of the concept of “double blackmail.” It is in regards to many people – especially liberals and leftists tend to think in terms of either/or when confronting contradictions. What one loses here is that two contradictory things on the surface, when applied critically, can both be completely factual and objective.
How this applies to Clinton: It is true that a right wing putsch was attempted against Clinton, and perhaps as some say, prevented him from concentrating resources on more important issues. It is also true that Clinton was a triangulating, warmongering, corrupt business practicing thug and possibly a serial sexual harasser. Why these two things have to contradict each other is beyond me. Clinton haters should acknowledge that there was indeed a putsch. Clinton lovers should (as wel las stop lovin him) acknowledge that the man was a criminal.
January 29th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Marc asks a good question. If Clinton was so good why did he preside over the GOP capture of Congress. Well, and I hope for the last time, let us go down memory lane. When Clinton came to power he had one of the shorter “Honeymoons” in recent history. Tom Friedman (of “Flat Earth” fame) pronounced him a failure on foreign policy A WEEK before the inauguration. And there were similiar murmers in other corners of the Great and the Good that he was done before he started.
(An aside: Sound familiar? Didn’t Nancy Pelosi “Blow it” for her speakership when she lost the Mutha fight?)
Then there was the struggle to get the budget passed. By one vote in the House and tie breaker by Gore in the Senate. The reason? Clinton was raising taxes. Remember the photo of House Republicans waving “Bye Bye” to House members who voted for it. The fact that only the top 21/2 per cent saw a tax increase was irrelevent. The kool kids were in that class and they made it sound like Bill was the Grinch stealing Christmas.
And there was “Hillary Care”. The plan was complex and unwieldly and Clinton admitted to Broder and Haynes Johnson that he blew it. He didn’t go for single payer – didn’t see the votes and I defy anyone here to say that was wrong – and, naturally, the “Left” called him a sellout. And he was not helped by the “old Bulls” in House Dem leadership that sent it to so many committees that it got nibbled to death by ducks. And let us not forget Daniel Patrick Moynihan who said there was no “Health Care Crisis” anyway.
But here is an interesting fact. Rush Limbaugh – who was then at the height of his influence (much dimished now thank god) went on NIGHTLINE and said that Clinton had to be stopped and scandal was the way to do it. Bill Kristol said some similiar – to the effect that Clinton could not be allowed to succeed lest he solidify Democratic rule. And Lo and Behold! We got “Filegate” and “Travelgate” and Vince Foster killed himself (or did Hillary rub him out – Jerry Falwell was peddling a tape calling the Clintons the Lord and Lady MacBeth of Arkansas). And there was Whitewater. Now all of this was bogus (see Joe Conanson and Gene Lyons) as everyone who looked into these matters concluded but the damage was done. To deal with these scandals a special prosecutor was appointed. And when the first one said nothing here a judge – good friend of Jesse Helms – said “Lets get a new counsel” and enter Ken Starr.
And I haven’t even mentioned the “Haircut” that wasn’t and the House “Banking Scandal” or Dan Rostenkowski’s troubles (how innocent they seem in those pre-Abramoff days) and, yes Virginia, the Dems lost Congress.
And Bill had to play catch up for the next six years while he got a free proctology exam every week from the same folks that couldn’t be bothered to investigate anything Dubya did!
But you’re right Marc. Its all Clinton’s fault!
January 29th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
If you are dumb enough to think “No One Left to Lie To” is a good book, well, you simply must read the Roger Morris book too. Hitchens, hilariously, did once made the mistake of appearing on a show with Joe Conason. It wasn’t pretty, it was beautiful. Since Conason wrote about the Clinton scandels with some seriousness, of course, he was never on Mark Cooper’s show.
The blood is on the hands of writers like Cooper who did there bit in making the W adminastration a reality. Forget the Daily Howler and others in the reality based community where Cooper fears to tread: never forget Atrios question to Hitchens; “Who at “The Nation” were, as you put it, willing Liars for Bill Clinton?” Never answered.
As per Sexual McCarthyism: as the impeachment fizzed out, Hitchens went around telling whoever who would listen that several more women were waiting in the wings with their Clinton rape stories. They never materilized. In the silly Morris book Cooper endorses, Morris tells us that Clinton has sex with HUNDREDS (thats at least two hundred) women while Gov. of Ark.
We all saw this, we all know it’s the way the game was played. You might as well call it “sexual Swift boating.” Cooper has endorsed this garbage in the media (How bout that link to your Gary Condit piece… ashamed?) and in our politics (”there’s no such thing as fair”). It’s pretty funny, and the best bit is one Cooper trys to lord the high road over us based on his cherry picked nonsense.
We should remember that Hillary was at least against the war to the extent that his buddy Hitchens told a conservative blog “She should get a wasting disease, we have men in the line of fire.”
Can anyone bringing any intellectual honesty to this deny that this is a sad attempt by the “dimes worth of diference” crowd to rob W of the responsbility of his war? Come’on, can’t you state it baldly, did America do just as well in the Clinton and Bush II years? No diference there?
I would question Turner’s comment that Bush fooled 75 per cent of the people in America. All poles I saw indicated Americans were against the invasion with no U.N. mandate. Once W screwed the pooch, it was “back the boys” time.
January 29th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
“He didn’t go for single payer – didn’t see the votes and I defy anyone here to say that was wrong”
In fact, a solid majority of Americans are in favor of a single payer health care system, true now as it was in 1993. But even putting that aside – to the extent that the “votes weren’t there,” you can’t seriously believe that the reason that Clinton didn’t go for single payer was just because he “didn’t see the votes,” can you? The insurance industry (along with telecommunications, big labor, and the trial lawyer lobby) were Bill Clinton’s bread and butter in both presidential elections. The bill itself, an employer mandate co-written by Hillary’s buddies in the insurance industry, would have steered tens of millions of Americans (including, most likely, me) into a “managed care” sinkhole with a cornucopia of restricted procedures, sky high deductibles, exhuberant co-pay responsibilities, and other hideous features. I can’t believe that anyone could have possibly supported a plan like this, knowing the full extent of the bill, and at the same time call themselves a true Democrat. The Republican efforts to defeat this awful idea was the one great thing that the Republicans did.
January 29th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
KNardy –>
I really didn’t care how much ass Clinton did or didn’t get. That certainly wasn’t the reason I dislike him and Hillary. It’s their diet-progressivism … Who signed those egregious cuts in welfare? Sure, the Republican idiots came up with that mean-spirited crap, but noone had a gun to Clinton’s head to sign it. The Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and the Federal DOMA were certainly crowd pleasers for myself and the rest of gay America. And let’s not even start on the horrors of what happened in Waco, Sudan, the Balkans and Iraq. How different is a person who supported these causes from the Republicans?
Now we have the pleasure of being presented with his wife. A woman who gave the go-ahead to Iraq with no investigation. A woman who supports our troops staying there until a face-saving exit (Vietnam?) can be made. A woman who just grudgingly accepted my entitlement to marry who I choose after careful thought. A woman that has shameless shifted with every tacking wind. And again, I ask — how different is this from electing a Republican?
We should not accept this woman or any man for that matter, who is a Clintonista diet-progressive as our candidate for President. How about for once we actually take a stand on our values and get a candidate who will represent these values faithfully. The Clintons have not and will never do this. It’s time for a change.
January 29th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Vivien –
In the 90s many (not all) Republicans were MUCH better than most (not all Dems) on civil liberties and foreign policy issues. Don’t try to debate the massacre at Waco with these folks. They are deniers no less than Israelis who say there was no massacre in Jenin.
At the same time, while I enjoyed Hitchens’ Clinton book, there is no denying that, as RLC points out, there was a concerted right wing attempt to get him. I remember signing left petitions at the time of impeachment SUPPORTING impeachment – but for war crimes and civil liberties offenses.
What angers me mos tabout Clinton though is how his defenders – see here – who are normally quite critical, intelligent people, become like Stalinists to Uncle Joe when Clinton or his wife are dissed. It makes me think the thought I’ve had for a while – the mainstream bourgeois liberals would roll over for imperialism if a Democrat was in power
January 29th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
America is worse off (but not by much) economically, but equally bad in foreign policy. And sine Bush ahs gone so far, his imperial efforts are hurting the public’s belief in imperialism, which is a good thing. Clinton with his “soft power” multilateralism as cover for police thugs and rendition (Yes it went on under Clinton) was an intelligent imperialist. I’d rather a dumb imperialist. Gives a space for multipolarity that wasn’t there under Clinton, who managed to sucker a lot of people who should not have trusted him.
January 29th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
David I asked where the votes IN CONGRESS were! But forget that. Let’s take those polls. Twice in the past ten years an initiative appeared on the California Ballot for a state run system. After the millions of “No” Ads from the insurance companies both were defeated by 2 – 1 margins. Bill Clinton – and whatever else you want to say about him he knows how to count votes – also knew that single payer plan would rile the opponents who would spend millions. Well they spent millions anyway, on “Harry and Louise” remember? And the people who wanted Health care coverage made the perfect the enemy of the good and provided no counterbalance.
Look, let’s put it another way. Public opinion polls always show comfortable majorities for gun control. Try passing it sometimes. Ask Governor Bradley about the 1982 Cal Initiative sometime. (Oh wait, he’s dead)
January 29th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
And jcummings he was impeached over a blow job. Not war crimes (which I’ll be glad to discuss with you at a later time since I’m frankly worn out answering these spurious reasons) or civil liberties (you’ve been reading Nat Hentof, right?).
January 29th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
Nat Hentoff? No. Never read the guy on Clinton, good jazz writer. What Clinton did in terms of civil liberties – the antiterrorism/effective death penalty act – was acknowledged by the ACLU at the time to be a horrible unconstitutional violation of American liberties….not to mention the expansion of the war on drugs, the use of provacateurs and extraordinary rendition. Most mainstream civil liberties groups, including the ACLU agree that Clinton set the stage for the Patriot Act.
Unless you don’t consider killing civilians, let alone starving Iraqis with sanctions that Albright thought were worth it – to be war crimes, then we have nothing to talk about. If you can defend that, then, as I’ve said many times, you and I are not on the same side, to say the least.
January 29th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Clinton’s defenders are so much like Stalin’s, it really amazes me….”The blood is on the hands of….”
January 29th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
This Vivien is a pretty succinct righteous chick, as opposed to the keyboard-happy usual suspect. I loathe the unctuous , privilege-hiding, cronyistic Clintons.
I supported Jerry Brown in ‘92, if only to tweak the ossified Democrats.
Dare to care.
P.S. Sushi Bei in Gardena rocks
Very good uni.
January 29th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Unless you don’t consider killing civilians, let alone starving Iraqis with sanctions that Albright thought were worth it – to be war crimes, then we have nothing to talk about. If you can defend that, then, as I’ve said many times, you and I are not on the same side, to say the least.
Except the U.S. didn’t impose unilateral sanctions. The sanctions were adopted by the U.N. at the behest of the Security Council and they were adopted before Clinton even became president.
January 29th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
As I said, Stalinist.
January 29th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
So in other words, LoCicero, you ACTUALLY do argue that Republicans were ascendant in the 1990;s strictly due to a pro-GOP media!
What a load of hogwash. But even if true, that’s quite a commentary on your beloved Democrats. Clinton in the White House and both houses of congress under Democratic control, but they lose it all, outsmarted by Fox News, Jerry Falwell, Bill Kristol and the VRWC! If that were true, why even bother to have elections?
Fabulous! And did the Evil Media carry out this attack with little black helicopters?
You have to admit you’ve got a pretty pathetic argument there. All the power of the state and the bully pulpit defeated by a couple of right wing rags and a cable TV network with an audience of 1/2 million back then.
I have an alternative explanation: Clinton came in with some big promises to change American lives and most Americans saw no change whatsoever… give or take a half million jobs that were outsourced in the wake of Clinton’s NAFTA. We will ginngerly note that this was Big Bill’s first legislative push, right out of the box.. splitting his own party and to pass Poppy Bush’s job export plan.
Hillary then came through with the sucker punch, proposing a health care program that no one understood and that brought glee only to the HMO’s.
Clinton, by the way, was one of the major forces that introduced enhanced Christian moral sermonolgy into American politics: his blatantly racist manipulation of Sistah Souljah linked to a legislative assault on those you-know-who welfare moms. Get their lazy asses off the dole and into workfare and…. and… let’s examine THEIR sexual history to make sure they are not violating the household rules of workfare. Let’s get their kids into uniforms, their teens into boot camps (remember THAT?) some v-chips on their TV’s and so on and so on.
What a miserable bastard Clinton was.
Under any scenario, your position is a loser. Either I’m right and the Democrats bored the country to death and lost their majorities, or you’re right and the Democrats were so pathetic they were defeated by a slice of the media. Neither version speaks very well for the Clintons.
And I will be happy to do anything and everything to block their re-assumption of power.
And just so we don’t forget: Clinton was NOT impeached over a blow job. He was accused of lying under oath as a defendant in a sexual harrassment case, and of lying to a Federal Grand Jury under oath.
Remember that Bill did wind up paying almost $1 million to settle the sex harrassment case underlying the scandal. He was also disbarred by the Arkansas and US Supreme Court for his perjury under oath. Suck on that.
January 30th, 2007 at 3:11 am
“What a miserable bastard Clinton was.”
This is just Marc’s blowharding the obvious point that Clinton was not the liberal messaiah that delivered America away from all evil and Republicans.
For all his high dudgeon and low rhetoric, Marc cannot and will not answer the simplest and most relevant questions:
Which postwar president did a better job than William Jefferson Clinton? Which president in our generation did more to advance liberal values–or the least to contribute to their demise?
Nixon?
Carter?
Reagan?
Bush?
Note that Marc insists on comparing Clinton not to any of these other real-life presidents, but to some hazy-dream-liberal superpol that never existed anywhere and probably never will.
At his worst, Clinton looks to me very much like the average American–perfectly well intentioned, but self-absorbed and not above cutting corners. At his best, he’s one of the smartest, most-effective presidents America has ever had. We should pray someone as well-equipped and well-intentioned as Clinton ends up at 1600 Pennsylvania in 2008.
January 30th, 2007 at 6:21 am
“how different is this from electing a Republican?”
Have you slept through the last 6 years?
January 30th, 2007 at 8:21 am
It’s funny…I agree with Marc on quite a few of his substantive criticisms of Clinton. But readiing the over-the-top hysteria (”his blatantly racist manipulation of Sister Souljah linked to a legislative assault on those you-know-who welfare moms”) betrays his irrationality on anything Clinton. (Clinton’s distancing himself from crap rhetoric and Jacksonian opportunism was both totally defnsible on it’s face and didn’t seem to isolate him as a racist among black voters or even the black intelligentisa. He’s obviously the most popular white politician among African-Americans in recent memory. And if anyone other than Clinton had called out the sleazy, bullshit careerist “Souljah” Marc would have no doubt congratulated them.)
Defending the Paula Jones harrassment suit is just nuts IMHO. While Marc is reminding us that Clinton fended off an appeal with an $850,000 settlement, perhaps we might also recall the suit had been thrown out of court and Clinton had been put through the Lewinsky meat-grinder and wanted it all to just stop. Even Ann Coulter ultimately called Jones a fraud (I think that was after Jones posed for Playboy but before her boxing match with Tonya Harding.)
Of course Marc is right that Clinton wasn’t impeached because of a blow job. He was impeached because of a years-long campaign by a “vast right-wing conspiracy” to undermine a Democratic presidency by any means necessary. Clinton was a remarkably vulnerable – even helpful – subject of their assault, but the campaign had nothing to do with either the public’s interest in having a person of reasonable integrity in the White House nor any particulars of the Clinton’s alleged transgressions.
I can’t believe I’m discussing this in 2007, but then I can’t believe my earlier comments could be characterized as “Stalinist”, that “supporting Jerry Brown” could be considered transgressive (or screening Woody Allen films to “gringos”, for that matter – another defiant poke in the eye to imperialism from the same commenter as I recall), that Hillary Clinton can be seen as no different from a Republican and that my comments here constitute the “dying bitter breaths of the Clintonistas” (my favorite. Did I mention that I supported Jerry Brown in 1992 ? Oh I guess I forgot to include that 15 year old news because I’ve been too busy making it clear that I’ll oppose Hillary in the primaries, but will certainly vote for her over McCain, Mitt or Brownback in a general election. A modest nod to sanity that I’m not sure Vivien will be able to muster if our fortunes boil down to such a choice.)
The childishness/cluelessness of these folks is humorous to say the least. All except for Jcummings further assertion that, in effect, it’s better to have Bush and, presumably war in Iraq than a “soft-power” Democrat because it heightens capitalisms inherent contradictions and awakens the masses…or something. That’s obviously crazy and equally on the margins of self-absorbed wankering as some of the other stuff, but it’s also overtly pernicious in spirit. I really can’t understand how an obviously humane guy could push his ideological imperatives beyond the pale of what I would consider decency in its implications for the people who suffer when extremists grab power.
January 30th, 2007 at 8:35 am
“And I will be happy to do anything and everything to block their re-assumption of power.”
If you’re serious about that Marc and not just exhaling from the wrong end, I’d suggest a concerted effort to make John McCain continue to appeal palatable to independents, moderates and disaffected Democrats. It’s a tough job. Maybe impossible given what a piece of crap McCain obviously is when he’s boiled down to his overt agenda on 90% of the issues, but you’ve got your work cut out for you. Now is not the best time to start – push Edwards in the Dem primaries – but don’t tarry too long if Hillary manages to grab the nomination, which she well might, because the last bastion of hope for those who would “do anything and everything to block (the Clintons’) reassumption of power” will need your help – perhaps desperately.
January 30th, 2007 at 9:58 am
Reg:
All except for Jcummings further assertion that, in effect, it’s better to have Bush and, presumably war in Iraq than a “soft-power†Democrat because it heightens capitalisms inherent contradictions and awakens the masses…or something.
I didn’t exactly say that. My preference- obviously is a progressive Democrat in power. But in between a Clinton/Obama/Lieberman DLC democrat (who would have done the same thing as Bush, I contend – but lets not argue that, except circumstantial evidence seems to confirm my belief) and Bush tanking the image of American Imperialism, I’ll take Bush. Awakening the masses is important. I don’t think that anyone here can realistically contend that there would have been as much opposition to Bush’s imperialism if a Democrat was implementing it. I presume many (perhaps not netroots, not progressive) Democrats will not strongly oppose the upcoming war with Iran. Edwards’ comments in Israel confirm that.
Nader in 08, as I said, if Dems continue down that path. Or better yet Hagel.
January 30th, 2007 at 10:08 am
“and Bush tanking the image of American Imperialism, I’ll take Bush”
Wow, I think I made that same argument–as a college sophomore in 1992. Marc, are you making this guy up? Incredible.
January 30th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Reg –>
You’re just silly. We’re arguing against the Clintonistas at exactly the right time … when the nomination is still in the air.
If Clinton gets the nomination, kiss the Democratic presidential chances goodbye. My distaste for the Clintons is hardly unique — among independents, Repubs and yes, the Dems.
January 30th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
“We’re arguing against the Clintonistas at exactly the right time … when the nomination is still in the air.”
So have I. But I’m sure as hell not going to make a fetish of trashing Hillary through the general election campaign if she snares the nomination.
January 30th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
“I think that was after Jones posed for Playboy”
Paula Jones? Where do you come up with us, Reg?
January 30th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Uh, that should be “where do you come up with THIS”
January 30th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
David,
I don’t really have a dog in this fight, but look here:
It took just a few seconds of googling.
January 30th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Excellent comments re Clinton, Marc C., with one addition: His policy on Cuba, namely running to the right of George Bush, Sr. in 1992 (more than two years before those big, bad ole Republicans took Congress) and insisting that the trade embargo on Cuba (condemned by many human rights organizations) did not go far ENOUGH….leading him as president to work with Jesse Helms to draft what would become the Helms Burton Act, which took things a step further by levying sanctions against any country that did business with Cuba…thus intensifying an already stalwart effort on Washington’s part to further starve and sicken Cuba’s people.
January 30th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
You’re right brother Marc I now see the errors of my ways. Let’s just tar and feather Hillery before she defiles the good name of the United States.
January 30th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Well that’s the the real pundits do. You know the path of least resisitance.
January 30th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
rlc: “Let’s just tar and feather Hillery…” Now, there’s an idea sure to garner some sympathy votes for her.
This little bit of post/commenting is just amazing folks. Here Marc Cooper is, a liberal blogger by any definition and you folk are trashing him (well, most of you) like there is no tomorrow. Which goes to show, I guess, that in the left, they really do eat their young.
January 31st, 2007 at 6:27 am
I personally don’t “hate” Hillary at all, in fact I’d venture to say that she has far more guts and savvy than the small punditoids who make a cottage industry out bashing her on a daily basis…for Andrew Sullivan to bash Hillary for “having cooties” is beyond laughable, perhaps he should take a good look at himself. Yuck.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:19 am
Thank You