Hillary Clinton-Followership

[trumptman]

Huffington on Clinton (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/her-way-hillary_b_49733.html)

First congrats to Ariana on coining such a cool word "followership." We all know Democrats can't come up with cool bumper sticker type phrases, but I think this one very much qualifies.

The idea that Clinton is all tactics and calculation -- and would rather stick her finger in the air to see which way the political wind is blowing than actually take the lead on something -- is painstakingly documented in Her Way. Forget the stuff about Monica, Gennifer Flowers, Vince Foster, Hillary's record as a lawyer, or the Clintons' 20-year plan for both of them to become president. The money chapters are the ones on Iraq. When it comes to Hillary's shape-shifting stances, explanations, and votes on the war, Gerth and Van Natta offer a definitive and chilling portrait of a politician solely driven by political expedience -- even when it comes to life and death matters such as Iraq.

Don't hold back Arianna, how do you really feel?

Reading Her Way doesn't leave one optimistic that this will happen any time soon. Clinton's serial manipulations, prevarications, rationalizations, and calculations on the war are laid out chapter and verse. Literally. Starting with her vote authorizing President Bush to use military force against Iraq.

But..but..but... Bush lied, people died. That is all we need to know or think.

None of her or any Democrats motives regarding Iraq could ever be political.

What's more, "Hillary still had no one on her staff with the security clearances needed to read the NIE." So what, exactly did she base her decision on -- briefings provided by the administration? Gerth and Van Natta sum it up this way: "If she did not bother to read the complete intelligence reports, then she did not do enough homework on the decision that she has called the most important of her life." This is particularly shocking given Hillary's obsession -- well-documented in the book -- with being "always well-prepared." Her Way quotes a senate advisor saying, "In her downtime she inhales information and enjoys it."

Is this where we post the jokes about Hillary only owning two books and one of them being a coloring book? I suppose inhale is supposed to mean read, but apparently it was literal. She simply breaths over the documents and then lets them be.

In an effort to justify her initial support of the war, Hillary has repeatedly insisted that her vote to authorize Bush to use force was actually a vote for diplomacy, that she didn't really believe we would go to war, and that the president misused that authority by giving short shrift to additional diplomatic methods. The authors turn a fan on this smokescreen and show that this claim is contradicted by Hillary's own voting record, pointing out that right before she cast her yes vote on the use of force, she voted against an amendment put forth by Carl Levin that would have required the president to actively pursue diplomacy before going to war. According to Her Way, if Hillary had voted yes on Levin's amendment, "she subsequently could have far more easily argued that she had worked toward a multilateral diplomatic approach. Instead of voting for Bush to pursue more diplomacy, she voted to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq." What's your spin on that one, Howard Wolfson?

Clinton lied... people died... that's all I need to know.

Here is the devastating verdict on this spin from Her Way: "Hillary had been against the war before she was for it -- before she was against it all over again."

I thought only mega-demon Karl Rove could think up such things.

Nick

[Northgate]

Dear God. Another Tumptuman thread. :rolleyes:

1. I thought Democrats only created bumper sticker slogans that meant nothing and were inherently dangerous (per your other thread). Whatev.

2. Hillary Clinton is a politician. Stop the presses.

3. Hillary's adjusted her war stance. Again, stop the presses. I think Bush/Rove have changed the purpose of this war so many times I can't remember what we're fighting for today. Is it WMDs? Is it freedom and democracy? Is it to fight them there so we don't have to here? Is it to keep the control of oil out of a madman's hands?

But hey, Hillary's votes on the Senate floor might be suspect. Someone shoot her.

4. Hillary Clinton is a hawk. :wow:

5. Bush lied and people died and no one gives a shit. Wow. Big surprise.

[Jubelum]

Hillary officially took off her hawk costume recently and traded it in for the footprint of the American Chicken.

I have one thing for HRC:

"Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all."
-Nikita Khrushchev

[franksargent]

That's seven.

[trumptman]

Let's add the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/29/magazine/03Hillary-t.html?_r=4&oref=slogin&ref=magazine&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin) to this mix.

This was Clinton’s latest and boldest attempt to distance herself from her own vote for the Iraq war in October 2002 — a vote she has described as “probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make.” At the time she cast that vote, she was among the Senate’s most outspoken Democrats warning of Saddam Hussein’s dangerous arsenal. Unlike nearly all of her fellow Democrats, she even went so far as to argue that Saddam Hussein gave assistance to Al Qaeda members. Now she speaks with equal fervor about the need to bring the war to an end. In addition to calling for the deauthorization of the war, she has also voiced support for cutting off financing to many combat troops in Iraq by March 2008.

And yet even as she has backed away from her original vote to allow the war, she has also resisted pressure from within her party to apologize for it. Instead, she has presented voters with a version of her record that places more emphasis on her reservations about going to war than on her support for the president. Along the way, important aspects of that record — like how much of the available intelligence she reviewed before her vote — have escaped scrutiny.

If she can't admit her vote was wrong and apologize for it, how do we know she won't do it again?

But it’s not clear that she was equally diligent when it came to the justifications for the war itself. So far, she has not discussed publicly whether she ever read the complete classified version of the National Intelligence Estimate, the most comprehensive judgment of the intelligence community about Iraq’s W.M.D., which was made available to all 100 senators. The 90-page report was delivered to Congress on Oct. 1, 2002, just 10 days before the Senate vote. An abridged summary was made public by the Bush administration, but it painted a less subtle picture of Iraq’s weapons program than the full classified report. To get a complete picture would require reading the entire document, which, according to a version of the report made public in 2004, contained numerous caveats and dissents on Iraq’s weapons and capacities.

According to Senate aides, because Clinton was not yet on the Armed Services Committee, she did not have anyone working for her with the security clearances needed to read the entire N.I.E. and the other highly classified reports that pertained to Iraq.

She could have done the reading herself. Senators were able to access the N.I.E. at two secure locations in the Capitol complex. Nonetheless, only six senators personally read the report, according to a 2005 television interview with Senator Jay Rockefeller, Democrat of West Virginia and then the vice chairman of the intelligence panel. Earlier this year, on the presidential campaign trail in New Hampshire, Clinton was confronted by a woman who had traveled from New York to ask her if she had read the intelligence report. According to Eloise Harper of ABC News, Clinton responded that she had been briefed on it.

“Did you read it?” the woman screamed.

Clinton replied that she had been briefed, though she did not say by whom.

The question of whether Clinton took the time to read the N.I.E. report is critically important. Indeed, one of Clinton’s Democratic colleagues, Bob Graham, the Florida senator who was then the chairman of the intelligence committee, said he voted against the resolution on the war, in part, because he had read the complete N.I.E. report. Graham said he found that it did not persuade him that Iraq possessed W.M.D. As a result, he listened to Bush’s claims more skeptically. “I was able to apply caveat emptor,” Graham, who has since left the Senate, observed in 2005. He added regretfully, “Most of my colleagues could not.”

On Tuesday, Oct. 8, 2002, Senate Democrats, including Clinton, held a caucus over lunch on the second floor of the Capitol. There, Graham says he “forcefully” urged his colleagues to read the complete 90-page N.I.E. before casting such a monumental vote.

Bush lied? Perhaps it should be Bush published, but Clinton didn't read and thus bought the product since she didn't read the fine print.

Nick

[BRussell]

Hillary's position on Iraq is terrible. But to compare her to Bush? On a scale of 1-10, Hillary's culpability in the Iraq war is a 2, and Bush's is a 9.

[trumptman]

Of course it is a 2. She can't be culpable for what she didn't know. Sure she didn't know it because she didn't read it, but points like that are only important when the candidate is Republican.

Nick

[Northgate]

Let's add the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/29/magazine/03Hillary-t.html?_r=4&oref=slogin&ref=magazine&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin) to this mix.



If she can't admit her vote was wrong and apologize for it, how do we know she won't do it again?



Bush lied? Perhaps it should be Bush published, but Clinton didn't read and thus bought the product since she didn't read the fine print.

Nick

She can't admit her vote is wrong because the same asshole consultants who worked on Gore and Kerry's loser campaigns have convinced her that she'll lose the "center" if she admits voting for the war was wrong. Nonsensical, I know. But that's what is going on.

The "Bush published" line is clever rhetoric. But it doesn't change the fact that the war's architect is still Bush. And it always will be. Trying to make this Hilary's War won't work.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Of course it is a 2. She can't be culpable for what she didn't know. Sure she didn't know it because she didn't read it, but points like that are only important when the candidate is Republican.

Nick

Take one for the team, Nick.

George Bush royally fucked up. Yes, he did. You can either try and spread the blame, a heavy burden after the millionth time, or you can... just take one for your side, Nick. Take one for the team and say 'George Bush and my side fucked up.'

Over here. There's a big old heavy vat of water needs carrying over there. Let's see you red-faced and puffing.

Fucking Clintons.

[Northgate]

That's the big difference between Republicans and Democrats, I think. Democrats are furious with Congress over the Supplemental Spending Bill. Furious. And we're all willing to admit the obvious, WE FUCKED THIS UP. CHENEY STYLE (BIG TIME).

Republicans however cannot, under any circumstances, admit a mistake. If they do it's usually couched as "we all fucked this up."

[BRussell]

Of course it is a 2. She can't be culpable for what she didn't know. Sure she didn't know it because she didn't read it, but points like that are only important when the candidate is Republican.

Nick No, it's not because he's a Republican and she's a Democrat, it's because it was Bush's war. Vietnam is considered LBJ's war, not some member of Congress's war. The first Gulf War was Bush's dad's war, not some member of Congress's war.

[trumptman]

She can't admit her vote is wrong because the same asshole consultants who worked on Gore and Kerry's loser campaigns have convinced her that she'll lose the "center" if she admits voting for the war was wrong. Nonsensical, I know. But that's what is going on.

The "Bush published" line is clever rhetoric. But it doesn't change the fact that the war's architect is still Bush. And it always will be. Trying to make this Hilary's War won't work.

Actually I don't think Bob Schrum is working or will likely ever work on her campaign. I think instead he wrote a nasty book about all the Democratic candidates including some of the current ones.

I think Hillary is straddling a fence here because she is screwed if she doesn't. She clearly came down on the wrong side of an issue but refuses to admit her vote was a mistake.

I'm not trying to make this Hillary's war by any stretch. However the Democratic meme that members were lied to, fed false intelligence and so forth and that is what is responsible for their votes isn't going to hold either. There are too many Senators and other candidates running who either have no vote, or actually stood against the war to let people like Hillary get away with that nonsense.

Take one for the team, Nick.

George Bush royally fucked up. Yes, he did. You can either try and spread the blame, a heavy burden after the millionth time, or you can... just take one for your side, Nick. Take one for the team and say 'George Bush and my side fucked up.'

Over here. There's a big old heavy vat of water needs carrying over there. Let's see you red-faced and puffing.

Fucking Clintons.

There isn't a way at all to remove this from Bush. The purpose is really to show that when you vote for half-way candidates, you get questionable results. Bush was very questionable on some of his conservative credentials and he has spent like a mad man. Clinton is clearly a triangulating war hawk and will still rush the country into whatever war is politically expedient in the future.

No, it's not because he's a Republican and she's a Democrat, it's because it was Bush's war. Vietnam is considered LBJ's war, not some member of Congress's war. The first Gulf War was Bush's dad's war, not some member of Congress's war.

I'm not attempting to make this the Clinton war instead of the Bush war. It is absolutely George W. Bush's war. The Bush position is very consistent. The Clinton position is all over the place, and does not appear to have a cohesive philosophy behind it besides do what is popular and follow the leader. I'm sure those traits will not make her a good president. As Huffington notes, "followership" is not something you can do when you are the leader.

Nick

[SDW2001]

Hillary's position on Iraq is terrible. But to compare her to Bush? On a scale of 1-10, Hillary's culpability in the Iraq war is a 2, and Bush's is a 9.

Her culpability is exactly the same. She voted for it wholeheartedly, making the exact same arguments Bush did. She has had more postions on the war than one can count. The most recent flop was that she "wouldn't cutoff funds." Except, she voted for exactly that. Exactly.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070530/D8PEVA5G0.html

Blame Bush if you like. Hell, even keep saying "he lied." But Hillary's actions are absolutely digusting.

[Northgate]

Her culpability is exactly the same.

Crap.

[tonton]

I'm not attempting to make this the Clinton war instead of the Bush war. It is absolutely George W. Bush's war. The Bush position is very consistent. The Clinton position is all over the place, and does not appear to have a cohesive philosophy behind it besides do what is popular and follow the leader. I'm sure those traits will not make her a good president. As Huffington notes, "followership" is not something you can do when you are the leader.

"Staying the course" is a sign of stupidity, and even negligence, when it's proven that the course is wrong. People who are strong enough to admit mistakes and change their mind are exactly what this country needs.

Unfortunately, Hilary is still being wishy-washy about this. She's changed her mind, but is afraid to be clear about admitting her mistake, in typical cowardly political fashion.

[SDW2001]

Crap.

Then explain why you think so. She voted for it. She argued for it. She said she had done her own research and the left was just going to have to deal with it.

Then the polls changed as things started not going well. Now she said she wouldn't have voted for it if she knew then what she knows now. She's jumped on the Bush Lied bandwagon, even though she "did her own research." But, she said she was opposed to cutting funds. Now she voted for exactly that, while saying she sees a new direction coming from Bush (then why vote against the funding?) Hmm...now tell me how that's defensible. She's a political whore. Nothing more.

[SDW2001]

"Staying the course" is a sign of stupidity, and even negligence, when it's proven that the course is wrong. People who are strong enough to admit mistakes and change their mind are exactly what this country needs.

Unfortunately, Hilary is still being wishy-washy about this. She's changed her mind, but is afraid to be clear about admitting her mistake, in typical cowardly political fashion.

Generally speaking, you're right on point #1. But specifically, you're not. Granted, Bush has used the "stay the course" rhetoric for some time. But the media and libs like yourself have played that up far more than he has. Regardless, tactics have been changing for some time now, particularly with this surge. It's not as if he is blindly pushing on with absolutely no change in direction. That's simply not true. The problem is that the Left wants OUT. That's what a "change of strategy, change of course" means to them. No other "change" will be labeled a change. None.

I agree about point #2, but it's not wishy-washiness on her part. It's a calculation, and a careful one at that. She needs the left or she loses the primary. She needs the center or she loses the general. As the polls have changed, she's felt more comfortable going from blatantly pro-war (itself a political calculation, it seems) to anti-war. So it's a question of WHY she changed her mind. Don't pretend that she had some kind of awakening and out of a principled, moral judgement, she decided that Bush Lied and that she had to change her mind, but was just to wishy washy to actually change it. She's a cameleon. Period.

[trumptman]

"Staying the course" is a sign of stupidity, and even negligence, when it's proven that the course is wrong. People who are strong enough to admit mistakes and change their mind are exactly what this country needs.

Unfortunately, Hilary is still being wishy-washy about this. She's changed her mind, but is afraid to be clear about admitting her mistake, in typical cowardly political fashion.

That is the whole "followership" point of this thread though. Has she changed her mind or have the polls changed her mind? If the polls change again, will her mind change again? If Iran gets closer to a bomb and suddenly 80% of Americans polled declare that we should preemptively and unilaterally attack, will a President Clinton be parking aircraft carriers off the coast?

Being wrong and admitting it also involves regret and a desire not to see the action repeated. Clinton hasn't been wrong by her reasoning yet. She was simply lied to and that is why she authorized a preemptive, unilateral war. She has not said that preemptive, unilateral wars are wrong, only that she was lied to about the intelligence related to WMD's. That means if the intelligence points the same way again concerning WMD's with a different country, she will act unilaterally and militarily.

Something to consider...

Nick

[thuh Freak]

Her culpability is exactly the same.

That is completely retarded. She bought the evidence, fine. She's political and calculating in her new position, ok. Bush is the President. The Commander-in-Chief. He gets the majority of responsibility wrt wars. Overwhelming. Congress, in whole, shares responsibility for enabling the war, and each critter for their vote. I'd say she has 1/400th of the congress' responsibility (or 1 over however many congressmen we have). The executive branch has a lot more hands-on and details in the business of running the war; and with that comes a great deal of responsibility.

[@_@ Artman]

She's a political whore. Nothing more.

Hillary = Whore

Bush = Pimp

That is all.

Wait, there's more (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-geyer_31edi.ART.State.Edition1.4370227.html)...

Friends of his from Texas were shocked recently to find him nearly wild-eyed, thumping himself on the chest three times while he repeated "I am the president!" He also made it clear he was setting Iraq up so his successor could not get out of "our country's destiny."

Bush envisions U.S. presence in Iraq like S.Korea (http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN3041621320070530?pageNumber=1)

President George W. Bush would like to see a lengthy U.S. troop presence in Iraq like the one in South Korea to provide stability but not in a frontline combat role, the White House said on Wednesday.

The United States has had thousands of U.S. troops in South Korea to guard against a North Korean invasion for 50 years.

Mistakes were made, choices were made under bogus "research" (on both sides) and everyone looks the other way when the reality is biting them in the ass. We aren't leaving. This administration has made sure of this.

[SDW2001]

That is completely retarded. She bought the evidence, fine. She's political and calculating in her new position, ok. Bush is the President. The Commander-in-Chief. He gets the majority of responsibility wrt wars. Overwhelming. Congress, in whole, shares responsibility for enabling the war, and each critter for their vote. I'd say she has 1/400th of the congress' responsibility (or 1 over however many congressmen we have). The executive branch has a lot more hands-on and details in the business of running the war; and with that comes a great deal of responsibility.

Obviously Bush is the one who gave the order, pushed for it, etc. No question. And yes, in the end that's where the buck stops. But in terms of culpability in the context it was meant, she's got the same...in other words her political culpability is the same. She argued in favor of the war...she didn't just push the YES button. She argued for it, and now she says she was tricked, or that suddenly she sees things differently, except she doesn't really. It's a load of crap.

[@_@ Artman]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Reu/b/2007/90/e42dd752-c636-4d8e-ae2c-5d6e13c0c8fb@news.ap.org.jpg

Really, would anyone vote for this?