Monday, August 04, 2008

Quick questions

Hillary Clinton and John Kerry committed an unforgivable sin -- or so it is said -- when they voted for the authorization of military force in Iraq, even though "everyone knew" at the time that Saddam Hussein had no WMDs. Everyone knew. Everyone. That's what we keep hearing. Everyone knew.

My questions are these:

When did Markos Moulitsas come out against the invasion of Iraq? When did Andrew Sullivan come out against the invasion of Iraq? When did Arianna Huffington come out against the invasion of Iraq? When did Josh Marshall come out against the invasion of Iraq?

When did they learn what "everyone" knew? Did they condemn the vote at the time? Were they as sickened and outraged as I was by the "shock and awe" bombings? Exactly how did they earn their moral authority and rep for good judgment?

Added notes: Barack Obama's famed speech to the DNC in 2004 is here and here. Can you quote back to me the segment where he condemns the invasion of Iraq? At the same convention, both John Kerry and Bill Clinton condemned it.

By the way, Bill Clinton has been asked to explain why he is not a racist. Ah, that surely counts as a marvellously unifying gesture -- forcing our last great Democratic president to humiliate himself.


Anonymous said...

Off-topic: Ms Clinton's tragic arc is Sophoclean. She chose to be the US Senator from New York (the hubris), and the 9/11 attacks in her state sealed her fate regarding the authorization vote (the hamartia), which she could not undo or dare apologize for.


Anonymous said...

forcing our last great Democratic president to humiliate himself.

Bill Clinton has proven repeatedly that he's perfectly capable of humiliating himself, except for his total lack of appropriate shame.

Just like Jesse Jackson & John Edwards.

Should be a hilarious convention.

lori said...

Let's start with Obama's 2002 speech he's been waving in our face. There isn't a single contemporaneous record that reflects him having attended and given that speech. Oh, the rally is covered and Obama is a state senator - but no mention of him being there or giving that speech. Next, his campaign actually faked footage of him giving that speech. They got busted because they used a distinguished, older gentleman with a beard, shaved head and purple, button down, oxford cloth shirt in the crowd scene (which only has four or five people in it) and in another campaign video that was shot currently. The Republicans are going to beat the tar out of him with that. Google "purple shirt guy" for that ugly story.

Josh Marshall didn't oppose the war - he was in the Ken Pollack "Gathering Storm" school.

Clinton voted for the authorization because it contained rhetoric that would tie Bush to the UN. The elections were in two weeks and we knew we were losing the senate. Had it not passed, it would have passed in January without UN obligations. Hans Blix wanted the authorization because he felt it was the only way he was going to get unfettered inspections and be able to certify Hussein as disarmed. In his book, he writes about talking to Colin Powell about it. And he was right. As the authorization neared, Hussein opened up and let the inspectors go where ever they wanted. But Bush forced the inspectors to leave - and that is what no one predicted. No one predicted that Bush would cut short UN inspections, force the inspectors out and invade before their work was finished.

No one - and I've gone looking. Nowhere is anyone talking about the fact that Bush simply won't let the inspectors finish their job. Not a single mention on a single blog, or opinion piece that Bush might do that.

That's the crux of this whole thing, and it's utterly lost on the nuance-proud tubz. She voted the best way possible to avoid war. Voting against the authorization wouldn't have stopped the war even one day. But the inspections being finished might have.

Anonymous said...

I was one of the people who knew & opposed and remember those who didn't. So, you're right about those blogs. Also, Dean paid lip service to war opposition in 2004 - but it had already came out in his short moment in the limelight that he too supported war at the time of the vote - and the bad version of the IWR.
I also remember that once thrown out of the race he urged his followers in a conference call to endorse Edwards (to stick it to Kerry). They obeyed without question, much as Edwards co-sponsored IWR. In the end, we had a pro-war ticket - and the same people who call Hillary evil today were working their hearts out for Kerry/Edwards in 2004.

Anonymous said...

"By the way, Bill Clinton has been asked to explain why he is not a racist."

The political discourse nowadays has almost come down to the level of "when did you stop beating your wife?". Oh my.

Xyxox said...

I would just say about the 2004 speech at the Democratic National Convention that with the nominee having voted in favor of the AUMF, it would have been counter productive to make any issue out of the AUMF.

For Reference to Senator Obama's views on the war in advance of the vote for the AUMF, I would suggest you refer to his speech in October of 2002 in Federal Plaza. HAving attended that speech I can state without reservation, that speech was the day I first told another person, "this man should be president."

Joseph Cannon said...

"that with the nominee having voted in favor of the AUMF, it would have been counter productive to make any issue out of the AUMF...."

Not THAT argument again. You must be a newcomer (and a Kool-Aid addict).

To reiterate a point made in the past -- and which you refuse to notice -- both John Kerry and Bill Clinton questioned the basis of the war in speaking to to convention. Obama did not. That is a fact of history and you cannot change it.

You also cannot change the fact that Obama and the bots LIE THEIR ASSES OFF every time they claim that Obama was a consistent opponent of the war while he ran for Senator. (He was not running when he gave that speech in 2002.) In fact, he was not. In an earlier post, I looked up every single statement on the war he made during that period. The only outright rejection of the war's basis came in an obscure interview with a gay publication, and even THEN the interviewer had to drag it out of him.

In fact, when he ran for the Senate, his primary opponents consistently staked out harder anti-war positions. Obama the Ambitious was too afraid to offend anyone.

In his book, he said that he reconsidered his war stance when he saw the shock and awe campaign. He consistently supported war funding with his votes. He OPPOSED Russ Fiengold's pullout proposal.

I very much doubt you actually attended that speech, but if you did -- so what? Consider the crowd. He would have been tarred and feathered if he had taken any OTHER position. There was no courage in evidence there.