OpEdNews » Can Voters Opposed to the Iraq War Trust Hillary Clinton?

Support OEN
With Your
Tax-Deductible Donation

Tags for This Article:

Populum Tag Cloud Control Panel
	Fine tune your search to access content

Articles	Links
Diaries	Products
Events	All

All time
Last 6 mos
Last month
Last week
Last 24 hrs

From:
Month Day Year

To:
Month Day Year

Alphabet Popularity	Count ON Count OFF
This Level	Sub-levels

Tag(s): 2008 Election Congressional Primary; 2008 Election Presidential; 2008 Election Presidential Primary; Democrat DLC; Democrat In Name Only; Democrats Progressive; Iraq; Iraq War
Add to My Group

February 23, 2007 at 16:02:00

Can Voters Opposed to the Iraq War Trust Hillary Clinton?

by Kevin Zeese Page 2 of 2 page(s)

www.opednews.com

SAVE FAVORITES

VIEW FAVORITES

View Ratings | Rate It

Even those who voted wrong on the Iraq War in 2002 criticize Clinton for her vote. Senator Chris Dodd, who has apologized for his mistaken vote, has chided Clinton for not apologizing. John Edwards indirectly criticized Clinton saying "We've had ... six years of a president who is incapable of admitting that he was wrong, incapable of admitting that he's made a mistake. It's time for a different kind of leadership in this country. We need a leader who will be open and honest with you and with the American people, who will tell the truth, who will tell the truth when they've made a mistake."

Clinton was not only wrong in 2002 when she gave Bush the authority to attack Iraq but she has been wrong for most of the time since then. Can peace voters trust her judgment? Can her newfound anti-war views be trusted?

More than election year words and promises are needed. Sen. Clinton needs to start to lead now on this important issue. That means really taking strong action to end this war. She is already perceived as a leader of the Democratic Party. If she says she will not support another penny for the 'stay the course' approach of the president that is such a disaster for U.S. foreign policy, U.S. troops and the Iraqi people then she will move the Democratic Party which has the power to end the war with her.

It only takes 41 votes to stop the $93 billion supplemental requested by President Bush for Iraq. If Senator Clinton were to lead a filibuster to end the war then she would be doing more than making election year promises and telling the voters what she thinks they want to hear. She would actually be leading the U.S. out of a quagmire and correcting the error of her pro-war votes. Can Senator Clinton convince 41 out of the 51 Democrats to join her in ending the war? If she can then she will really be showing leadership and will become a legitimate anti-war candidate for 2008. Otherwise the inevitable nomination may be lost to the power of the anti-war voter in 2008.

1 | 2

Kevin Zeese is Executive Director of the Campaign for Fresh Air and Clean Politics (www.FreshAirCleanPolitics.net) whose projects include Voters for Peace (www.VotersForPeace.US., True Vote (www.TrueVote.US and www.TrueVoteMD.org) and Climate Security (www.GlobalClimateSecurity.org). He is also president of Common Sense for Drug Policy (www.csdp.org).

	Contact Author
	Contact Editor
	View Other Articles by Author

Bookmark this page: (what's this?)

(More...)

4 comments

Richard Mynick is a US citizen who, despite the best efforts of the corporate media, noticed something disturbing about how the 2000 election was decided, & felt it augured poorly for democracy.
Richard MynickRichard Mynick is a US citizen who, despite the best efforts of the corporate media, noticed something disturbing about how the 2000 election was decided, & felt it augured poorly for democracy.

No, of course not. Hillary is even more vile than Bush, in

some ways. Bush could plead with some plausibility that he's too dimwitted to fully grasp what he's done, but Hillary doesn't have that defense.

If Hillary's husband had any real decency, he would have come out opposing the war in Iraq, & he wouldn't be spending all his time gallivanting around the world & sucking up to Poppy Bush. He wouldn't have bombed Kosovo, either -- which was sort of a trial run for Iraq ("Let's see if the US can get away with bombing to smithereens a country that posed us no danger whatever.") These aspects of Bill certainly tell us plenty about Hillary -- let alone her own record of complicity with the Bush Jr regime.

Even if she wasn't so shamelessly ambitious and vile, it would be disastrous to have this woman become president. For then the US would have chosen, out of its 300 million citizens, members of just TWO families to be president for 24 consecutive years. By itself -- even before one considers the horrible crimes committed by the US in this period -- this would demonstrate what a farce American democracy is.

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1213 comments) on Friday, February 23, 2007 at 5:08:42 PM

Kent State, Graduate work in philosophy of logic, of science, Ph.D. SIU neuroscientist, forensic neuropsychologist, PostDoc Medical College of Ohio, Preferred activities: Restoring British motorcycles, cars, Matchless, Austin Healey, Triumph, Jaguar, building an engine, programming a computer. Other stuff: SDS 1968, antiwar,911 truth advocate, anticorporatist, anti-classist, anti-neocon, pissed off. Best thing: Father. Blessed.
richardKent State, Graduate work in philosophy of logic, of science, Ph.D. SIU neuroscientist, forensic neuropsychologist, PostDoc Medical College of Ohio, Preferred activities: Restoring British motorcycles, cars, Matchless, Austin Healey, Triumph, Jaguar, building an engine, programming a computer. Other stuff: SDS 1968, antiwar,911 truth advocate, anticorporatist, anti-classist, anti-neocon, pissed off. Best thing: Father. Blessed.

You have to be kidding....

The short answer is NO. The long answer is NO.

It would be hard to more vile than Bush. But since she is "more intelligent", she likely would be more vile. And sneakier. Same for Obama. Same for Edwards. Same for anybody on the slate currently except possibly Kucinich (sp?) and Ron Paul.

by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 871 comments) on Saturday, February 24, 2007 at 10:48:44 AM

Don'pigeon hole me or sterotype me
pratliff94Don'pigeon hole me or sterotype me

Good lady, smart, defender of the poor and helpless.

Yes, of course.

by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 969 comments) on Sunday, February 25, 2007 at 9:36:09 PM

Timl has worled in politics and media for lo alll these many years. Timl hates computer speak words like troll and lol. Though he doesnt mind geeks, he hates geek lingo. He now produces political comedy shows because he thinks way too many people in politics have gone nuts.
TimlTiml has worled in politics and media for lo alll these many years. Timl hates computer speak words like troll and lol. Though he doesnt mind geeks, he hates geek lingo. He now produces political comedy shows because he thinks way too many people in politics have gone nuts.

man - how dumb can you get?

Commenter signed up, placed two trollish, attacking, nasty, even threatening comments. He is banned.

More vile than Bush? Where were you in the 90s? Lost inside your bong? Jeeze, idiots like you give morons a bad name. But dont worry - youll have Nader to vote for again so you can pretend you know better than 'average folks'

The reason she wont apologize is simple. She has been saying since at least 8/04 (meet the press) that this the vote in congress would never have happened if the intel wasnt bogus...thats one ...two, she wont apologize cause its just a bunch of bolofascists that are demanding it. If she apologizes or could go back in a time machine and change her vote - would it have save one life - NO! So stop demanding something that is just a stunt!

by Timl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Thursday, March 1, 2007 at 7:33:04 AM