Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Fix Pick: Hillary Clinton and the Use of Force

One of the fundamental questions surrounding Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign is simple: Why won't she just apologize for her 2002 vote in favor of a use of force resolution against Iraq?

Clinton has been pilloried for her refusal to renounce that vote as former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) did in an op-ed in The Washington Post in late 2005 -- a move which was widely applauded among liberal Democrats. And much of the energy around Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is centered on his opposition to the war in Iraq at its start. Obama was not in Congress at the time but has said he would have voted against the war resolution.

It would seem to make perfect political sense, then, for Clinton to simply apologize for the vote and move on. The vast majority of likely Democratic primary voters oppose the conflict and are ready for withdrawal -- either immediate or phased. But, she has steadfastly refused to do so, going as far as to tell a New Hampshire audience: "If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from."

In the most recent edition of The New Republic (free registration required), senior editor Michael Crowley offers up the most interesting explanation of the "why" behind Clinton's vote and subsequent non-apology: she believed it was the right vote at the time.

Although Crowley had limited access to directly question Clinton about the genesis of her foreign policy views, he does an admirable job of constructing the forces that influence her approach to world politics -- beginning with her somewhat unorthodox take-away from the war in Vietnam.

"Clinton has never allowed Vietnam to define her vision of foreign policy," Crowley writes. "It's true that the war helped pull her from her roots as a Goldwater Girl and a president of Wellesley College's Young Republicans and drive her into the Democratic Party. During her junior year at Wellesley, she even knocked on doors for Eugene McCarthy's antiwar campaign. But Vietnam apparently didn't imbue Hillary with a loathing for the military."

Crowley goes on to explain how Clinton's longtime friendships with former Secretary of State Madeline Albright, former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and former Ambassador to the United Nations Richard Holbrooke, as well as her experiences at her husband's side in the White House, heavily influenced her decision to back the 2002 resolution.

In her speech on the Senate floor explaining her vote, Clinton acknowledged as much, saying: "My decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House, watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this president, or any future president, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war."

The counter-conventional wisdom image of Clinton that Crowley provides -- that the biggest decision in her political life may well have been rooted in a fundamental belief rather than a political calculation -- is a powerful one.

Do you agree? Use the comments section below to offer your thoughts on this important and thought-provoking piece.

By Chris Cillizza  |  April 9, 2007; 4:03 PM ET
Categories:  Fix Picks  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Marius Penczner Is Back With Edwards
Next: S.C.'s Clyburn Takes Center Stage

Comments

Hillary voted for the war based on the following considerations:
The public mood right after 9/11.
The geopolitical advantage of estblishing a US military base, as we did in Japan and Germany.
The oil resource we can obtain.
Frankly speaking, I think anybody at the time would vote for it. However,all great leaders should have visions, not just to vote for the obvious. There are plenty of reasons not to vote the bill:
It is a war without justification,despite of all the faked intel. International law simplely does not allow one country to attack another sovereignty.
Hillary is badly advised to vote for a war which nobody can win, or ever won. Not the Romans,not the English, not the Russians, etc. This has been going for more than a thousand years.I bet Bush has never even read about that. All he can understand is we can crash the Iragis, therefore we can win, shock and awe! you can never win the war that way. You can only destroy a country as we did in Irag.Histry has reflect that again and again, the Sino-Japanese war, the Korea war, the Vietnam war, etc.
I have no doubt that Hillary is a great politician. She will probably make to the White House. But unless she learns how to see things with vision and perspective, with a sense of moral. She will never make a great president.

Posted by: john Y. Cheng | April 14, 2007 12:21 AM | Report abuse

Like lots of other folks, I'm a little confused.
---
You wrote, "party committees are cajoling and coddling candidates to best position themselves for next November."
---
Position themselves for exactly WHAT next November (that's November, 2007) ??

Posted by: Anonymous | April 13, 2007 11:56 PM | Report abuse

After 9/11 Hillary procalimed "He who is not with us is against us". I wrote and told her I was not with Ariel Sharon and asked if that made me against my government. Hillary is a strong supporter of the AIPAC and I won't vote for her because of her support for the Iraq war and because her loyalty to a war mongering state that will cause woldwide disaster.

Posted by: Janet | April 12, 2007 1:17 PM | Report abuse

A vote for any of these scum bags is a vote to sell or country out. I'll bet you will be the first ones pissing your pants when the violents hits America.And it will happen under democrate rule. Make my words. Who will you blame then? Bush? He's kept us safe. Remember to watch what you wish for. You just may find it not what you expected.

Posted by: LngShirt | April 12, 2007 9:41 AM | Report abuse

Iraq, a final frontier. These are the surges of the American Enterprise Institute and AIPAC. Their five-year mission: to exploit strange new coalitions, to seek out and destroy Muslim life and Muslim civilisations, to boldly go where no Republican or Democrat has gone before.

Posted by: H5N1 | April 11, 2007 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Hillary needs not to apologize because she supported Bush, but Bush didn't do his job, Bush has to say sorry to us. Now Hillary is trying to end of the war and save our young soldier's lives. She is doing great, she is the most qualified candidate, Hillary got my vote and my support with my everything. She will be the best leader and she and her husband will be the most beautiful couple at White House in American History.

Posted by: Kyu Reisch | April 10, 2007 10:35 PM | Report abuse

Please, people. Have'nt you realized TALK is different than VOTE? I bet Obama would have changed his mind because of peer pressure or simply being in congress to vote "Aye" on the Iraq vote. Remember all the Republicans who said they supported the Iraq resolution, but when the vote came, they actually opposed it.

Posted by: Flannery | April 10, 2007 8:14 PM | Report abuse

Hillary has alienated strong Democrat-feminists like me with her vote for and defense of the war on Iraq. It is an illegal and immoral war. Support for it does not indicate someone strong on defending OUR country, but someone who can be persuaded to attack a country which did nothing to us, based on lies. I don't believe Congress thought Bush was telling them the truth. I think they voted for the war out of fear and cowardice. I'd love to see a woman in the white house, but not a warmaker woman! I can't vote for her because of that.

Posted by: B. Hannon | April 10, 2007 6:19 PM | Report abuse

This over-hyped issue of Hi;;ary is not allowing American voters to realize Iraqi Government
is not going to allow any multinational oil companies to develop Iraqi oil. Only Iraqi companies will be given that right.
Sorry George and your oil buddies.

Posted by: loonramdon | April 10, 2007 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Now! it is time, for you people to realize, (that the soon to be President) Hillary R.Clinton, did what "ALL" of America, wanted "AT THAT TIME"! have you forgotten ground zero, today! the TOWERS OF YESTERDAY!! I have not! and I never will! Let us remember-WE ARE AMERICANS!!! the WORLD(Arabs) tell us everyday!!! look at there pictures, burning our flag-do we burn theres? my Jesus, says(Matt7:1)judge not? so I don't., but I am still an American-AND I WILL ALWAYS FIGHT FOR AMERICA!!! I sure hope, we have "NOT"come so far as to say? ok, take my daughter, and son and I will not fight you. that is where I GO BALLISTIC!!! WHEN MY SON WAS IN IRAQ-I WAS MAD!!! but he was doing his job. and I still believe in America., and I hope we never have to fight a war over here, but I also hope after we have won-we leave, if they don't want us there. She did the right thing at the right time, not Obama,I would not have fought., why not? that is what it called for at the time? not today., not now. She is the best Qualified Person for the Job! am I suppose to say my sons can run for office, but not my daughter? Lord forbid? I would be like those people who think all Hispanics and Asians need to leave the country. HAH! She is the one Qualified to do the job! She has been there 8 years, already., she did not put her husband down? She has proven herself-and Obama, could learn alot from her, and then pursue the Presidency in 2016! I will say this? and I hope it makes someone mad? I have West Indian & Black blood from my dad, who fought in the Korean War., I have Black,Chinese, White&Cherokee, from my mother. and Confederate General Sterling Price is... ah, that is to much for "ALL" of you people to grasp. so LIVE LONG and PROSPER, AMERICA!!! HOME OF THE BRAVE and LAND OF THE FREE!!!

Posted by: Janair Williams Sr. | April 10, 2007 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Not much new to say except that Chris like anyone in the media who manages to say something nice or complimentary about Hillary Clinton is always challenged as being a Hillary apologist. Why aren't all the press who are at the moment swooning for Barak Obama called Obama apologists. I think the reason is that Obama hasn't done much to apologize for- he actually hasn't done much at all. He is a nice charming- charismatic guy- who is today's favorite flavor. Mind you it is not really too good to be the press's flavor of the day as they are a really fickle group of people. Just as soon as they have built you up they get just as much fun tearing you down.

Hillary Clinton will get challenged by the press and by some of the haters in here- i always think they are some of the same pleople who voted for the green party, Nader, and in turn elected Bush- but thankfully they aren't the average voter.

Those average voters in both New York City and upstate NY which is a bastion of Republicanism, elected Hillary Clinton to a second term in the Senate. They came to the conclusion that she is an honest politician who actually acts on her beliefs. They realized that she is not a flaming liberal but a thoughtful woman who has ideas of her own which often coincide with where the country is going and sometimes even takes the lead- how unusual for a politician- like in asking for Universal Health Care in 1992. You would think listening to Edwards and Obama that this was an original idea of theirs.

Hillary has wide leads in the polls in NY, CT., NJ., 20% ahead of Obama in Florida and leads in California as well. Real people tend to want more than the press- they want answers to their problems and they want them from thoughtful intelligent people. Obama may be such a person but he has yet to prove that to anyone or make what will be a lasting enough impression on anyone to get them to actually vote for him. Ask Howard Dean about early leads and winning on move-on.org. It doesn't necessarily translate to the caucusus or voting booth.

The time has come for our nation to elect a woman. We have the opportunity to elect one who is brilliant and a good politician. One who has the guts to not apologize for a vote just because it may be the most popular thing to do at the moment- but who can say that if she had to do it again she would vote differently with all she knows now. She also said there are no do-overs- which all the people who are praising John Edwards for his apology- which he neglected to give in the last election for President- becasue it wasn't a popular position to take then - should think about.

Hillary Clinton is gutsy-smart-respected around the world- and electable. It's Time!!!

Posted by: peter | April 10, 2007 3:55 PM | Report abuse

It seems to me the authorization bill signed on by Sen. Clinton and other Democrats was to authorize the use of troops...thereby giving the president a powerful negotiating tool. The threat of force could have given the president the leverage needed to force Saddam to allow the finish of the inspectors search for wmds and such. The extra time would most likely have resulted in the report of finding no such weapons of mass destruction, as was actually the case. Negotiation would have prevented war in Iraq....the military would have had full resources to hunt down Bin Laden and al Quaeda, the actual threat to this country. There would have been enough military force available to prevent or stop the genocidal bloodbath in Darfur. The power of this nation has been its ability to "speak softly but carry a big stick". Senator Clinton was correct in voting for the measure...those trying to distance themselves from it are not doing themselves any service, since diplomacy is what we need more than anything from our president, and someone who understands what the threat of force can do. I might add that by rushing into Iraq this president has shown every terrorist group in the world a how to handbook on undermining the technical might of the US military. Throw away your uniforms, do not fight as an army, blend into and use the civilian population and slowly bleed the ground troops until they must leave. But this strategy is hardly new, since a group of colonists used the exact same plan on a foreign super power back in the 1770's.

Posted by: innamaze | April 10, 2007 3:39 PM | Report abuse

An earlier poster noted that Ms Clinton's foreign policy horizons are not limited by Vietnam. Perhaps if she had reconsidered the Vietnam experience she would have seen two appropriately cautionary themes.

The first is the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. The resolution itself was a fill-in-the-blanks paper originally prepared in expectation of a Viet Cong attack on a busload of US dependents. When the anticipated attack was forestalled by South Vietnamese security forces, the National Security Advisor reassured LBJ that an appropriate outrage would surely occur shortly. The outrage was the more or less serious attack by North Vietnamese coast defense units on an American elint ship shadowing South Vietnamese gunboats conducting a MAROPS 34A raid on coastal targets. In a whoop and holler as well as less than complete intelligence provided by the White House, Congress approved the resolution. This vote was repented by Senator Byrd, the only senator called on to vote for the authorization of force resolution who had voted for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Ms Clinton would have been well advised to talk with him and his memory of the Vietnam experience.

Had she revisited that war which defined so many of us, she would have also come to realize that defeat was contained within the American military's theory of victory. This theory, an earlier version of "shock and awe" was suitable for defeating a conventional force in the field but was massively and counterproductively irrelevant to the human terrain on which the several wars in Vietnam were actually forced. Even a cursory review of books such as Conflict of Myths and Unholy Grail, both of which are based exclusively upon previously classified White House, CIA, State Department and miltitary documents would have demonstrated that the possibility of the US winning in any meaningful sense of the word in Iraq were slim to none, regardless of which party occupied the White House or controlled Congress.

Posted by: Dr Mark Mercer | April 10, 2007 3:04 PM | Report abuse

An earlier poster stated that Ms Clinton does not allow Vietnam to limit her foreign policy horizons. Perhaps she should have done so prior to her vote authorizing the use of force. Senator Byrd of West Virginia did so as he eloquently recounts in a recent book. If she had looked back at Vietnam she would have noticed to glaring realities: The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was a fill in the blank piece of paper originally prepared in anticipation of a Viet Cong attack on a busload of US dependents. When the attack was foiled by the South Vietnamese security forces, the National Security Advisor wrote to LBJ that another outrage would occur. It did with the non event of an American elint ship shadowing a force of South Vietnamese gunboats conducting a MAROPS 34A raid was more or less attacked by North Vietnamese coast defense units. With a rush and flury as well as bad intelligence furnished by the White House, the war was on. The second matter that a reconsideration of the Vietnam experience might have shown Ms Clinton was simply that the American military's theory of victory, based in large measure on an earlier version of shock and awe, was suitable to defeat a conventional force in the field but was massively and counterproductively irrelevant to the human terrain of South Vietnam where the several overlapping wars were actually fought. Even a brief consideration of such books as Conflict of Myths and Unholy Grail would have driven the foregoing points home particularly as they are based on the actual White House, CIA and military documents of the time.

Posted by: drybones | April 10, 2007 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is "presidential material," says Mr Adair? Why? Because she has a lot of wealthy connections? Because she leads a poll? You are perhaps correct, though, since Americans tend to vote with their genitals, their skin, or their spleen, rather than with their brain.

Hillary is the most "most qualified" of all the Demo candidates, says Ms Diamentos. Why? How? [see above paragraph] Bill Richardson is already far more experienced--not to mention more genuine and uniting--than HRC will ever be.

While Team Billary and Team Obama were strutting in Selma [replete with phoney accents]the other month, Richardson was in Dafur helping to negotiatet a cease fire and stop those idiots from killing each other further.

While Teams B&O were crowing about how much money they were raising this past week, Richardson was in Korea negotiating about some otherwise forgotten US servicemen whose remains are, apparently, still in that miserable part of the world.

While Teams B&O are being Democratic asses, Richardson is doing what needs to be done for people, regardless of party or race or nationality. So what are you capable of seeing, America? Can you see anything beyond dollar signs and the same old same old?

Posted by: Paul Pellikka | April 10, 2007 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is far and away the strongest, most organized, most knowledgeable and most qualified of ALL the Democratic candidates and the voters will not let her slip away - you don't throw away your best resource.

Go Hillary! Don't let anything stop you girl.

Posted by: Suzanne Diamentos | April 10, 2007 12:22 PM | Report abuse

The new gallup poll today has Hillary still leading Obama by 19 points. Without Gore in the question, she leads by an even wider margin.

Hillary is Presidential material. Obama is a rookie with an ego the size of Texas.

The debates will show the country that Obama is all fluff and no stuff.

Posted by: David Adair | April 10, 2007 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Hillary has long been accused of aligning her position with the polls. I think that that article is interesting, and explains why she has not apologized. She still needs to explain it better, so the liberals may return to her. I am a moderate Democrat with libertarian views, so the war isn't what bothers me about Hillary. In fact, this post makes me like her less. She said she wanted the President to be in the strongest position, which sounds nice, but isn't. It shows to me that she believes in an imperial Presidency, and will not reverse the trend. It disgusts me how Congress has ceded power to the White House, as has the Supreme Court. When's the last time Congress stood up to the President without budging? When's the last time the Supreme Court exercised judicial review and struck down an unconstitutional law (like the PATRIOT ACT)? When's the last time a state tried to nullify a law(other than South Dakota's abortion ban)? The principle of federalism seems to have died long ago, and the principle of checks and balances is in the emergency room, with a 50/50 chance of seeing it come out alive. WE NEED A PRESIDENT, NOT ANOTHER DICTATOR.

Posted by: J Perez | April 10, 2007 12:12 PM | Report abuse

In retrospect, I think that the vote was a mistake. But it is a mistake I would have made. I remember Eisenhower making the comment one time: "I never did like people with 20-20 hindsight."

In contrast with the assertions of some above, Hillary has admitted that the vote was a mistake. What she has not done is apologize for something she believed to be right at the time.

Two other comments: Questions of war and peace can't be decided by majority vote even in a democracy. What we hopefully try to do is elect people of wisdom and sound judgement to make those decisions for us and then back them up. Unfortunately, what we had in 03 is George W. Bush and a compliant Republican congress. The result has been a horrible mess.

My second comment goes back to Hillary's lack of apology: Had she apologized, I would vote against her. Speaking as a centerist Democrat, we have Kow-towed to the left wing of our party for far too long. The result has been a reputation for being "soft on security" and a reputation for views on social issues out of step with the mainstream of public opinion. That, in turn has crippled our ability to champion issues critical to working class America and essentially destroyed the balance between big business and labor in favor of big business. Time to get back to our FDR roots! We can be the majority party again!

Posted by: DRC | April 10, 2007 12:08 PM | Report abuse

So Obama was against the war as a State Senator. Big deal. He wasn't called upon to put up or shut up by voting for the war resolution. Easy for him to be in opposition. I'm no fan of Hilary CLinton, but geez, people.

Posted by: philadelphia | April 10, 2007 11:20 AM | Report abuse

10:11AM: Funny how you put yourself in your self described category that does not fit. By your comments and your failure to sign your statement, I think you would fit more closely in the "Fear" category. Read some Jung.

Posted by: lylepink | April 10, 2007 11:10 AM | Report abuse

The vote and failure to recant it, is continued Clinton political calculation, which has been evident since they both decided that it was her "time" for the presidency. This has been in the making since the late 1990s, so should come as no surprise. Say what you will, she is a formidable and driven candidate with no center and no core belief beyond getting the nomination and getting elected. MANY of the electorate thought that it was a bad idea to invade Iraq in 2003, no matter what the Bushies, neocons, and Israeli lobby were selling through the media at the time. Some in the Senate actually voted against the invasion. The pretext of "WMD", none of which was our concern anyway, and falsified ties to the "global war on terror" gave those who voted for it cover, not to stand out against the prevailing MSM mood... which was to invade. Recall that the UN had been "dissed" by this administration since 2001, and it was mildly ironic that the Bushies and press started to wave the UN "resolution" and protocols around as part of the pretext and cover to remove Saddam Hussein. The calculation of those voted was transparent. Without Bill, she doesn't have the political savvy to know how to deal with the current "unrest" regarding her vote, soooo..., she wont recant until it is politically expedient and she has cover to do so. That should be about a year from now, when the early primaries are imminent, and Bill gives her the nod.

Posted by: L.Sterling. | April 10, 2007 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Lylepink:

Greetings from the "Envy/Jealous" catagory. No matter what Hillary does or says, I will not support her (in the primary), and I have already often said just that. I say "Anybody but Hillary" (in the primary), because I do NOT believe that she is the strongest the dems have for 08. I am committed to working to see that she does NOT get the nomination, because I do not want her to be the next president. This is not because I am envious, jealous, or fearful -- it is because I do not believe democracy can happen when the White House is occupied solely by the members of two families for 20 years. Furthermore, I do not believe that her experience as First Lady translates into actual useable government experience, not in the same way former Ambassador and Secretary Bill Richardson's does. Lastly, I find her public persona to be unattractive, awkward, and off-putting, and this is not unimportant at a time when our image abroad has been so damaged by the inept, uncultured, and arrogant blathering of Bush.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 10, 2007 10:11 AM | Report abuse

This is why Hillary Clinton shouldn't be the Democratic nominee: She costs the Democratic party the best issue they have going for them against any Republcian.

When the question to the Republican candidate is "Would you have gone to war on Iraq like George Bush did?" he is in a box: Say yes and 60% of the country thinks you're a jerk like Bush is. Say no and the Republican loyalists turn on you.

With Hillary as nominee, the Democrats give it away. SHE can't answer the question either.

I don't think the equivocating and rationalizations from Edwards, Biden, etc. are helpful, either.

Posted by: Marion | April 10, 2007 10:07 AM | Report abuse

The analysis above by Khyber Jones (April 10, 4:19 AM) makes good sense to me. Mike D at 7:17 AM has a point too, and Gary Chartier (9:15 AM) is dead on target.

Posted by: RB | April 10, 2007 9:36 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is the only woman to have been of four committees , one the powerful senate armed forces.
When President Bush called for the war in Iraq and gave his reasons then , Americans supported him so much so that anyone against was called unpatriotic.
And even punished. Remember Dixie Chicks.
Hillary Clinton did the right thing then from what she knew at the time. When the President and commander in chief makes a decision and gives reasons for doing so ( WMD turned out to be a lie ) a member of the committee is to give approval. Senator Clinton did rightfully so then. If anyone who should be apologising to the Americans it is President Bush. Not Clinton.

Posted by: Nazir Patel | April 10, 2007 9:26 AM | Report abuse

Most of us seem to prefer simple explanations to the questions that life throws at us. It certainly tends to make things look easier to understand. But I suspect that Sen. Clinton'e refusal to apologize is more complicated than a simple either/or: either she believed she was correct back then, or she feels any apology is politically dangerous. I think it is both, and even more. It includes a fear of being labeled a flip-flopper. As a Democrat she easily recalls the problems with that label in the Kerry campaign. It includes the necessity of looking tougher than otherwise needed because she is a woman. It includes believing in a strong presidency which needs freedom of action in foreign affairs. It includes a belief in the use of force as in Serbia by her husband. It includes a resistence to apologizing to the Democratic Left who she probably sees as too often having led the Democratic party down the road to defeat because of their own strongly held but questionable beliefs. It possibly includes no small measure of pride and a refusal to publicly bend her knee to anyone, especially to the John Dean's of this world. It's because she does tend to be more conservative then her party's left wing; it's because she sounds like a old time liberal-on-domestic-policy and conservative in foreign affairs Democrat. It's because she is Hillary and not Billy Clinton. It's because she is as simple and as complicated as all that.

Posted by: John D. G. | April 10, 2007 9:25 AM | Report abuse

(1) It would be easy for Hillary to indicate that, if she'd had in 2003 the facts she now has, she would have voted against the war. This needn't involve revising the principles that purpotedly informed her decision then, it wouldn't have to involve any admission of negligence on her part, and it would give her the chance to point out that she was deceived by the White House.

(2) More importantly, though, she should review the principles that putatively informed the vote. If invading other countries in violation of our international commitments and in support of a program of preventive war is an expression of these principles, then the claim that she acted on them, rather than as a matter of political expediency, should give her would-be supporters little comfort.

Posted by: Gary Chartier | April 10, 2007 9:15 AM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON - Public approval for Congress is at its highest level in a year as Democrats mark 100 days in power and step up their confrontation with President Bush over his handling of the Iraq War, the issue that overshadows all others.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 10, 2007 9:05 AM | Report abuse

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result:

'And what of the successes of the so-called surge? The early indicators do not look good. According to icasualties.org, which tracks casualties and fatalities in Iraq, Iraqi civilian and security forces and deaths were up more than 11 percent from February to March on a per day basis. April is shaping up to be the deadliest month for American forces in the country in nearly two and a half years.

Republicans and pundits can talk about the possibility that the situation in Iraq will fundamentally change for the better within the next six months but it is far from clear that such a change will actually occur no matter how strongly they will it.

In the unfortunate circumstance that the Bush escalation does not bear fruit in successes on the ground in Iraq by August, will there really be a widespread defection among the Republican ranks in Congress? If the past is any indicator, Republicans and the pundits with whom they speak will put out yet another goal for change in another six months -- a process that will be repeated again and again.'

Posted by: inability to learn from mistakes | April 10, 2007 9:00 AM | Report abuse

This shows a level of superficiality that is mind boggling. Americans seem to be great on making apologies. Don Imus is going through that routine. She made a decision and is living with it. When you judge her record take that into account. I have heard this apology stuff for 6 months and wonder whether the political commentators have any idea how stupid they sound when they raise this issue.

Posted by: Alan | April 10, 2007 8:58 AM | Report abuse

Good article. I think that most of the country had a modicum of trust in the Administration....boy have we learned our lesson! We all gave these guys a chance to lead...I can't wait to vote for Hillary. I truly hope she chooses Obama as her running mate. She has the experience. He would be an attractive candidate in 2016. Let's see... Dems in the WH for 16 years...by then we might see some economic healing from all of the damage done by GWB and his corporate friends. Overnight our country will be redeemed in the eyes of the world. Bush has been a miserable failure, what a joke we are internationally because of this ridiculous frat-boy puppet.

Posted by: Laura | April 10, 2007 8:52 AM | Report abuse

Fascinatin', isn't it CC? Democracy at work -- a messy business.

Posted by: drindl | April 10, 2007 8:49 AM | Report abuse

I CAN'T READ WHAT'S ON HER MIND OR IN HER HEART BUT I DO BELIEVE WHAT SHE STATES IN HER SPEECH. HOWEVER, SHE IS NOT MY CHOICE FOR PRESIDENT NOT EVEN MY SECOND CHOICE BUT I DO RESPECT HER WORK WITH CHILDREN AND STANDING BY BILL. IT REFLECTED STRONG FAMILY VALUES SHOWED IT DOES TAKE EFFORT TO WORK AT A MARRIGE.

Posted by: JOHN | April 10, 2007 8:23 AM | Report abuse

The New York Times leads, and the Wall Street Journal tops its worldwide newsbox, with the thousands of Iraqis who answered Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr's calls for a protest to oppose the presence of U.S. troops on the fourth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad. The peaceful protesters gathered in the southern city of Najaf, where they chanted anti-occupation slogans and burned American flags. The Los Angeles Times leads with more evidence of how the U.S. military is struggling to find the necessary troops for Iraq. Approximately 13,000 National Guard troops were told that they should expect to be sent to Iraq late this year. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is also considering issuing four-month extensions for approximately 15,000 soldiers currently in Iraq.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 10, 2007 7:42 AM | Report abuse

'WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House is being accused of improperly trying to hide e-mails about government business by using unofficial e-mail accounts.

Congressional investigators say they found communications on one account from top White House aides about official matters, like the December firings of eight U.S. attorneys.

Those e-mails were discovered on a Republican National Committee e-mail domain called gwb43.com. That domain is not part of the official White House communication system.

The Presidential Records Act, passed during the Nixon administration, requires the preservation of all official records of and about the president.

A White House spokesman defended the use of outside e-mail accounts as an appropriate method of separating official business from political campaign work.

But the use of those accounts by officials discussing the firings -- and a series of e-mails from now-imprisoned lobbyist Jack Abramoff -- have led members of Congress to accuse the administration of trying to skirt the law governing preservation of presidential records.'

Posted by: Anonymous | April 10, 2007 7:38 AM | Report abuse

unless you were in a coma, you knew a vote then was a vote FOR WAR.And war means thousands of deaths of INNOCENTS. You HRC supporters act like this was a bond issue vote. I know HRC couldn't single-handidly stop the war but she was an ENABLER that put her career ahead of people's lives. You HRC folks can delude yourselves all you want but HRC is no better than BUSH. No morals, no conscious and I could care less if HRC apologizes or not. An apology is meaningless and I doubt anyone but talking heads care.I'm sure a lot of dead Iraqi children don't care.

Posted by: mike d | April 10, 2007 7:17 AM | Report abuse

I can not answer the question *why won*t HRC apologize?* Ask her that unimportant question, and maybe you will get a straight answer. But I doubt it. My question is *why won*t she recognize that the Iraq invasion was a mistake?* Not wanting to be labeled a flip-flopper is a lame, and suggests that she believes the invasion was a mistake. There is no evidence suggesting that given the information now at our disposal she would have done things differently than GWB. The US government is broken, and the corporate elite, represented by both HRC and GWB wish to keep it that way. From the corporate perspective the Iraq invasion and occupation has been a huge success, has it not? A vote for one, HRC or GWB, is no different than a vote for the other, and Americans seem content with two extremely bad choices. Why is that?

Posted by: Mark from Planet Earth | April 10, 2007 7:08 AM | Report abuse

dcchanges: You have picked up on just who it is that are wanting Hillary to apologize. I refer to them as those that cannot admit to themselves that their problem is in the "Envy/Jealous" catagory. They cannot admit this even to themselves, and will offer any excuse, except the real one. They are opponents of Hillary and no matter what she does they will not support her, and many of them have said just that. A lot of them say "Anybody but Hillary", and this is where the "Fear" factor comes into play. They know Hillary is the strongest the dems have for 08 and will do anything they can to stop her for they know she will be our next POTUS, unless someway or somehow they can stop her and they will try every means available to them in the attempt.

Posted by: lylepink | April 10, 2007 6:00 AM | Report abuse

If HRC's lifelong dedication to public service, beginning when she was a 'Goldwater Girl' and now as a brilliant and dedicated second-term Senator from NY, can be denigrated as just 'blind ambition' or 'political calculation', what then is one to make of a little known State Senator from Illinois, who, just two years after being elected US Senator and with hardly any achievements in congress, decides to run for the highest, most powerful and most demanding government position of them all? I'll tell ya: It is called 'blind ambition' and 'political calculation'. Obama will have more credibility with many of us who are not caught up in the hype only after he's done more than articulate sophomoric bromides worthy of, well, any bookwormish college sophomore. Remember that Obama did not have to cast that vote, so that we are not really how he would really would have voted had he been in that position. IMHO, it is only after he's 'done time' like the rest of them, been battle-tested and made tough decisions, would we would know for sure what he really stands for. Charisma and the boy-next-door appeal got us the current occupant of the White House, although we had two candidates (Gore and Kerry) who were by far better qualified.

I'll take Experience and Substance over Charisma (read: Hot Air) any day...

Posted by: dcshungu | April 10, 2007 5:11 AM | Report abuse

HRC will be the Democratic party's nominee for president simply because she is better qualified than Obama, whose appeal to many is his greatest weakness: Lack of a resume and experience. As ultimaely the Dem's nominee, HRC needs to maintain her viability for the general election, and her refusal to apologize for voting to give GWB the authority for war immunizes her against the sort of ridicule that did Kerry in last time around, such as: 'HRC was for the war before she was against it.' You've already lost 2 close elections in as many presidential election cycles because you had candidates who self-distructed (Gore by running against Bill Clinton and THEIR common record of achievements; Kerry by being spineless and wishy-washy). Clinton is your best chance at recapturing the White House because there is little that the Repubs have not dished against her, but she has kept on ticking. In the age of the so-called Global War On Terror, HRC's main challenge in the general election would be to prove that a woman POTUS would have "balls" big enough to protect America. Considering her success over the years at fighting the right-wing smear machine, I have no doubt that she has big enough "cojones." So, please do not keep asking for this stupid mea culpa of HRC's. It would turn her into a wimp, and with that you'd lose your 3rd straight presidential election in '08, once more snatching defeat from the jaws of certain victory. Haven't you wondered why the rightwingers, who never pass up on an opportunity to pile it on HRC, have been so quiet about the lefties' mindless calls for a HRC mea culpa about the war vote? Well, I'll tell you: They are holding breath and licking their chops while waiting for HRC to cave in, handing them their winning slogan for the general election...really it is that simple.

So, becareful what you ask for because you just might get it...

Posted by: dcshungu | April 10, 2007 4:29 AM | Report abuse

I think the theory is a load of garbage. Bill Clinton practiced containment in Iraq for 8 years and did so effectively. Bill Clinton knew Saddam was not a big threat so long as he was kept in his box. Hillary was with him, so whatever he knew, she knew. However, in a post-911 world, the Clintons believed, for political reasons, that she couldn't afford to be on the wrong side of a war the US would likely win (meaning that US troops would march into Baghdad quickly and Saddam would fall).

Hillary did not delve deeply into whether the rationale for war made any sense. She didn't look into whether Iraq had an active nuclear program or had any connection to 911 or any role with Al-Qaeda. She did so, because she thought that from a political standpoint, there was nothing to be gained and a lot to lose if she focused on the details rather than on the larger message that aggressive use of the military in the Middle East was favored by a majority of Americans. America was in a 'shoot first, ask questions later mood' and those that 'asked questions before shooting' would be perceived as weak, even if they turned out to be right.

Hillary took a gamble that the Administration would manage the war well, and she lost. That's why Obama has emerged as a credible threat to her quest for the nomination. She won't apologize because she would be attacked by the right as a weak flip flopper. What Hillary is now banking on is that she can establish her war bona fides by supporting the efforts in Congress to end the war. It remains to be seen whether that strategy will work at the end of the day, but if current poll numbers and fundraising numbers are any guide, current trends indicate that her strategy is not working as well as she would hope.

Posted by: Khyber Jones | April 10, 2007 4:19 AM | Report abuse

It seems like such naiveté to claim that this refusal to give in was any thing but political calculations. It simply does not connect the dots of a career which guiding philosophy is virtually solely "is this the wise political decision."
It is obvious as to why she has not appologized. It will not expunge the fact that she originally voted for it and Obama did not and that at this juncture for her to make such an omission would to play right in to critics hands and come off as just another move to be political. I reguarly read the "fix" because it insightful. Giving credence to this theory is the most dubious thing I have read by you "fix".

Posted by: Brian Adams | April 10, 2007 2:55 AM | Report abuse

One lesson that comes from reflecting on the lead-up to the Iraqi invasion is that there was no debate of the pros and cons. That is bad government. Invading another nation requires more than weak-kneed complicity. Senator Clinton is uninspiring. Her decision to support Bush was wrong and that cannot be ignored. She might have been a suitable choice for President 4-8 years ago but times have moved on. We need someone who is not part of the old fabric. Vote for Senator Obama.

Posted by: Robert James | April 10, 2007 1:59 AM | Report abuse

I think he has it right...this is how she felt at the time and she won't back down. Of course there are political calculations...hello? But apologizing would put it behind her and the reason she won't may well be a reason to vote for her!

Posted by: Paul | April 10, 2007 1:22 AM | Report abuse

I say forget both Clinton and Obama....

Bill Richardson is most qualified to be president. Period. We need somebody to restore respect and credibility to our country.

Posted by: MBW | April 10, 2007 1:20 AM | Report abuse

Reading The Fix to soon after eating is not a good idea. Pro-Hillary spin is very nauseating. Chris, the energy around Sen. Barack Obama is not centered on his opposition to the war in Iraq at its start. It's centered on the whole package: what he says, how is says it, and how he looks saying it.

Posted by: rg | April 10, 2007 12:44 AM | Report abuse

Being Presidential should mean never having to say you are sorry, because your judgement is so spot on you don't make major mistakes. Any Dem who voted for this war should keep their heads buried in the Senate or they will lose the White House again.

Posted by: Reggie | April 10, 2007 12:29 AM | Report abuse

HRC has been running for the presidency since getting into the senate.
She has correctly fiqured that being a woman means that she must be able to show some backbone. Accordingly, she has worked at having a better relationship with the military then her husband. She also has shown that like her husband, she must be able to stand up for what she believes in. To that end, she has refused to play to liberal wing of the party and apologize, which would be a huge problem in the general election.

Contrary to the media hype going on now. She is ahead of Obama in almost every poll (his support is soft). Remember how all the students and bloggers DID NOT vote for Kerry, or anybody. Her people havent't forgot that.

Folks, she has been working at being president from the beginning, not at getting the nomination. With the way things are going, maybe Iowa, surely NH, and then with Feb.5,2008, the nomination and the election (with a thank you to the other party and their problems). Two for one, that ain't bad, warts and all...........


Posted by: james b | April 9, 2007 11:14 PM | Report abuse

I agree. Hillary should not apologize for getting it wrong. Bad judgment, intellectual laziness, lack of intelligence is not something to apologize for.

Posted by: Herbert Kay | April 9, 2007 10:59 PM | Report abuse

This is one of the reasons I'm for Obama over Clinton: I don't believe he is the same heartless, cruel kind of person who would drop bombs or keep sanctions on a country to show he's tough. Madeleine Albright is a little monster. I know shes apologized for it but the fact is, SHE SAID IT and it tells you a lot about her and about the Clintons that she was capable of saying it: that the deaths of half a million Iraqi children from the sanctions were worth it.

I think Obama would have found a way to end those sanctions. I think it was heartless cruelty and cowardice to the Israeli lobby that the Clintons maintained those sanctions and bombed Iraq for 8 years to enforce the no fly zone and the whole thing was unworthy of our country.

Posted by: Karen | April 9, 2007 10:57 PM | Report abuse

Betty, I am certainly not pretending that Senator Clinton could do or say anything to sway my vote; she cannot. Her words and actions have created the impression that she is fake and calculated. In some respects, this does not make her all that different from many politicians. But, in a time when the U.S. so desperately needs change, it is hard to understand why people would support a candidate who represents the status quo.

Posted by: Becky | April 9, 2007 10:47 PM | Report abuse

Somehow I don't want a President of the United States who may be cuckolded by Britney Spears. People may say that Bill's antics are off the subject but they are not. The president is partly a job and partly a synbol of the country and the president's spouse's respect says something to that. By the way I voted for Clinton twice so please do not call me an evil Republican, I'm not.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2007 10:41 PM | Report abuse


HRC is not qualified for high office for two glaring reasons:
1. Bush made a sucker of her and
2. bill really snookered her.
And if two fools made a fool out of her, the only conclusion that can be drawn --

hill is a fool and the nation cant support someone who can be snookered.

Posted by: leo l. castillo | April 9, 2007 10:36 PM | Report abuse

I think its interesting that those who don't like HRC, say her refusal to apologize for her vote is so obviously politicaly motivated, but if she came out and apologized now or even months ago, you would also be up in arms about how politicaly motivated the apology was. To many of you, HRC can do nothing right and anything she does is always fake and caluculated, so please don't pretend that what she says or does is actually going to sway your vote. At least some of you are honest that nothing will ever make you vote for HRC (one of the biggest critisisms of HRC is that she's polarizing) but do you really need to call her a floozy? can anyone really claim that is not gender targeted?

Posted by: Betty | April 9, 2007 10:21 PM | Report abuse

Edwards is right. It was a mistake. If Hillary Clinton hadn't been so caught up in the echo chamber of the United States Senate, she would have realized that. The rationale for giving the president the right to go to war was to get approval from the United Nations. It should have been the reverse: Get approval from the United Nations, then from the United States Senate. Many intelligent people, like Joschka Fischer, were looking at the UN arms inspectors Hans Blix and comparing it to what the United States was saying and they were concluding that verity was on Blix's side. Why can't Hillary Clinton, looking back now, see that?

Posted by: JGG | April 9, 2007 10:20 PM | Report abuse

This whole agitation by the "tribe" for a Hillary Clinton Mea Culpa is completely ludicrous and absurd nonsense. Reductio ad absurdum: Suppose GWB had not made a mess of the Iraq occupation, and peace and prosperity, rather than the current mess, had resulted from the invasion, would those who are now mindlessly asking that HRC apologize for the VOTE be agitating to see her awarded a Congressional Medal of Freedom for that VOTE? I think not. GWB would be getting all the accolades. Therefore, since things turned out badly, why isn't GWB the one getting the full brunt of blame for the mess that he's created? HRC had little control over the actual conduct of the war. All she did was to vote to provide the commander-in-chief with the means to conduct his foreign policy, which he then bungled miserably. Why should Clinton be the one apologizing? As a Senator, HRC was presented with a choice and she chose to vote to authorize the war guided by her experience as a former occupant of the White House who understood the importance of giving the POTUS some leeway in conducting foreign policy - you've got to read Crowley's piece in TNR. GWB messed up, and not HRC. Got it? Drop the stupid call for a Hillary Mea Culpa. It is simply stupid.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2007 10:03 PM | Report abuse

Whoops! Meant to type "NO" compassion in my previous comment about Bush's concern for our troops, their families, and Tens of Thousands of Innocent muslim civilians.

Posted by: Lu Franklin | April 9, 2007 10:00 PM | Report abuse

Good analysis, and sensible approach for Ms. Clinton. Nevertheless, I am still concerned that so many of us ordinary citizens clearly recognized that G.W. had is mind set for War, even as Saddam opened his country to the Weapons Inspectors, and the Sanctions were beginning to bloom. It was so obvious that Bush wanted the War for his own, God Ordained Leadership (which contains "compassion" for our own service families OR muslim civilians).
What would serve all of us best for 2008 would be a ticket of Edwards/Obama (or Obama/Edwards) with an prior agreement for Ms. Clinton as Secretary of State!

Posted by: Lu Franklin | April 9, 2007 9:52 PM | Report abuse

I agree with a number of other posters here. Hillary is too stiff-necked and self-righteous to admit she was ever wrong, and I've had enough of that kind of attitude already from this miserable Bush. We need a check on the overweening power of the executive, not another tone-deaf narrow-minded self-righteous potential tyrant, and one who seems intent on proving her toughness and love for the military at that. Besides which, even after what must be admitted to be a principled stand, even if I disagree with her, she still seems as false as a pink three-dollar bill - she just radiates insincerity. I will never ever vote for her.

Posted by: Charles | April 9, 2007 9:38 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk (pretending to be Obama)--"...and if elected, I will only talk to Democrats and friendly nations."

Aha! So it has been the *Democrats* who have been declining to engage in talks with "hostile" nations.

Posted by: roo | April 9, 2007 9:25 PM | Report abuse

Don't have time to read all the comments, so sorry if this is a repeat.

I think that HRC knows that if she is pulled too far to the left on the war and other issues during the primary season, it would come back to haunt her in the general election, especially as a woman. I think she's being wise.

Posted by: anon | April 9, 2007 9:24 PM | Report abuse

I think she is a cheap, opportunistic floozy, with an ego even bigger than her nose and ears. Also, this is a democracy, and I'm tired of Bushes and Clintons in the White House. Say no to Shrillary.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2007 9:19 PM | Report abuse

The polls are and will continue to vary greatly , even on the daily ones. At this point in time it is not even known who will get in the race for 08, and most of these are names that folk know. By this time next February we will have a very good idea of how the race will be among the dems and repubs, I have Hillary winning for the dems and also in the fall with 288 votes and counting.

Posted by: lylepink | April 9, 2007 9:15 PM | Report abuse

It is suggested that we should not question Hillary's motives because we can't read her mind. To those of you supporting Hillary, my question is, what was her motivation for running for Senator in NY, a place she had never lived? It seems hard to believe that she had a sudden, overwhelming desire to help the people of NY. I think her motives were suspect then, just as they are suspect now.

Posted by: Becky | April 9, 2007 9:12 PM | Report abuse

Should I be comforted to hear that Mrs. Clinton's decision to vote for the Iraq resolution was "rooted in a fundamental belief rather than a political calculation"? If her fundamental beliefs lead her to make disastrous decisions, then we had better put somebody else in the White House.

Posted by: RB | April 9, 2007 9:07 PM | Report abuse

Oh gee, if I knew he was going to shot someone I wouldn't have given him the gun. Great logic Jose.

Posted by: mike d | April 9, 2007 8:48 PM | Report abuse

jd, Russia, Britian, France didn't know what Saddam had or didn't have and didn't care cause he was no threat to anybody.(any info they had came from us so in effect we could site our own reports back to us) And Israel didn't say a word cause Mossad knew Saddam was toothless but wanted to protect Bush.

Posted by: mike d | April 9, 2007 8:43 PM | Report abuse

i don't understand why this is being placed squarely on hillary's shoulders. i agree with her position, the president should have been given the authority. the preside is the one who misused the authority that was given to him.

as far as obama is concerned, i don't think he's genuine. he gave this anti-Iraq war speech, but he continues to fund the war. excuse me? is that not a flip-flop? when senator kerry authorized the war, but then refused to fund it, he was labled as a waffler.

if you notice, obama likes to play up the fact that he didn't vote for the war. i'm sorry, but you can't base your campaign on one speech.

as far as edwards goes, he's good, but not great.

Posted by: jose | April 9, 2007 8:38 PM | Report abuse

I believe 78 Senators voted to authorize that war. They were no tied to. They had the facts that were available at that time. The issue was that Saddam did not/would not, account for his weapons programs. We did not know, and in Bush's words, will not wait to find out.
We need to win this war. Of the Democratic candidates, only Hillary might have the will to do just that.

Posted by: Sternberg | April 9, 2007 8:38 PM | Report abuse

We, to mean me and my family, have always supported Hillary Clinton in her senate campaigns and will vote for her to be President. Her work in the Senate is impressive and she has the leadership qualities to lead our country. Hillary is
the most qualified. Obama will not stop her and Mr. Edwards also will not stop her.

Posted by: Jahinder Singh | April 9, 2007 8:37 PM | Report abuse

Marilyn C, then how do explain Edwards and Kerry and many other wimpy Dems voting for it too? Did they all want to beef up their tough-guy bona fides?

Maybe they actually thought that he had WMD, like pretty much the whole world did. Or was Britian, Israel, Russia (!), and France (!!) all in on Bush's conspiracy to get us to go to war (yeah, sure, Bush lied people died, we get it...)

Posted by: JD | April 9, 2007 8:31 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton has our vote too! We did the research and we pay close attention to all the candidates. She is the best-qualifed and just what our country needs.

It is also reassuring to see so many knowledgeable people put their support behind Hillary - people like Madeleine Albright; Geraldine Ferraro, Tom and Christie Vilsack, Bill Shaheen, the political arm of the National Organization for Women, Billi Jean King, Emily's List and many others.

Why vote for a candidate who still has to learn what Hillary already knows? I am also amazed at how busy she is campaigning but does not neglect her duties in the Senate as a representative of New York.

An amazing woman.

Posted by: Madelaine and John Kameris | April 9, 2007 8:31 PM | Report abuse

I love the posts that say don't blame Hillary, she was fooled by Bush & Co. Fooled by a bunch of idiots? Great. Hillary never even bothered to read the NIE report before voting.I wasn't privy to any top secret briefings and I could see this rush to war was bulls--t. Her vote was all about what was best for her, and to hell with how many have to die. there's one sick puppy for you.

Posted by: mike d | April 9, 2007 8:29 PM | Report abuse

Pat: You are pretty close to what the vote was about, it is impossible to read the mind of anyone, yet here, day after day, the Hillary opponents are claiming to be doing just that. I have no doubt that Hillary will be the next POTUS and am glad some folks have taken a little time to take a look at the real Hillary, and not how some are trying to portray her, which is, of course, false.

Posted by: lylepink | April 9, 2007 8:27 PM | Report abuse

It is good to read more positive comments about Hillary. She was right not to pander as John Edwards did. She was right to hold her ground. I would never vote for a candidate who became a serial apologist like John Edwards.

Obama is too inexperienced and glosses over the real issues. It worked for the first three months but the debates will reveal that he is not presidential material.

Posted by: Paul Anderson | April 9, 2007 8:24 PM | Report abuse

SHRILL. OPPORTUNISTIC. LOSER.

She doesn't deserve it and she won't get it. Besides, who is going to make sure Bill's zipper stays up if she wins.

Posted by: Bob C. | April 9, 2007 8:20 PM | Report abuse

That is the biggest bunch of BS I've ever heard. In 2002 when Hillary was pondering (ok, already decided on) a run for the WH in 2008, her handlers calculated that she would be best positioned to counter a potential weakness as a women on national security by voting for it. Period. Her (mis) handlers - the same ones who thought the "invincible" strategy would lead to fundraising inevitability (wrong again) - once again over calculated and tri-angulated and then it was too late to go back. This woman, her handlers, and her campaign are headed for a big Shrumian-like loss.

Posted by: Marilyn C. | April 9, 2007 8:16 PM | Report abuse

I personally support Edwards. Clinton doesn't deserve my support. I don't know how she feels on the issues, with the exception of Healthcare but that's only because of her failed attempt during Bill Clinton's presidency. If Hillary Clinton wants my vote she's got to come out and apologize for her vote in Iraq if she regrets it. If she doesn't, then she's misleading the country which is exactly what the current President is doing. I can't support that in the next election. Candidates have to, as Edwards has, say what needs to be said and not say what is going to win an election.

Posted by: Dan | April 9, 2007 7:59 PM | Report abuse

I personal support Edwards. Clinton doesn't deserve my support. I don't know how she feels on the issues, with the exception of Healthcare but that's only because of her failed attempt during Bill Clinton's presidency. If Hillary Clinton wants my vote she's got to come out and apologize for her vote in Iraq if she regrets it. If she doesn't, then she's misleading the country which is exactly what the current President is doing. I can't support that in the next election. Candidates have to, as Edwards has, say what needs to be said and not say what is going to win an election.

Posted by: Dan | April 9, 2007 7:58 PM | Report abuse

I think that Hillary is a First Class Act. She has done a lot for Upstate NY and most of the people around me that I hear bashing her have never bothered to check her voting record or listen to her video conversations on her website...they just don't like her name and care nothing for what she is really like or what good things she has done in her lifetime.

And... which one of you are "Perfect". Have none of you ever done anything you wished later you had not done?

As for her apologizing for her vote..she has said on one of her video webcasts that given what we know now no one would have voted for the war... and if I remember correctly, I thought that the vote was war with Iraq after giving the UN and other measures more time to work which Bush did not do.

Hillary has my vote!!!!

Posted by: Pat | April 9, 2007 7:51 PM | Report abuse

Does it really matter whether or not someone apologizes for or denounces past votes? Our government needs to be a government without the propagada driven politics right now. We have a war going on, illegal immigration issues, education and healthcare are failing....there are more important issues to focus on.

I would like to see our "leaders" rise up against this tide of name calling and be actual leaders. Talk about issues that matter: global poverty and the Millennium Development Goals, education, healthcare etc etc. While politicians are spending time and money arguing with eachother, people are suffering from poverty and war everyday. According to the Borgen Project, $19 billion annually can end starvation. Yet, we fight over a $100+billion war plan.

Posted by: fps | April 9, 2007 7:45 PM | Report abuse

She voted for the war in Iraq for political reasons. After 8 spending the preceeding 8 years in the White House,with all access to Intelligence, you would think she was in enviable position to have know better about WMD and Iraq. WMD do not materialize overnight. She knew there was no reliable intelligence supporting Bush position. On the other hand, she was in no position (politically) to go against the war, without jeopardizing her own "political future". But This is NOT the worst you'll get from this lying overly ambitious chick. Stay tuned.

Posted by: Monica | April 9, 2007 7:42 PM | Report abuse

I do not think Hillary will or should apologize for a vote that has been spun so many ways it has gotten to a point that not a single person can fully understand what the vote under discussion was all about, unless they have done a lot of research to find out just what was in the bill. There is no question about Iraq being a choice, and not necessary. I am glad some of the folks have taken the time to find out some FACTS before spouting off about something they know nothing about. Hillary is doing just fine on her way to The White House.

Posted by: lylepink | April 9, 2007 7:36 PM | Report abuse

This article is recycled gibberish from a desperate attack angle from the Republicans, which no one cares about.

Posted by: Jon | April 9, 2007 7:30 PM | Report abuse

I can understand the belief that the threat of force needed to be there to force Hussein, and being a veteran I certainly understand that force is never desired, but sometimes necessary.

That said, I don't understand why she doesn't come out and sa the vote was a mistake, not because of what she believed at the time she was voting on, but that she put her faith in Bush to carry it out properly with the intent of the COngress. That is, I think, the key to the vote. It was billed at the time of showing US resolve and giving Bush the tools to push for a return of inspectors and harsher sanctions, even though it had the effect of authorizing the war. Say you trusted Bush to be an honest broker, and he betrayed her the way he's betrayed us all, and for that reason if she had it to do all over again she would hav voted no.

Posted by: Michael | April 9, 2007 7:15 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand this obsession with an apology from Hillary. She said that she wouldn't have voted for it if she knew then what she knows now. People need to get over that 2002 vote. It's not 2002 -- it's 2007. I am much more interested in hearing about plausible plans to conclude the war in Iraq than I am in hearing people constantly whine about the 2002 vote.

Posted by: kelly garrett | April 9, 2007 7:12 PM | Report abuse

nuzreporter - That about sums it up.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2007 7:08 PM | Report abuse

She sucks.

Posted by: nuzreporter | April 9, 2007 7:02 PM | Report abuse

Why should Clinton apologize for the lies that Bush had scandal up. It was all a scam so that Bush could go to Iraq and get Hussien. The Bush administration is all about lies, and leading everyone in Congress and the People of America down that path, he has done well. Use scare tactics about terriost to scare the American People to death. He did not have me fooled for a minute. Bush is a disgrace to this nation and the world, He has caused America to loose face with the world. Ever who wins the Presidential Election in 2008 has their work cut out for them, and the American people can not hold him/her accountable for their first 4 years will take that long to undo and work through the mess that Bush, Chaney, Rice has caused.

Posted by: eagle eyes | April 9, 2007 6:45 PM | Report abuse

Every decision H. Clinton makes is based on her blind ambition to be president. Others, such as Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy,
Barack Obama, and Al Gore, reviewed the intelligence reports available at the time and made thoughtful and correct decisions against the war. H. Clinton, however, joined the other spineless politicians who gave Bush a blank check to do what he pleased in Iraq. H. Clinton and her machine may think she has the best experience to be president, but she certainly is not the candidate with the best judgement and intelligence.

Posted by: Jan | April 9, 2007 6:42 PM | Report abuse

As for those republicans who voted YES, doesnt matter as they will continue to vote YES even if another 10,000 are killed and because they are hard right idealogues.

Posted by: joshin | April 9, 2007 6:42 PM | Report abuse

cool off friends..why should she apologize? she voted because she too perceived that there is existing threat from Saddam give his record. Mind you..the overwhelming majority supported this war. So as shrewd as she is, she is just following the public opinion and everyone who voted dont have to apoligize. As for those who would have or have voted NO, doesnt matter as they will continue to vote even if another 10,000 were killed and because they are hard left idealogues.

Posted by: Josh | April 9, 2007 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Hi - I don't usually post on here, but I wanted to add to what you are all saying. After thinking really hard about it, I can't support Hillary for president. She's a woman, but according to what I have heard, she would be wrong for the office. I support Obama.

Posted by: Natalie McKeon | April 9, 2007 6:17 PM | Report abuse

I have also struggled with Hillary Clinton's stance on this issue, but think that it is easy for someone (i.e., Obama) to claim that he/she wouldn't have voted for the war at the time. At the time of the vote, the political atmosphere was tense and the rhetoric from the right was something along the lines of "if you are not with us, you are with the terrorists." The war in Iraq was being paired with the war on terrorism and the events of Sept. 11th. Therefore, the decision to vote against the war at the time is easier to claim in retrospect; but we will never know how Obama would have voted at that time.

Posted by: Komal | April 9, 2007 6:16 PM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton's vote authorizing the use of force; Senator Clinton's decision not to apologize for said vote; it is all political. She is entirely motivated by her own political aspirations, and nothing else. I do not believe she has made a single decision based on anything other than her quest for power.

Posted by: Becky | April 9, 2007 6:04 PM | Report abuse

"She lives in a bubble and doesn't really understand those people outside. From health care to Iraq, she has proven she just does not understand public opinion and like Bush, she refuses to admit when she has made a mistake." - Q

Makes you nervous when the smartest woman in the world (at least in her mind) is that way. Her personal touch doomed healthcare in the 1st Clinton administration, because she knew better than everybody else.

Last night on the Simpsons the writers had Lisa worried about how getting a bad grade in the 2nd grade would keep her from getting into Wellsley. Ohhh, the shame!!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2007 6:03 PM | Report abuse

I'd love to know the mental diagnosis of people who post as "Hillary" and "General Pelosi". But I digress. The Fix provides yet another thoughtful piece on a major issue, and his investigative work is quite good.

Posted by: Keith | April 9, 2007 6:01 PM | Report abuse

The article's claim (of Hilary's motivations) make perfectly good sense. At the time, she was not the only Democrat to think that, in a time of war, it is necessary for a country to forget its divisions and focus on solidarity.

Would she have made the same decision, had she been PotUS? That's a different question. Given the circumstances, Bill would not have gone to war. He would have tried to work the problem by means of UN diplomacy. (And, Saddam would still be in power.)

Hilary would have taken in all likelihood the same route, that of the UN. Was Saddam really, truly worth overthrowing? Not to revenge his attempt on Bush the Father's life in Kuwait City just after GW1 - unless you are Bush the Son.

They think differently in Texas, obviously.

Posted by: Lafayette | April 9, 2007 5:57 PM | Report abuse

in re: "'kingofzouk' is a paid troll" - no, I do my good work out of love. I am a pro bono troll. And I employ and insure minorities as sub-trolls, and offer head-to-toe Trollcare without any deductions. If we can successfully grant-fund this quarter, I'd like to establish a few scholarships.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 9, 2007 5:53 PM | Report abuse

note to self: "r-e-b-u-t-T-A-L" - ! Add to cheat sheet before Friday's test.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 9, 2007 5:47 PM | Report abuse

I think Mrs Clinton's position is far more genuine today than Mr. Edwards. I wonder why Mr. Edwards change of views is not seen as a cold political calculation (responding to the increasing anti-war tide and hardening Bush rhetoric in 2005). How can making a decision in 2002 in good faith, and 3 years later acknowledging that it was a mistake be viewed as sincerity? Sincerity is not at issue here. Judgement is.

The key questions in all this are as follows:

1. Did Mrs. Clinton and other senators see the exact same intelligence (in all its entirety - raw as well as analysis, without exception) as Mr Bush did?

2. Did all senators recieve the exact same amount of information, or did some (such as a select committee) recieve more than others?

If the answer to both questions is no, then it is Mr Edwards who is the hypocrite. If the answer to both questions is yes, then it is Mr. Edwards who has questionable competence.

It seems absolutely bizarre to me that a slick trial lawyer who thinks nothing of using family illness (and serious illness at that) as a campaign weapon gets the benefit of the doubt over an exceptionally brilliant woman (look at her academic record), who all said and done has had the foresight and the strength of character to forgive and stay with an errant husband inspite of suffering the worst possible public humiliation and build an unquestionably brilliant career as a United States senator. This attitude is textbook chauvinism.

There is a difference between being anti-war and turning anti-war - Mrs Clinton was neither, while Mr Edwards is the latter. On what basis did Mr Edwards reverse his position? The demand for an explanation or reversal of a 2002 vote right now - is disingenuous. You can disagree with Mrs Clinton about her judgement - but you have to question Mr. Edwards's sincerity.

Posted by: Neutral Observer | April 9, 2007 5:46 PM | Report abuse

'kingofzouk' is a paid troll.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2007 5:43 PM | Report abuse

My identity has returned and in lieu of saying anything intelligent, because that is not possible for me, i elect to post silliness and drivel.

Posted by: kingofkook | April 9, 2007 5:42 PM | Report abuse

My childish shadow has returned and in lieu of saying anything intelligent, because that is not possible for him, elects to post silliness. this is the state of the art for Dem strategists. notice not one citation of fact or rebuttle of policy - only dumb retorts.

you must work with what you have.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 9, 2007 5:39 PM | Report abuse

i agree wholeheartedly with your and the New Republic writer's characterization CC. i think that based off of her values adn principles at the time she truly believed it was the right decision, as did Edwards, and Obama I'm sure. I'm glad she's sticking to her guns and not renegin just for poitical benefit. I think it says a great deal about her and the persona that people percieve around here which is mostly false, in terms of political calculations. Of course she makes calculations just as other candidates do, but i think they are truly based on some core principles and values which is why unless Al Gore jumps int he race, I am not comfortable supporting Obama or Edwards wholeheartedly over Clinton.

Posted by: jay | April 9, 2007 5:38 PM | Report abuse

No, don't look at me! I'm hideous!

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 9, 2007 5:35 PM | Report abuse

did you make that up zouk? never let facts get in the way of a totally spun story. here's what really happened

April 09, 2007

Obama Ditches CBC/Fox Debate

Barack Obama has chosen not to attend September's Democratic presidential primary debate co-sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus Institute and Fox News, an aide said, effectively dooming the event.

Obama is the only member of the Congressional Black Caucus running for President, and his decision allows other candidates to skip the debate without facing criticism that they are turning their backs on a leading black institution.

Friday, John Edwards was the first candidate to announce he'd skip the debate. The CBC Institute is hosting one other debate, with CNN in January, in which all candidates are expected to participate.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0407/Obama_Ditch...

Posted by: stop making up facts zouk | April 9, 2007 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Really now, this had to be a strictly political decision for the Clintons. Anyone who believes the Iraq war is about anything other than oil is a fool! Anyone who believes that any of the reasons Bush and his gang gave for the invasion of Iraq is also a fool! Since the Clintons are surely not fools, her steadfast refusal to acknowledge her vote for the war as a mistake has GOT to be driven by purely political reasons!

Posted by: RICHARD CAHALL | April 9, 2007 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Barack Obama will not participate in a Democratic presidential debate this fall co-hosted by Fox News Channel, making him the second candidate to snub the cable network.


An Obama aide said the Illinois senator had no plans to attend the Sept. 23 debate in Detroit that Fox agreed to co-sponsor with the Congressional Black Caucus Political Education and Leadership Institute.

Obama will take part in a different debate hosted by the institute and CNN in January.

"CNN seemed like a more appropriate host," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said.

I don't want any questions asked that might lead to me coming up with a position or an answer on any issues he said while smirking. and if elected, I will only talk to Democrats and friendly nations.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 9, 2007 5:26 PM | Report abuse

It looks like I need another listening tour. bill can you come along so someone will show up? and call those rich friends of yours again. doesn't anyone remember that I already have 8 years experience as president? that weasel edwards couldn't even win reelection and obama has big ears.

Posted by: Hillary | April 9, 2007 5:23 PM | Report abuse

craig- the rasmussen poll,was the most recent i can find at the moment. its more of a gop leaning outfit and the cook poll is possibily a outlier for hillary.the only saving grace for her is name recognition.

but seriously, with 9 months until the first primary anything can happen. i just dont like media folks trying to shove hillary down my thoat.

and a another point,if clinton is elected, it would mean 2 familes have been in and out of the white house since 1988.this is a presidental election not a coronation.

Posted by: spartan | April 9, 2007 5:20 PM | Report abuse

The reason I will NEVER vote for Hillary (and why nobody else should either) is she cannot say "I WAS WRONG", "I WAS LIED TO" or anything else GENUINE.

Hillay has calculated that if she says anything other that her refusal to revisit her judgement the term "flip flop" will be applied to her.

Hillary is fighting Kerry's election campaign, basically, because she has no imagination, no enlightenment, and no internal rudder of her own. She'll divide between those who still identify themselves as the "Gloria Stienem crowd" and the rest of America, and will fail in spectacular fashion.

She just WANTS to be President, noit unlike Bob Dole's run for the office.

Fortunately for America in an age where the nation needs new ideas, original ideas, and forthright action... She'll never get elected.

Posted by: Joel Easton | April 9, 2007 5:18 PM | Report abuse

HRC acts like a Democratic version of Bush. She can never be wrong, even when it is staring her in the face. But this is all a moot point now, anyway. . . the point when it would have mattered for HRC to apologize and renounce her gross lapse in judgment has long passed, and for her to do this now would make her look even more crassly calculated than she already seems. On the singlemost important *issue* of our time, she failed miserably to provide any leadership, and she is failing now. . . as for her apologists, sure, Bush is ultimately responsible, but it was senators like HRC [and Edwards] who helped enable this catastrophe in Iraq. For her to believe she still made the right decision is show her to be delusional or morally crippled. This is one Democrat who is going to work hard to make sure she is NOT our nominee in 08.

Posted by: Christian in NYC | April 9, 2007 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Wow - this is the most pro-Hillary crowd that's ever been in here! Reminds me of the pro-Mitt crowd we had the other day.

Posted by: Aussie view | April 9, 2007 5:13 PM | Report abuse

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.info
www.onlinejournal.com

More calls for attorney general to resign over firings of US attorneys

By Barry Grey
9 April 2007

Appearing on the "Fox News Sunday" program, former speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich joined other prominent Republicans and a larger number of Democratic lawmakers in urging Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to resign over his role in the firings of eight US attorneys.

The purge of federal prosecutors--seven were dismissed last December 7 and the eighth some months before--has sparked an escalating political scandal. The fallout from the firings has exposed a systematic effort by the White House and Justice Department to stack US attorney offices around the country with right-wing Bush loyalists prepared to use their prosecutorial powers to suppress the voting rights of working class and minority citizens and launch trumped-up voter fraud prosecutions to discredit Democratic candidates.

The scandal has implicated Karl Rove, Bush's chief political adviser, and other high-level White House officials, as well as Gonzales and his top lieutenants in the Justice Department. Mounting evidence from thousands of pages of emails and other documents released by the administration to the judiciary committees in the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives and Senate, as well as public testimony by Gonzales' former chief of staff, indicate that the political conspiracy was intensified in preparation for the 2008 presidential election.

Assertions by Gonzales, both in statements to the press and testimony earlier this year before the Senate Judiciary Committee, that he played no significant role in the US attorney firings have been exposed as lies. Gonzales, a Bush acolyte since the president's term as Texas governor in the 1990s, is scheduled to testify before the Senate committee on April 17.

While Bush has publicly reiterated his continuing support for Gonzales, some Republican notables are calling for Gonzales to step down in the hope that his departure will defuse the scandal and shield Rove and other White House officials, including Bush. Leading Democrats appear eager to assist in such a cover-up.

For the rest please go to:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/apr2007/atto-a09.shtml

Posted by: che | April 9, 2007 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Spartan - The Rasmussen poll has been showing this race as much closer than all the other polls for months. I doubt Obama is within 5 points of Hillary - but his supporters must be pretty desperate at this point to find any evidence that all the hype over the last 5 months is producing any momentum in the polls.

The Charles Cook poll release last week had Obama trailing Hillary by over 20 points.

On the other issue - I love the fact that Hillary refuses to pander by apologizing. Edwards does not seem sincere or believable with his constant apologizes. The republicans will use this against him (i.e. flip flop) should he win the nomination.

Posted by: craig | April 9, 2007 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Why won't she apologize? Simple: Hillary Clinton is completely tone deaf politically. She lives in a bubble and doesn't really understand those people outside. From health care to Iraq, she has proven she just does not understand public opinion and like Bush, she refuses to admit when she has made a mistake. If she just came out and admitted she was wrong, she could probably have wrapped up the Democratic primary by now, but by being the insider DLC candidate, she's opened the door to Obama and Edwards. If she loses the nomination, she'll have nobody to blame but herself.

Posted by: Q | April 9, 2007 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Oh, please. It doesn't matter on whose shoes the war falls, be it HRC, Bush, Cheney, etc. Even not having a strong foundation in foreign policy and not being a United States Senator, I knew at the time the war was a mistake. WHy? Because we hadn't found Osama yet (still haven't, but that's another issue.)

But the person above who stated that Hillary never admits mistakes is spot on. That's the issue here. Complaining that Bush abused his authority (did anyone really think he was going to try and work with the UN? Please...) and that's the real problem is wishy-washy pablum. Dare I say it? It's downright Clintonian.

Posted by: Thin Man | April 9, 2007 5:08 PM | Report abuse

I agree that's her reasoning. I think her experince in the White House has let her come down on the side of more Presidential freedom of action in these matters. On the other hand, it was the fear of precisely the actions of President Bush that led the framers of the Constitution to give the power of declaring war to the Congress. An executive gone amok, acting like a king, was high on their minds when they created our federal govrnment. War is the people's right, not the President's. Remember, very few people object to the war in Afghanistan. That's the people's war. Iraq is the President's war and represents a serious breach of executive trust.

Posted by: Ken Baker | April 9, 2007 5:05 PM | Report abuse

I don't think TNR is onto anything new, although it is still not widely reported. Hillary Clinton apparently believes that Congress was right to authorize Bush to wage a pre-emptive war against Iraq. Now, she will only criticize the war's conduct. The broader issue that should be explored in the upcoming campaign is whether the USA should (1) ever wage pre-emptive war, and (2) whether Congress should delegate its authority to declare war to the President. There is every indication that Hillary would want the kind of authority as president that she handed over to George Bush. It is not particularly clear where Edwards, Obama, et al. stand on this issue.

Posted by: RudiB | April 9, 2007 5:02 PM | Report abuse

I think Hillary does believe that her vote made sense at the time. She isn't nearly as much of an opportunist as her foes claim.

Posted by: Kimberly Levinson | April 9, 2007 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Hillary, if you win can I be speaker of the house, secretary of state, UN general secretary, and president every thursday? I could come over, we can talk fashion, swap scarves, dish on men and refuse to admit any mistakes. If you lie to get elected I will pretend not to notice. trust me it works.

Posted by: General Pelosi | April 9, 2007 5:01 PM | Report abuse

I admire HRC for sticking to her guns! She did what she thought was right and by sticking by her vote she is showing more guts and heart then prettyboy Edwards and his pandering. GO HRC!!!!

Posted by: mountain man | April 9, 2007 4:59 PM | Report abuse

I am not a Hillary fan, but I admire her for refusing to say her vote was a mistake, particularly since it is the 'popular' thing to do. Reconstruction in Iraq has been an utter catastrophe that has had more consequences for this country than we can probably see yet. But the fact remains: Saddam was a tyrant, who murdered HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of his own people in some of the most ghastly ways possible. Combine that with America thinking he has WMDs, and who wouldn't vote to kick him out? Especially after 10 years of yanking around the UN and IAEA, demonstrating, without question, that no diplomatic/economic efforts were going to change things in Iraq. And, to be perfectly honest, if reconstrucation had gone well and Iraq had a stable, if fragile, democracy without on-going violence, how many people would care that there were no WMDs? The US would have brought democracy to the middle east and that would have been very hard to argue with.... In fact, if that is what the Bush Administration was banking on (assuming you believe they purposely misled the public), then they should have put more focus on reconstruction for that very reason. So, if I were Hillary, I would bash reconstruction every chance I get (and hopefully come up with some plan other than just abandon ship, esp. since she DID vote for it), but you can't apologize for something that you truly believed was right... that would be saying she can't trust herself to make the right choices. You have to work with what (you think) you know. That's what she did.

Posted by: Jean | April 9, 2007 4:58 PM | Report abuse

I think it more has to do with Hillary trying to broaden her base.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2007 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Election Polls 2008: Democratic Presidential Primary Contenders
Date 4/09/2007
Clinton 34%
Obama 29%
Edwards 15%
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Democratic%20Primaries/DemocraticPresidentialPrimary.htm

Posted by: spartan | April 9, 2007 4:50 PM | Report abuse

The reason Hillary won't apologize? Because she NEVER admits mistakes, just as people aren't allowed to criticize her. Her similarities to George W. Bush are frightening. She's a smarter Bush in women's clothing.

Posted by: Edward Copeland | April 9, 2007 4:49 PM | Report abuse

i would have to agree with most of the sane posters here. hillary is not going to apologize,and to do so will earn her the dreaded flip flop label. but from the latest polls, the hillary juggernaut might be coming to an end soon.

Posted by: spartan | April 9, 2007 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Chris, why, should Hillary apologize for a screw up that Bush, Cheney, The Mushroom cloud Condi Rice and Rumfled this are the people that screwed up this War.
They have never apologized for the three thousand plus Americian dead. According to the Mushroom Cloud Condi Rice said this war is worth every penny and lives lost in this war, although she and the rest of adminstration did'nt have anybody fighting in this stupid war.. Are they real patroits or coward you decide? as for me they are cowards...
So, lay off, on Hillary....

Posted by: Louis Levario | April 9, 2007 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Even if she thinks it was the right decision given what she knew at the time, she should take some responsibility for the consequences of her action, and for not knowing more at the time. There was plenty of evidence available to someone who cared to know showing that the reasons for war were faked. And given that this has worked out as badly as it has, she should be able to admit that she regrets haveing done what she did.
The country is tired of having a president who can't admit mistakes.

Posted by: Cali49 | April 9, 2007 4:43 PM | Report abuse

don't flip-flop, don't flip-flop, remember what happens to flip-floppers. tough it out in the primaries, get paybeck in the general.

Posted by: Hillary | April 9, 2007 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Chris, why, should Hillary apologize for a screw up that Bush, Cheney, The Mushroom cloud Condi Rice and Rumfled this are the people that screwed up this War.
They have never apologized for the three thousand plus Americian dead. According to the Mushroom Cloud Condi Rice said this war is worth every penny and lives lost in this war, although she and the rest of adminstration did'nt have anybody fighting in this stupid war.. Are they real patroits or coward you decide? as for me they are cowards...
So, lay off, on Hillary....

Posted by: Louis Levario | April 9, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Adam - very well said. I don't understand why Hillary needs to apologize. GWB should apologize, the people who voted for the war did what they thought was right at the time based on the information that was provided to them. In the end Edwards (cute), Obama (articulate) will be beat by Clinton (experience) Senator Clinton has my vote.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2007 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Of course it was a political calculation! HRC, Edwards, Kerry, etc, all made the same calculation--none of them wanted to be voting against the Desert Storm II in the aftermath of 9/11. At the time we thought there were WMD, we thought the war would be over in a few months at the most, and we thought we'd leave a stable country in place. While Clinton may have thought it was the right decision at the time--and that's certainly a reasonable conclusion to come to based on that evidence--in hindsight it was unequivocally a mistake. Look what's happened! No WMD, civil war, chaos. It just serves to show that Barack Obama, rookie that he is, had more foresight than any of the establishment.

Posted by: Enrique | April 9, 2007 4:33 PM | Report abuse

I agree, Crowley's article on HRC was fascinating. Thank goodness that she understands that the use of American military power is not ipso facto "evil" and that in some cases is necessary. She, along with so many in the Democratic Party believed in the Clinton Administration's assessment of Saddam's weapons and also understood that the commander-in-chief, even if his name is George W. Bush, should not have his hands tied with regard to responding to perceived threats against America. As a lifelong JFK Democrat, Senator Clinton has my vote.

Posted by: Adam Kaplan | April 9, 2007 4:22 PM | Report abuse

I'm an Edwards guy, but this is pretty off:

"And much of the energy around Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is centered on his claim of opposition to the war in Iraq at its start."

There's video of Obama opposing the war before the vote, so it's not a claim. It's a fact.

Posted by: NaR | April 9, 2007 4:14 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company