What Would Hillary Do?

It's time to clarify a position on Hillary Clinton and her candidacy. Yes, Hillary, like many other Senators who lacked political, if not personal courage, voted to authorize the use of military force against Iraq. And, of course, history is being revised to something along the lines of "sure, we gave him the authority, but we didn't know he'd abuse it so badly".
First, my biggest problem with this is actually a simple constitutional matter. The constitution places on the legislative branch the power to declare war. The framers did that for a specific reason. They did not want to provide the executive branch with monarchal powers. They wanted to make certain that if America went to war, it was in America's interest to do so, not just in the interest of certain individuals. So to me, each and every congressman and woman, and each and every Senator who voted to abdicate their constitutional responsibilities that week in October 2002 irrevocably violated their oath of office and should be forced to resign.
Ok, I'm pretty sure that's not going to happen, so let's move on.
So now, everywhere Hillary goes, she gets pounded for her vote on the AUMF. People keep saying she has to say it was a mistake. Other people keep saying this is being driven by the extreme left wing of the party. And I have been very vocally critical of Hillary on matters of war and peace. But I honestly don't care if she says it was a mistake, if she believes it was a mistake, or if she has political consultants telling her to ride this out, it will be so much worse if she says the "M" word.
I don't need Hillary to do an act of contrition. I need Hillary to ACT. In her speeches and interviews she seems all too ready to employ the American military in most any given situation. In this area I see awfully little daylight between her and GW Bush. Now sure, she's certainly got to make people realize that even if she is a woman, she's tough enough to make the hard decisions the presidency will require of her. And if a real situation actually did require the US to act militarily, I would want a president that could make that decision. But as a people we've been horribly victimized by a political leadership that decided to make war when it was NOT necessary, to accept the costs in lives and treasure and world opinion for nothing other than personal gain and ego. So forgive me if I'm a little suspiscious.
I don't care if she never admits the vote was a mistake. And I appreciate the strength of her verbal attacks on the architects of that futile debacle. But come on. Hillary Clinton is in a position of great power - she is a United States Senator, one of only 100 in the country. I need to see her taking strong, decisive action to end the war and bring the American troops home promptly. I don't need to see her voting to disapprove of the escalation. I need to see her voting to cut off funds, cap troop levels, end combat operations and redeploy the Americans out of Iraq.
No, she doesn't have to admit the vote was a mistake. And she already acknowledges that the war was a mistake. So now I just need to see her doing something concrete to rectify that mistake. If she continues to talk while people are bleeding, she will lose. If she takes real action, she may not win, but she will at least be on the right side...
2 Comments:
I agree. Regardless of whether she thinks her original vote was a mistake, she has to damn well know it's a mistake to continue this fiasco in Iraq. And she needs to get very vocal about it if she wants me to vote for her.
Yes, Hillary, like many other Senators who lacked political, if not personal courage, voted to authorize the use of military force against Iraq.
In 2004 I was willing to forgive this flaw in Kerry and if she gets the nomination I'll forgive her enough to vote for her in the general. But she waited far too long and has done far too little to show a little moral courage to take a stand on the single most important moral question of our time: should we keep this nightmare going, or end it?
And, of course, history is being revised to something along the lines of "sure, we gave him the authority, but we didn't know he'd abuse it so badly".
Well, to be honest, I remember that period of '02-03 as being one of a good deal of disbelief, even denial: I really did not think they would do it and get away with it. It was so obviously stupid and their motives so obviously false and venal. But I am not a US Senator, so I wasn't in much of a position to stop it. She enabled it; whether she admits it or not and whatever her motives were, it's costing her politically. As it should.
Edwards was my favorite until his dumbass speech in Israel. I know, he's got to play to the crowd, but his base really, really doesn't want to hear any war-with-Iran-talk right now.
I'm still crossing my fingers for Gore to toss his hat in.
Richardson is looking good at the moment, what do you think?
RobW
Post a Comment
<< Home