"With great power comes great responsibility." - From the ethos of Spider-man.
Perhaps it is unusual to start of a political column with a quote from the pages of a comic book, but the phrase fits the topic well. Hillary Clinton wants voters to trust her with the power of the presidency. This is arguably the most powerful political position in the world, which begs the question, "Is Hillary responsible enough to be granted our trust?"
Like many other members of the Senate at the time, Clinton voted "yes" on the resolution granting President Bush the authority to go to invade Iraq. One may see this as a reason for doubting Hillary's sense of responsibility. Clinton now claims, as many other politicians do, that they were misled by the administration, or by faulty intelligence. But the "official story" coming out of the White House is only one version of any political story, and any responsible representative owes it to their constitutuents to check the facts on every issue. The decision to go to war is not one that should be made lightly, or without getting all the facts.
Many critical voices were already questioning the administration's justifications for war at the time of this vote. These were not only die hard anti-war activists, but officials in the intelligence community and in the very organization sent to Iraq to search for evidence of the alleged program to build WMD's. Clinton evidently fell into a temporary spell of selective hearing. She appears to have made the decision to bypass any independent inquiry into the administrations justifications for war.
While the vast majority of Americans realized some time ago that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, Clinton continued along her hawkish path until around the end of November, 2006. By that point even many of the Senates remaining Republicans had become critics of the war. It is quite convenient that Hillary finally came to terms with her own error shortly before declaring her official interest in the presidency.
But Hillary is a Clinton, a master of politics. Many have held that she supported the war in the first place in order to pre-empt election time attempts to define her as soft on terrorism, or too liberal on defense. It would be hard to believe that, more than three years after this debacle began, a politician of such skill and cunning could truly believe that some American soldier would suddenly uncover thousands of nuclear missiles while digging a fox-hole in the desert sand.
The Democratic strategy in 2004 was "Anybody but Bush". It seems unlikely that this approach will prove any more effective in 2008 than it did in 2004. The mid-term election revealed that American voters are in a very critical mood. Moreover, they are in no mood for excuses. What do you think? Is Hillary’s vote on the war reason enough to stop you from voting “Clinton” in 2008? How would you explain her sudden decision to admit the war was a mistake? Did our representatives on the whole betray our trust when they voted for war? Or is it more important to look to the future, and focus on today’s issues?
David Anderson, Political Correspondent
The author, David W. Anderson, resides in New Hampshire. He is a 27 year old graduate student studying Political Science at the University of New Hampshire and worked for an array of mainly grassroots political campaings and organizations as a volunteer and a profiessional. You can read his correspondent column under the tag "live from new hampshire" or at Gather Essentials: Politics and Gather Essentials: News
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 25
That said, I certainly appreaciate the input! But I believe that being "unbiased" sometimes means challenging the assumptions we have about our leaders and their leadership, rather than just accepting their faults as inevitable.
Will be interesting to watch, for sure.
Christopher, you have risen to dizzying heights of stupidity, haven't you? I have to stand in awe of your simple lack of knowledge. Let's try some names, perhaps you've heard of them. Margaret Chase Smith, 1964, she ran for the Republican Nomination but was defeated by Barry Goldwater. Shirley Chisolm, the first black female to serve in the House, and Bella Abzug both ran for the Democratic Nomination in 1972, Elizabeth Dole ran for the Republican Nomination in 2000. That is just if we limit ourselves to candidate for the major party nominations. If we add in third parties, the first woman to run for president was Victoria Woodhull in 1872. I don't remember the "the sexist comments and slights of mind" being made about any of those candidates, at least not the ones in my lifetime. They were very intelligent and accomplished women, fully capable of the job, but perhaps you live in some alternate universe.
The resolution was not an "I vote to go to war" vote. It was a vote to give the president the power to make the decision. I believe that many senators, especially those with presidential aspirations, put themselves in George's shoes.
Wouldn't they expect a vote of confidence from their own congress?
I agree, let the unmasking begin, all the more so we can see the "real" parallel universe in which Mark and others live. Not sure, however, that Hillary Clinton will be able to do the unmasking. She may have a mask of her own.
Answer to the first question: Yes, our legislators certainly did betray our trust. At least my legislators did. I did make my views known immediately after after 9/11 as did many. I anticipated that Bush would use 9/11. I also felt that he and the architects of the war had been planning it for some time, even before he took office. It seems to me that my legislators should have been able to deduce the same and not be seduced into voting for the war authorization. They certainly had more access to information than we the people did, or do.
Second question: The future IS the present; i.e., we must focus on the war -- thank you George et al -- and it is going to be with us for some time and we will pay and pay for it, at the expense of our domestic programs and in the world at large.
In testimony to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, yesterday, Condaleezza Rice reiterated that we "are in a war that is a generational war." She also insisted that "I would have noticed if the Iranians had said we are ready to recognize Israel." I say, liar liar pants on fire and it doesn't sound like we'll be in and out of Iraq, or the region, any time soon.
Senator Dick Durbin gave the rebuttal to Bush's Jan 10 "surge" speech, and said that congress would debate and then wait and see how the people react. Well, they're debating about having a debate -- and again I don't see anything substantial happening any time soon. [see my article on Hillary] Congress is doing a dance with the administration and larger global interests because it is in their interest to do so. We the people will have to very much more vocal and proactive in order to change this. Trooping on down to the polls just doesn't seem to do it.
If one believes we should be in Iraq and should be there for the long haul, Hillary is the best candidate. She has the intelligence, the political savvy, insider experience and an understanding of global realities. She will work for health care and other programs which the repubs like to refer to as "entitlements." She may come up a bit shy when it comes to civil liberties, things constitutional and judicial for "we the people." Make that "we the littler people."
In direct answer to your question it is always more important to look to the future.
There are a lot of reasons why Hillary, or any other candidate, might have voted for the authorization for Bush to use military force. The first would be the mistaken assumption that he would be judicious in the use of that power and not exercise it except under the most dire circumstances. (I didn't say the reasons were great!)
The second reason is that most of the Senate put their manhood (or womanhood) in a blind trust at that point and some of them have since redeemed it. I believe this blind trust was the source for the success of the patriot act as well. Remember, this is not a war but a pseudo-UN action based on what congress approved. And there is the kicker, the senators intended it to be to enforce the UN requirements and when Saddam started to comply Bush couldn't have that and invaded!
Finally, there well could be a belief that until the president had that authorization Saddam would not believe him and continue to stonewall. To that end, his allowing inspections did not occur until after the resolution as I recall. Back to the first point, Bush was so hot to "consolidate his gains" and advance into Iraq he couldn't wait another day to invade.
Only congress can declare war and to give the president a blank check to use troops any way he sees fit is a gross display of cowardice on the part of congress!
Thanks!
What's the bias? You said the same thing at Clarke M's "review" of a book on Palestine. Where is it written that a "political" correspondent can't have a "political" bias? Only at Fox News are they fair and balanced. Heh heh!