Clinton's and Biden's history of attacking war critics in the Democratic party; The Nation

[inthebrain]

This article is from 2005.

The Strategic Class

In July 2002, at the first Senate hearing on Iraq, then-Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair Joe Biden pledged his allegiance to Bush's war. Ever since, the blunt-spoken Biden has seized every opportunity to dismiss antiwar critics within his own party, vocally denouncing Bush's handling of the war while doggedly supporting the war effort itself. Biden carried this message into the Kerry campaign as the candidate's closest foreign policy confidant, and a few days after announcing his own intention to run for the presidency in 2008, he gave a major speech at the Brookings Institution in which he criticized rising calls for withdrawal as a "gigantic mistake."

The Democrats' speculative front-runner for '08, Hillary Clinton, has offered similarly hawkish rhetoric. "If we were to artificially set a deadline of some sort, that would be like a green light to the terrorists, and we can't afford to do that," Clinton told CBS in February. Instead, she recently proposed enlarging the Army by 80,000 troops "to respond to threats wherever danger lies." Clinton, a member of the Armed Services Committee, appears more comfortable accommodating the President's Iraq policy than opposing it, and her early and sustained support for the war (and frequent photo-ops with the troops) supposedly reinforces her national security credentials.

The prominence of party leaders like Biden and Clinton, and of a slew of other potential prowar candidates who support the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, presents the Democrats with an odd dilemma: At a time when the American people are turning against the Iraq War and favor a withdrawal of US troops, and British and American leaders are publicly discussing a partial pullback, the leading Democratic presidential candidates for '08 are unapologetic war hawks. Nearly 60 percent of Americans now oppose the war, according to recent polling. Sixty-three percent want US troops brought home within the next year. Yet a recent National Journal "insiders poll" found that a similar margin of Democratic members of Congress reject setting any timetable. The possibility that America's military presence in Iraq may be doing more harm than good is considered beyond the pale of "sophisticated" debate.


http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050829/berman

[inthebrain]

1. Bunpty Humpty dumpty

The motto for these last 7 years should be "never forget".

[inthebrain]

12. k

[monmouth]

2. Yawn......

[inthebrain]

7. That's what I said when I heard Biden was releasing an anti war ad

This guy is one of the reasons we are still there after all this time. He has done nothing but get in the way of everyone trying to stop this war and bash them in the press. He's even gone so far as to call those who wish to defund it "anti troop".

Sorry, but you can't bash the anti war movement and expect to use them come election time to satisfy your own ambition.

[Truth2Tell]

9. you can't bash the anti war movement and expect to use them come election time?

No? He seems to be getting away with it. Here on DU and elsewhere.

Hillary has tried to work both sides of the issue for years. Biden, on the other hand, has made one of the most dramatic and questionable transformations of a politician I've ever seen. Overnight he's gone from DLC-pandering war hawk to anti-war activist. It's enough to make your head spin. He makes Edwards look consistent.

[inthebrain]

10. We'll see what happens come primary time

Iowans seem to have a long memory with this stuff. I doubt Biden gets away with it or Hillary.

We'll see.

[rAVES]

18. if I had a dollar for every "yawn" from Clinton supporters in reply to scandal storys

I'd have a lot.

[Bitwit1234]

3. Well Obama wouldn't protest anything because he has

been absent from the vote since he has been in the senate. 140 votes this year alone...darn....that's a record that will stand for a while.

[Renew Deal]

4. What does this have to do with Obama?

He's not even mentioned in the article. You're obsessed with hate.

[HughMoran]

8. Gotta love the Obama hate

It's making DU into a vile place.

[maximusveritas]

13. Yeah, it's just a few rotten apples

but they're making it impossible to have any intelligent discourse here. All they do is throw up attack posts, while disrupting others.

[K Gardner]

5. This is the best you could do for your DAILY attack?? 2005?? Get a life.

[inthebrain]

6. I apologize for the fact that I don't have a short memory

Perhaps a change in your approach is in order . Try either making an argument that proves me wrong or just concede the point.

Attacking the messenger for posting on the issues just makes you look bad.

[inthebrain]

11. bump

[inthebrain]

29. bump

[inthebrain]

30. K

[Martin Eden]

14. Let's see the actual quotes where they "attack" war critics.

My bet is the characterization is hyperbole.

[hedgehog]

25. Not exactly what you're asking for, but from May 2006

"After more than three years of fighting and more than 2,400 American deaths, you still need a magnifying glass to locate the differences between Mrs. Clinton and the Bush administration on the war. It's true, as the senator argues, that she has been a frequent and sometimes harsh critic of the way the war has been conducted. In a letter to constituents last fall she wrote, "I have continually raised doubts about the president's claims, lack of planning and execution of the war, while standing firmly in support of our troops."

But in terms of overall policy, she seems to be right there with Bush, Cheney, Condi et al. She does not regret her vote to authorize the invasion, and still believes the war can be won."

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/05/08/opinion/08herbert.html

[Martin Eden]

27. You're right, it's not what I asked for

This thread claims that Biden and Clinton "attacked" other Democrats who were anti-war.

Disagreement and arguing in favor of one's position does not equate to an ATTACK.

[Stop Cornyn]

32. yikes!

[Orwellian_Ghost]

15. K&R n/t

[inthebrain]

16. Bump

[ClarkUSA]

17. Democrats have a short memory

I don't.

Thanks for the reminder of who some of the most politically expedient "experienced" politicians in this presidential race are.

[rAVES]

19. We shall see.. once the votings done we'll see how inflated their leads are in the polls.

[inthebrain]

20. no problem

Just offering my daily dosage of "keep it real"

[Froward69]

21. it is too funny how

your posts don't actually have any traction with REAL Democrats.
Too Funny...:freak: :rofl: :rofl:

[inthebrain]

22. I'm not interested in appealing to laundry or playing games with campaign slogans

That seems to be more your territory than mine.

I'm more concerned with real life.

[Froward69]

23. "real life"

Sitting at your computer all day, posting hate and propaganda. Responding to your OWN posts... neglecting your patients. That GOP check better cash or you will upset the bankruptcy Judge... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA too funny.

[Stop Cornyn]

24. kicked for pirhana

[DrFunkenstein]

26. A Green Light For Terrorists? We Want Four Years of This Kind of Talk?

No one who isn't trying to score political points at the expense of rational debate about fighting terrorism would use such language, particularly regarding a country where terrorism is way down the list of concerns.

Disappointed again. Just not surprised anymore.

[seasat]

28. I read the Pollack book, "The Threatening Storm", before the war.

I tried to keep an open mind about the "danger" of Iraq because it seemed , from the media, that they could possibly be dangerous to us. I was laid up popping pills because I had ruptured a disk in my back and decided to educate myself on the subject. Pollack was the CIA analyst that predicted Iraq would invade Kuwait and was a supposed expert on the subject. However, in spite of the drugs (or maybe because of it), I came to the opposite conclusion about the war after reading his screed.

Pollack repeated the same evidence over and over again and it sounds flimsy to me when someone has to do that to make a point. Even from the supposed stockpiles of WMD he claimed Iraq had, it didn't sound like it was enough to threaten us. It also was apparent from the book that the supposed evidence was from a few word of mouth sources. The weak evidence and the ticking time bomb of the potential sectarian conflict in Iraq was enough to convince me it was a stupid idea.

I was surprised that his book held such sway. It seemed that some of the hawkish Democrats had already made up their mind and were using the book as an excuse. The real reason, that so many Democrats supported the war, was because they were afraid of appearing weak. Unfortunately, they ended up choosing a "tough guy" facade, over real strength of conviction. Most in our party voted against the first Gulf War and it turned out to be a very "popular" successful war (It says a lot about our country when a war can be described as popular.). * was riding high in popularity because he was president when 9/11 occurred. Despite weak evidence, our party caved. They thought that if even a few tons of nerve gas were found, Shrub Inc would declare it a success and after 9/11 the public would view it that way. If our party had blocked legislation on the war saying they wanted the inspectors to finish or wanted to wait for international support for the war then we probably never would have invaded. Unfortunately, some of our Democratic leaders chose political expediency over doing the right thing and many used that silly book as an excuse.

[Donna Zen]

33. Pollack wasn't alone

Holbrooke, Albright, and O'Hanlon also supported the war. It was never about the WMD; they really believed that clearing out the Saddam swamp was a viable idea. I'm not sure how Lee Feinstein (Clinton's top adviser) felt at the time. Basically there was a core of hawkish Dems., mostly coming from the CFR, who agreed with bush. Oh, and this is weird: when I attended a panel discussion at this year's Kos, Steve Clemons (Washington Note) said that at the same time that bush's junta was pushing for war, he, Steve, was receiving calls from those same people, telling him why the plan wouldn't work.

Personally, I understood that Saddam was an asshole who might have some sort of creepy weapons laying around (lots of countries do...the poor man's nukes), however, Iraq was not a threat to the US. And, most importantly, dislodging the fragile stability in the region would begin the "Forever War." Thus, invading Iraq was stupid.

Just because some of these critters talk about foreign policy, unless they can get it right, they are not experts.

[Czolgosz]

31. I wonder if someone will make an "I'm Sorry"-style attack video about this?