Skip to main content

View Diary: The terrible thing Hillary Clinton did was to trust the President (418 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  1) People knew what kind of men Bush & Cheney (37+ / 0-)

    were long before they were elected. We knew their backgrounds, their history, their associates.

    2) HRC didn't even bother to read the assessments as Democratic Senator Graham urged everyone to do. She couldn't be bothered to determine the facts.

    3) Afghanistan was one thing. Iraq was entirely another. By allowing any focus on Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11, going along with Bush was betraying those Americans killed by OBL.

    4) It was not a secret at the time that Iraq and Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Senators certainly had a duty to the nation to focus on actual enemies and not go along with diversions.

    "Trusting" Bush, after the events in the election, and during his belligerent, chest-thumping, cowboy act which was obvious to even casual observers, let alone political veterans like HRC, was a fool's choice.

    She didn't trust the president, she took the easy and safe route. She didn't bother to even read the assessments before voting. Isn't that highly irresponsible? Do we want a president who just goes along with whatever someone says and ignores the facts available? Do we want someone who claims she is easily buffaloed?

    That's really her excuse: Don't blame me, I was easily fooled!

    Heck of a campaign slogan!

    "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

    by YucatanMan on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 09:19:59 AM PDT

    •  This is not true (5+ / 0-)

      Our family had skin in the game.  And I had spent almost 20 years living in Wyoming and was familiar with what a horrible son-of-bitch Dick Cheney was.  The depths of the Bush regime's depravity sucked the breathe right out of my body in astonishment several times in those 8 horrific years.  I almost needed a defibrillator once or twice.

      •  What exactly did YucatanMan say (5+ / 0-)

        that's not true?

        You've called "b.s." on two comments but didn't really back yourself up.

        28 ~ AZ-01 ~ Flagstaff, Arizona

        by Fox Ringo on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 09:46:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That everybody knew (4+ / 0-)

          That Bush and Cheney were the horrible despicable filthy blood thirsty murderers they turned out to be.  No, sorry, that clairvoyance did not exist.  George Bush's father would have never made 80% of the filthiest decisions his commander in chief son did.  I don't even like elder Bush, but I'm not going to make shit up about him either to fit the narrative I am to determined to run with.  And a man's father has a deep influence on him, while few children turn out to be oppositional defiant like Dubya Bush is.......

          I am no mind reading psychologist though so I digress....nope, didn't know. Republicans from my childhood didn't foam at the mouth like rabid dogs...this was new for me.

          Dick Cheney lied about an Iraqi Army lined up on the Saudi border years back but he didn't get the war I guess he wanted back then.  And still, I am only guessing about what can be chalked up to his basic incompetency as being in real life a manipulation.

          Rumsfeld, what in his history that I was aware of would indicate to me that that piece of shit would order looters killed in complete violation of the Geneva Conventions?

          •  asdf (4+ / 0-)

            I don't think that's quite what YucatanMan said or implied. After Florida in 2000 and the Enron scandal, plenty on the left knew that the Bush team was politically ruthless, a pack of thieves bent on gaining power.

            Bloodthirsty war-mongerers? Sure don't think anyone saw that coming, but I fail to see how that absolves Mrs. Clinton of her vote.

            28 ~ AZ-01 ~ Flagstaff, Arizona

            by Fox Ringo on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 10:28:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Everybody in DC politics is ruthless (0+ / 0-)

              At this time other than maybe Elizabeth Warren.  And there is always an anomaly. Are you just asleep at your keyboard though? A gentle soul does not go to DC unless you have a self destructive streak, not in 2016!

              Come on Man!

            •  Pressure (0+ / 0-)

              That is how you get where we need to go.  

              President Obama turned out to not be your boyfriend

              And Hillary Clinton isn't your mommy

              We got stuck with a Representative Democracy, it requires participation

              When things really suck it requires a lot of participation

            •  Washington insiders knew that Bush was planning (11+ / 0-)

              an Iraqi invasion when he came into office.  After the fact, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told the nation what "the villagers" knew all along:  the planning to invade Iraq began in the first months of the Bush administration.

              O'Neill is not alone. Richard Clark and Bob Woodward's writings confirm early intentions of Bush/Cheney to invade.

              There was never any doubt that Bush was going into Iraq, other than the doubt that administration tried to gin up with their "inspector games."

              As the British memo read, the decision was made, now we have to fix the intelligence around the decision.

              And, really, though "when" is entirely beside the point: Iraq was not connected to 9/11.

              Clinton knew that. Congress knew that. They allowed themselves to be bullied and cajoled by Bush & Cheney's public posturing and voted the nation into war. A needless, senseless war, and shift attention away from the criminal who had planned the attack on the United States.

              That in itself was a betrayal of the American people.

              And that's not the kind of person I want as a president: Someone who takes the politically safe, self-advantageous way when it is contrary to the good of the United States.

              "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

              by YucatanMan on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 12:53:41 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  The Senators who read the report knew (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              greenbell, CenPhx, oofer, allenjo

              exactly what they were voting on and should have known.  Bob Graham who was the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee urged them to do read the report before voting.  After the vote, Graham was very upset and said, "the blood's going to be on your hands."  As far as everyone else knowing or not knowing, that is irrelevant as far as the vote on the AUMF.  Senator Clinton should have known and that is very relevant.

              "I don't want to run the empire, I want to bring it down!" ~ Dr. Cornel West "...isn't the problem here that the government takes on, arbitrarily and without justification, an adversarial attitude towards its citizenry?" ~ SouthernLiberalinMD

              by gulfgal98 on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 02:32:20 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  MT is right here. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wilderness voice, Militarytracy

            That kind of clarity didn't exist.

            Hell, I didn't know about it. The way that one of my teachers proved to me that bush was a liar was by assigning me an essay on the Project for the New American Century.

            That's how I knew.

            But there wasn't one news report NOT ONE about who PNAC were, and what they stood for.

            An Fhirinn an aghaidh an t'Saoghail.

            by OllieGarkey on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 10:30:00 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yet somehow some people knew from the start. (13+ / 0-)

              I read the bogus Supreme Court decision completing the soft coup installing Bush in 2000 the day it came down and spent the evening screaming in rage in a bar with my lefty friends. We knew well what was coming then. Bad times.

              Then 9/11 happened. Worse times.

              Then the obviously contrived Bush Iraq war run-up. The worst.

              The anti-Bush-Iraq War movement was well underway by October 2002, and in full throat in the media and the street.

              You are re-writing history to an absolutely outrageous extent if you claim no one was aware of what Bush/Cheney were up to.

              Many were. The information was public. No one was more well situated than Hillary Clinton to peruse it and devise responses.

            •  But Hillary knew who PNAC was (5+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              YucatanMan, Pluto, Johnny Q, orestes1963, oofer

              I found out who PNAC was long before the Iraq War started by reading the newspapers.  It wasn't on nightly news but it was in the papers if you read enough of them particularly the foreign press.  

              I don't blame the public for not reading past the headlines but anyone who wasn't a blithering idiot in DC knew all about PNAC and anyone interested enough in the issue soon found out about them by reading the inside pages of the paper.

            •  Just because you didn't know, (7+ / 0-)

              doesn't mean that other people didn't know. I knew Bush was very bad news indeed by the beginning of 2000, thanks to a horrifying piece (warning - loong pdf file!) by Joe Conason in Harper's. Not all the information needed to make these decisions appears in news reports, and sometimes disinformation appears in news reports (is that you, Judy Miller?)

              And in all due respect, having been active in politics for 35 years by then didn't hurt.

              "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

              by sidnora on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 11:52:15 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  lots of people knew (13+ / 0-)

              I was a graduate student at Columbia University, and at the time of Powell's spectacular lie to the UN emails were circulating at high velocity and virtually in real time debunking it.

              Everyone I knew at the time knew that we were being lied into war. Even a brief foray into foreign press, like the Guardian, should have raised questions. It is totally wrong to re-write history and say "no one knew... we were all fooled... how could we have known better?"

              The information was certainly out there.

              That being said, it is TOTALLY understandable that the average American would have been totally snowed by the media drumbeat. I don't blame them at all.

              But the point is: HRC was NOT an average American. She was a US Senator for f-ck's sake. She had access to all the information we had, and more. And it was her f'ing job to read it.

              The fact is: she voted to sentence tens and hundreds of thousands of people to their death because it seemed like the smart thing to do for her career.

              •  Clinton knew in 1998 what PNAC was after, (7+ / 0-)

                as well as the entire US Congress.

                They knew when they voted for war in Iraq that PNAC had been pushing that, exactly, since years before 9/11.  Not secretly, not hidden in smoke-filled rooms, but in votes held by Congress and in letters to the Clintons in the White House way back in 1998.

                The Villagers knew, for certain. Period. End of story.

                (documented in following comment)

                "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

                by YucatanMan on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 01:37:33 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  I accept that you didn't know. (12+ / 0-)

              I was an adult, however, and I was telling everyone at work, as soon as Bush was elected, "We're going into war."

              Those of us who had lived through his governorship of Texas knew what an asshole he was and the history of the evil Cheney/Rumsfeld cabal, dating back to their dirty crap during the Nixon administration were also known, particularly among politicians with a long history in Washington.  

              Like Hillary Clinton.

              The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
              (Letter to President Clinton, January 26, 1998, signed by 18 members of the The Project for the New American Century, including future Bush administration members Donald Rumsfeld, John Bolton, Richard Armitage, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle)

              See?  Politicians knew, especially the Clintons.

              Discussed previously on DK:

              Blast from the Past: PNAC's 1998 Letter to Clinton

              That letter was followed up by a letter in May 1998 to Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott and House Speaker Newt Gingrich. From this and other lobbying came the Iraq Liberation Act. Calling for "regime change" and the establishment of a democracy in Iraq, it was passed with the broad support of congressional Republicans and all but a few Democrats, and signed into law by President Clinton in October.

              As consequence, the U.S. was soon funneling millions of dollars to the Iraqi National Congress run by an exile named Ahmed Chalabi. Despite the massive four-day bombing campaign of Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, however, the PNACers got nowhere near what they wanted from Clinton, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

              Bush, Cheney, Rumsfled and PNAC were well known by politicians. WELL KNOWN.

              Dateline: 1998

              "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

              by YucatanMan on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 01:06:25 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  The entire world knew (12+ / 0-)

              As the Senate was voting -- the largest protest in the history of planet Earth was taking place right outside, across the nation, and in over 60 nations around the world.

              Tens of millions of people were in the streets.

              They knew.

            •  This is a growing problem among the young (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              greenbell, CenPhx, Nate Roberts

              They assert a truth based upon their experience alone and never see fit to challenge that understanding.  It is dangerous to public discourse because it ultimately valorizes ignorance.  

              OG, you were very young when these events occurred.  It is understandable that you had no knowledge of any of the history or current affairs of the time.  But to impute that lack of knowledge to others in such a wholesale manner is simply ignorant.  HRC was not in the same position as a young student when these events occurred.  Is that really so difficult to see?

            •  I'm going to respond to everyone here at once, (0+ / 0-)

              because a lot of folks have come together saying the same things.

              "We knew" is not the same thing as "Everyone knew."

              And to a significant degree, we're forgetting the fog. We thought we knew. We were certain that we knew. And it turns out that we were right.

              But for a lot of people in 2002, things weren't as clear to them then as they are to us now. We are speaking here with perfect hindsight knowing that we were right, and others were wrong.

              Yes, there were massive protesters, but the Very Serious People decried the protesters as wayward students. They weren't they were regular Americans who knew.

              Hillary Clinton was the only senator who knew what it was like to be in the White House.

              Sybil Liberty, who disagrees with me on these points, did link me to something that I think proves one of my major points.

              Graham said:

              In the past week President Bush has twice attacked Democrats for being hypocrites on the Iraq war. "[M]ore than 100 Democrats in the House and Senate, who had access to the same intelligence, voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power," he said.

              The president's attacks are outrageous. Yes, more than 100 Democrats voted to authorize him to take the nation to war. Most of them, though, like their Republican colleagues, did so in the legitimate belief that the president and his administration were truthful in their statements that Saddam Hussein was a gathering menace -- that if Hussein was not disarmed, the smoking gun would become a mushroom cloud.

              The president has undermined trust. No longer will the members of Congress be entitled to accept his veracity. Caveat emptor has become the word. Every member of Congress is on his or her own to determine the truth.

              As the only senator who had been in the White House, she trusted the president to be telling the truth. And I think she also trusted him not to be misrepresenting the words and work of the advisors that her husband had appointed.

              I think that she believed that the president of the United States would not lie to the entire country when lives stood in the balance, and I know a lot of people who thought that way.

              I remember fighting most of the adults in my life over this topic because I was in a moderate/conservative environment in Ft Lauderdale, Florida. Very few people thought the President was lying. And those of us who did were ostracized if we spoke out.

              That's what I remember.

              I remember being threatened and accused and having my view marginalized by the majority who just did not want to believe that the President was lying.

              The majority which two years later voted the bastard back into office.

              Yes we, we who have become the twitterati and the highly informed, we knew.

              That does not mean that it was clear to everyone, or even most people, what was going on.

              And I will stand by my point that I think Hillary Clinton actually believed GW Bush on an issue where lives stood in the balance.

              An Fhirinn an aghaidh an t'Saoghail.

              by OllieGarkey on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 03:37:41 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  My God do you grasp history of the Clinton Bush (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                oofer

                decades. Trust?  You do realize the hate toward the Clintons for defeating Daddy Bush, the hate of the undermining and mudslinging by Bushs during the Clinton era, defeat of clinton vice president by Bush Family. Wow do you really believe trust between these to establishments at the highest levels of power exist?

              •  "she believed the President" just doesn't cut it (0+ / 0-)

                Senators are elected to exercise their judgement and intelligence. If the fact that HRC had spent time in the White House---not to mention her personal familiarity with the Republican lie machine---should make her LESS naive than the average citizen, not more so. So the excuse you offer on her behalf just doesn't cut it. Hilary Clinton is many things, but she is neither naive nor stupid.

                You don't vote to send people to their death just because someone---even the President of the United States---assures you he has secret information that you can't see. You don't send people to their death without KNOWING FOR SURE that it is the right thing to do.

                The one thing she may have believed is that the war would be a big success and end quickly. But that is NOT a reason to go to war. It may, however, be a reason to think that voting for war is a good career move. And that is pretty clearly what she thought.

                HRC was my senator at the time, and I placed a call to her office on the eve of the war authorization vote. I had a very frustrating conversation with the staff member who answered the phone. I told her (the staffer) that there was abundant evidence that we were being lied to, which she did not deny. But she refused to either confirm or deny that the senator in actually believed the supposed evidence against Saddam Hussein, instead attempting to brush me off with assurances that the senator was a patriotic American and that she would do what she thought was right. I countered that there was sufficient evidence that going to war was not right, and that such a decision should not be made without a reasonable degree of certainty (which she herself admitted was lacking).

                Failing to get any straight answers, I ended the call by telling the staffer that I had voted for Clinton before, but vowing that if she voted to authorize war I would never again vote for her. And I continue to feel bound by that promise. If she becomes the Democratic nominee this will not stop me from speaking on her behalf, and against her Republican opponent. I will probably even contribute money to her campaign.

                But I cannot and will not violate my solemn oath never to vote for someone who did such a sleazy thing for purely careerist reasons.

            •  My little conservative mother... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Nate Roberts

              ...who at the time watched nothing more probing than the freaking Today Show reacted to Bush's push for war with an "Ah hells naw!" (though she of course didn't use those specific words). If she could see through Bush while barely paying attention, the surely some highly connected, highly educated US Senator should've been able to see through Bush too, right?

          •  Bush and his cronies committed a crime (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            YucatanMan, Johnny Q, orestes1963, jfern, oofer

            against the Constitution to put him into the White House. How could anyone possibly trust a president who owed his very presidency to trampling all over the Constitution?

            "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

            by limpidglass on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 10:52:40 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (128)
  • Community (55)
  • 2016 (43)
  • Environment (38)
  • Republicans (34)
  • Elections (34)
  • Bernie Sanders (33)
  • Culture (31)
  • Hillary Clinton (26)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (24)
  • Labor (24)
  • Climate Change (22)
  • Education (22)
  • Barack Obama (22)
  • Media (21)
  • GOP (20)
  • Civil Rights (20)
  • Economy (19)
  • Affordable Care Act (18)
  • Texas (18)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site