Subscribe: Comments on: Hillary Clinton’s War Vote
http://www.radioopensource.org/hillary-clintons-war-vote/feed/
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade A rated
Language: English
Tags:
bill  bush  clinton  don  hillary clinton  hillary  house  people  president  riady  vote  voted  war vote  war  white house 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments on: Hillary Clinton’s War Vote

Comments on: Hillary Clinton's War Vote



Christopher Lydon in conversation on arts, ideas and politics



Last Build Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 15:13:00 +0000

 



By: Payment Gateway

Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:20:00 +0000

Good read, thanks. Always looking out for weird and wonderful stuff to read :)



By: The Body Politik

Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:54:17 +0000

[...] l seek to avoid war, if at all possible. But a day before casting the vote, Clinton “voted against the Levin amendment, which would have required UN approval for the use of [...]



By: Hillary Clinton: Warhawk » Blog Archive » Listen to PRI’s “Radio Opensource” Discussion re Hillary’s War Vote

Sun, 14 Oct 2007 21:51:10 +0000

[...] re right and just, you must listen to PRI’s (now defunct) Radio Opensource episode: Hillary Clinton&# [...]



By: stinkyralph

Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:18:55 +0000

Barbara Lee needs to learn how to shop for food. Taco Bell? Crackers? When we were suffering through grad school in New Mexico we ate a lot of canned beans, rice and tortillas, and eggs. And froze leftovers. Not enough fresh veggies for sure, but better than the garbage she ate. Education about food would be a good start.



By: plnelson

Sun, 10 Jun 2007 15:54:04 +0000

This is a bit tangential, but FWIW I recently added a downloadable antiwar poster (in your choice of sizes!) based on the famous poster for "The Endless Summer", called "The Endless War" to one of my websites. See: http://peterography.com/theposter.htm



By: rc21

Sun, 10 Jun 2007 15:37:35 +0000

A pretty smart weasel at that.



By: Martin Brock

Fri, 08 Jun 2007 16:39:10 +0000

I've called her "Hillary Clinton", "Clinton" and "Hillary". I also call Bush "Dubya", and so do lots of people. People called Bill Clinton "Slick Willy". There's nothing sexist about it. Most politicians don't deserve respect, and Hillary is not particularly exceptional. She's as much a weasel as Bill as far as I can tell.



By: bft

Fri, 08 Jun 2007 12:04:55 +0000

For a while there, a few years back, the media seemed to be making a point of calling her "Hillary Rodham Clinton". Why was that?



By: enhabit

Fri, 08 Jun 2007 00:32:39 +0000

because calling her "clinton" is confusing.



By: knitwit

Thu, 07 Jun 2007 20:33:29 +0000

WHY, WHY, WHY does everyone feel free to call her Hillary when in the same breath they refer to Obama, Edwards, Bush, Cheney and so on. This is a small but insidious sexist holdover. I noticed that Chris L. pretty consistently used Hillary Clinton. She can be just Clinton, you know, her husband can be Bill maybe!



By: plnelson

Thu, 07 Jun 2007 16:06:02 +0000

Iâ€(image) m not buying the Two Party Stateâ€(image) s assumption that Iâ€(image) ll always choose one of their two candidates for fear of the other one. I agree. I'm not one for conspiracy theories but when you look at the whole process by which we select our national leaders and see the crop of idiots, yahoos, egomaniacs, morally and ethically-challenged or mentally unbalanced people who have sought office and received millions of dollars from donors for doing so it's hard to imagine what natural, non-conspiratorial system could result in things being this bad. But the truth is that this is what the American people seem to prefer! As Cindy Sheehan said, (her son...) "Casey died for a country which cares more about who will be the next American Idol than how many people will be killed in the next few months while Democrats and Republicans play politics with human lives" Does she have a problem with that? This is the same US public where only 1 person in a THOUSAND can name all five rights guaranteed under the First Amendment, but a quarter of them can name all five Simpson's characters! It's the same US public that couldn't find Baghdad on a map before the war but they were glued to their TV sets to watch us bomb the city during the invasion. This is the same US public that can't even balance their own checkbooks and are up to their ears in credit-card debt and buy half-million-dollar houses with 5% down on an IT-worker's salary, and we expect them to be concerned about balancing the federal budget?! Is Hillary Clinton really the most skilled and qualified person in this country of 300 million people to lead us for 4 or 8 years? Wrong question. This is America. "Skills" are something for Chinese and Indian engineers to worry about. If we need skills we can import them. "Qualifications" don't matter when you're politically well-connected by family or financial donors. The American public may not know art but they know what they like, and what they like is a slick reality TV show. Who get voted off the island or into the White House is all the same to them as long as it's entertaining.



By: plnelson

Thu, 07 Jun 2007 13:03:47 +0000

plnelson-glad you have come around and hate to be on your case but didnâ€(image) t you say you voted for Bush twice? ??? I see that you're still not one to let facts or data infuence your postings. I've never voted for any Bush. Check out my blog (http://www.peterography.com) if you want to see my views about GWB. For the record I almost never vote in Presidential elections because I live in Massachusetts where your vote has no influence on the outcome, although I once cast a symbolic vote for Nader and another time a symbolic vote for the LP candidate just to strike a political balance. Furthermore my Congressman routinely runs unopposed so I have no role to play there, either. The People's Republic of Massachusetts is a one-party state anyway - except that we don't even have the freedom to vote "nyet" in Congressional elections.



By: Martin Brock

Thu, 07 Jun 2007 12:53:31 +0000

I'm not buying the Two Party State's assumption that I'll always choose one of their two candidates for fear of the other one. If the lesser evil is still unpalatable, neither is a perfectly reasonable, patriotic and civically responsible and choice. Unless Democrats nominate Hitler, I expect their candidate will defeat any of leading Republicans. Bushniks have utterly wrecked any prospect of a long-term, Republican governing coalition, akin to the Democratic coaltion that ruled for decades in the mid-twentieth century. The Reagan era created a real prospect of this sea change, but I now expect cows to fly first. Big Government Conservatism is a non-starter from the word go. People don't want Big Government at all, but if they must have it, they prefer the traditionally Democratic variety. We can only hope that Democrats will at least steer the massive ship of state away from violent entanglement with the least stable regimes on Earth. It's not like we actually need to worry about middle eastern oil. Unless the whole place goes up in smoke, they'll sell it to us, and U.S. imperialism does more to fan the flames than anything else. If we must throw a trillion dollars at something, throw it at biofuels R&D.



By: Potter

Thu, 07 Jun 2007 10:16:20 +0000

plnelson-glad you have come around and hate to be on your case but didn't you say you voted for Bush twice? I don't recall that Clinton was "imperial" either, certainly not the way Bush is. Clinton did not strut around full of his power with cotton in his ears. Quite the contrary. It's pretty scary the choices that are lining up on either side and what the voter will have to face. At the moment John Edwards looks best. Would democrats put Clinton up? I don't think she has a chance. But I would vote for Hillary Clinton (reluctantly) to prevent any of the Republicans running at the moment, each a more frightening choice. I want a president who....



By: shawnfassett

Thu, 07 Jun 2007 07:14:42 +0000

What a waste of a show...how about the candidates who haven't owned up to their waste of support for the Presidency? I'm not a big supporter of Sen. Clinton, but this was just a show to bash her, wasn't it? Pathetic and tired...AND Peter Beinart? With guests like this you reinforce the false meme that EVERYBODY believed this or that when that was NEVER the case. He should have to apologize to everybody he skewered with his writing in support of this President's war and not be allowed to just say that he doesn't have enough world experience or he gets a pass because he didn't live through Vietnam. I didn't live through Vietnam but figured it wasn't something that needed reliving.



By: Me2-BFD

Thu, 07 Jun 2007 05:35:13 +0000

The bottom line is that I can't think of anyone who could have f***ed everything up as much as W. has; Democrat or Republican. Ms. Clinton IS playing to both sides, in order to increase her chances. But, she smart enough to be a decent President and knows that she can't just throw lightning bolts, like W. has. I was disappointed with her husband's move toward the middle, but I'd trade three (hell, thirteen) todays for one day when Bill Clinton was President; and I don't see things being a lot different (from Bill Clinton's Presidency) if Hillary Clinton is elected.



By: peggysue

Thu, 07 Jun 2007 05:18:03 +0000

Code Pink is Fabulous! (the singing is better at the end after HRC's abrupt departure)



By: John R. Ford

Thu, 07 Jun 2007 04:40:24 +0000

uh sorry here http://www.gregpalast.com/hillarys-mother-fing-tour-business/ [quote]Then, in 2000, in a deposition by the Justice Department, the President changed his tune. Investigators confronted the President with this: on June 20, 1994, Hubbell met with Hillary. Two days later, James Riady, the Asian billionaire Entergy partner, met with Hubbell for breakfast. Just a few hours later, Riady returned to the White House, then met again with Hubbell, then made two more treks to the White House. Two days later, a videotape shows the beginning of another meeting in the Oval Office between Clinton and Riady — but oddly, before they talk, the tape goes blank. Two days after that, Hubbell gets his $100,000 through a Riady bank. Lying to journalists is a venal sin, but lying to the Feds is perjury. In his deposition, the Presidentâ€(image) s denial transformed into amnesia. He couldnâ€(image) t remember if Riady mentioned the payment. Then, the President slyly opened the door to the truth. “I wouldnâ€(image) t be surprised if James told me,” Clinton said. Neither would I. What did Riady get? The Flotus herself, says Nolanda Hill, forced Brown to accept the appointment of Riadyâ€(image) s bag man, John Huang, as a Commerce Department deputy. According to records of calls the Guardian obtained via the Freedom of Information Act, Huangâ€(image) s first order of business was to wheedle his way into confidential CIA briefings on Indonesia and China, then call Riady and his Entergy partners. The same day Riady met the President, documents show he called on a Clinton crony at the top of the departmentâ€(image) s Export-Import Bank. “We just came over from the Oval Office,” is a nice way to provide assurance of the ‘political connectionâ€(image) required for help. These and other Riady team meetings at Commerce are marked â€(image) socialâ€(image) . Yet, shortly thereafter, the department agreed to promote and fund the Riady-Entergy China venture. Influence is not a victimless crime. Riady and his minionsâ€(image) visits to the White House (94 times!) included successful requests for the President to meet Indonesian dictator Suharto and to kill negative reports on East Timor and working conditions in Indonesia. Timorese and Indonesians paid for these policy flips with blood. [/quote]



By: John R. Ford

Thu, 07 Jun 2007 04:32:07 +0000

How about Greg Palast's insights into hillary and bills influence on helping walmart and china run over our domestic retail and production systems?



By: peggysue

Thu, 07 Jun 2007 01:48:23 +0000

Martin, OK good point. I may still be feeling tremors because I voted for Nadar in 2000. Not that what happened was his or my fault...



By: katemcshane

Wed, 06 Jun 2007 23:53:19 +0000

For me, Hillary is a narcissist, and narcissists lie. I don't see any integrity. She gives me the creeps. I agree with Jonathan Tasini about what she did at the UN. But that's just one disgusting example of many.



By: janeer

Wed, 06 Jun 2007 23:32:22 +0000

I imagine I was not alone in emailing my senators (in two states), house and senate chair, etc, and the president/vp--futile on all counts--not to vote for the Patriot Act, or we would be in Iraq first, unable to get out, then Iran, then who knows where. Anyone who has taken Psych 101 could see what was going on. A vote for this Patriot Act, a, and this war, b, were votes for themselves: self-preserving, cowardly, knee-jerk fear of Republican criticism. Mrs. Clinton is too ambitious, too political and calculating, too old-time politician to lead, if a leader is indeed what we are seeking. As a lifelong Democrat of her exact age, I am sorry to say it: she will do anything, sacrifice any standard, she thinks will advance her own position. That's not what we need.



By: michatoy

Wed, 06 Jun 2007 23:23:31 +0000

It shows how power and political calculation can make hamburger from porterhouse. In the context of the post-911 times and the heavy pressure of the administration bent on the Iraqi adventure it is understandable that she voted the way she did on the authorization bill. It does not, however, explain her vote against Sen. Levin's diplomacy amendment and that's where the political calculation entered in. She went with the majority because she felt it was the safest course. To me, that disqualifies her for the kind of president I'm looking for.



By: enhabit

Wed, 06 Jun 2007 23:09:32 +0000

this goes beyond making a mistake or "owning up to a mistake" ..this is about an absence of judgement and integrity. after that health care fiasco, hillary has become politicaly cautious to a fault. intestinal fortitude will be a NECESSARY asset in the next presidency..as well as experience. who's got it?



By: sidewalker

Wed, 06 Jun 2007 22:30:08 +0000

Where did/does HRC get most of her campaign funding from and how important has that been to her support for Bush policy and the war? Does HRC support the law to privatize Iraqi oil, which some suggest will require a long-term--Korean style--US military presence to protect production and transportation facilities and personnel? If the answer is yes, is not her talk of ending the war just more empty rhetoric?



By: Dacker

Wed, 06 Jun 2007 22:20:35 +0000

Sen Clinton is a smart woman. She, and the other representatives, clearly knew that they were authorizing the war that followed. Many citizens, including me, let her know our opposition to the bill. She agonized, and then voted the easy, and wrong, way. Unless she apologizes for that vote, nothing she says about it is relevant. Now, why is Kucinich, one of the few who had (and has) the guts to go against the current, invariably dismissed as a fringe candidate?



By: Dacker

Wed, 06 Jun 2007 22:16:27 +0000

Sen Clinton is a smart woman. She, and the other representatives, clearly knew that they were authorizing the war that followed. Many citizens, including me, let her know our opposition to the bill. She agonized, and then voted the easy, and wrong, way. NOTHING



By: W.M. Palmer

Wed, 06 Jun 2007 20:12:08 +0000

Disappointing that you are putting Mr. Beinart, who came off v. poorly, both as a rhetorician and in terms of his actual expertise, on Bill Moyer's show about the decisions leading up to the war, into a lineup with Gerth, Chafee, et al . . . ..



By: Samgr

Wed, 06 Jun 2007 19:59:47 +0000

Thanks bft. You are my roll model.



By: bft

Wed, 06 Jun 2007 19:56:02 +0000

Roll call. Role model.



By: barthjg

Wed, 06 Jun 2007 19:38:39 +0000

i start with the assumption that any of the leading democrats would be a better choice than any republican now running or thinking about running. that party's lack of leadership has reinforced the messes we are in. to a person they have acted without regard to any independent leadership when the facts on the ground --Iraq, Iran, global warming, DOJ, you name it -- point to a reality difft than the White House spin. Bottom line: not one republican has the moral authority to claim the presidency. hillary, like almost everyone else, got snookered on iraq. she is a moderate, not a liberal, and someone at the center of power. each person runnng for the white house studies the same calculus she does: weighing personal ambition with public perception against the weight of their individual passions, experience and common sense. is she calculating? yes. are they all calculating? yes. i won't pillory hillary. do i agree with her approach to issues, pushing for a middle course at what seems like all costs? no. does that make her unprincipled? no. i don;t think the vote on iraq authorization is the sole prism to judge someone's capacity for presidental leadership. she has boxed herself into a corner on iraq. her inability to move beyond the middle -- to admit a mistake, a grave mistake -- IS an issue. there are many ways for her to honestly explain a change in perspective. her inability to do so, this twisting in the wind, this carpace of pride, is one reason i could not support her. iraq just happens to be her testing point.



By: Martin Brock

Wed, 06 Jun 2007 18:18:13 +0000

As far as I know, Hillary is as bent on bombing Iran as anyone in the GOP. Regardless, I won't be frightened into supporting another corporatist shill. If Hillary wants my vote, I've been very clear about how she can earn it; otherwise, I'll be shopping elsewhere.



By: peggysue

Wed, 06 Jun 2007 15:12:37 +0000

Martin Brock, As bad as the Dems are, the GOP has nuking Iran ONTHE TABLE. IMHO even Hillary Clinton would be better than starting a nuclear war.



By: Martin Brock

Wed, 06 Jun 2007 13:39:37 +0000

The U.S. has been ready for a female President for a while, but I doubt that voters are ready for Hillary Clinton. Her poll numbers are pure name recognition at this point. Sheâ€s never held elective office, and aside from the national health care initiative she led in the first Clinton administration and the “me too” war vote, I have no idea where she stands on anything. Sheâ€ll only be the President, so who cares? Itâ€s a fair question, but after the Bush administration, Iâ€m firmly convinced that a President can do a lot of harm, even if s/he canâ€t do a lot of good. If Clinton sticks to her current line, that she was hoodwinked by shoddy intelligence from the Bushniks and wouldnâ€t vote for the war again, this vote alone doesnâ€t disqualify her. On the other hand, this line definitely doesnâ€t qualify her. I wonâ€t vote for any candidate without a firm commitment to withdraw from Iraq without leaving a large military presence or a disproportionate diplomatic presence. I wonâ€t vote for any candidate without a firm commitment not to attack an Iranian nuclear facility without iron-clad evidence, acknowledged by the IAEA and other international inspection agencies, that Iran is actively producing weapons grade uranium and is less than a year away from producing enough for a bomb. “We told you to stop all enrichment and you didnâ€t” is not good enough. I also want firm statements on Social Security reform and tax reform, preferably a parental pension and a progressive consumption tax, along the lines of proposals from the New America Foundation. I want a firm commitment to shift resources from the security-industrial complex toward sustainable energy and other priorities. "More cash for all" is not good enough. Otherwise, Iâ€m not supporting anyone, and Iâ€m staying home, or I'm supporting a protest candidate like Ron Paul. I won't waste my time boosting the prospects of another political celebrity preparing the way for rich speaking fees and book deals with vague rhetoric and corporatist brown nosing.[...]



By: plnelson

Wed, 06 Jun 2007 12:28:35 +0000

If we end up with Hillary Clinton vs. any republican I will vote for her but I wonâ€(image) t actively campaign for her, Due to our Electoral College system unless you live in a state where the vote will be very close your vote has no effect on the outcome anyway. I live in Massachusetts which will vote for the Democrat so I won't have to cross that bridge. And speaking of crossing the Rubicon, what is the rest of the world to make of our imperial presidents? Bush I, Clinton I, Bush II, Clinton II . . . In a "democracy" of 300 million people the best person for the job just happens to be a close relative of a previous Prez? What a COINCIDENCE! Who woulda thunk it?



By: bicyclemark

Wed, 06 Jun 2007 10:27:47 +0000

One of the most disturbing portions of the recent democratic candidate debate was that moment where the moderator asks everyone who supports firing a missile to kill BIn Laden and whomever else gets caught up in the explosion. Suddenly you see almost all candidates... who are supposed to be the non trigger happy-democrats .. raising their hands! (except Kucinich thankfully) For some it may have seemed completely normal, for me it is a sad reality of today's neo-liberal politician.



By: peggysue

Wed, 06 Jun 2007 03:04:32 +0000

That war vote was a travesty. I have not forgiven my own Senator Maria Cantwell or Hillary Clinton who both did what they thought was the popular thing at the time and gave away not only their right but also their duty as Senators to maintain the war powers. I had my ear glued to the radio through the whole thing even though I had to go to work. There was NO excuse for what they did. Congress could still have declared war if need be. They didn't have to turn the congressional power to declare war over to that lying, smirking, megalomaniac creep we call our president. When Hillary says, "If I only knew then what I know now" I sneer. She knew. She isn't stupid. I was listening when she caved in. It was revolting. If we end up with Hillary Clinton vs. any republican I will vote for her but I wonâ€(image) t actively campaign for her, or wear a button with her name on it specifically because she sold us out. Even with Bush as president, it didnâ€(image) t have to be this bad.



By: plnelson

Wed, 06 Jun 2007 02:47:07 +0000

NPR reported today that one US Army officer videotaped Iraqi police laying a roadside bomb. NPR also repoprted another incident in which a roadside bomb was set in full view of an Iraqi police checkpoint. After the bomb went off while a US convoy was passing, US soldiers from the convoy went to the checkpoint, took several Iraqi police prisoner, tied them up, put pags over their heads and beat them severely. Hillary could atone for her past lapses by sponsoring legislation demanding that we withdraw from Iraq NOW, IMMEDIATELY, not in September, not by early 2008, not by the election, not in a "phased withdrawal", but as fast as we can go, starting this minute. They Iraqi's are beastly and the longer we stay there the more beastly they are making us. There is nothing to be gained by staying one day longer.



By: Marc McElroy

Tue, 05 Jun 2007 20:22:48 +0000

It's hard for anyone to admit a mistake. I think American politics has sunken to the point where everyone bases what they say on justifying something. For Clinton in this case it's a past action, but for her and others it's a belief, choice, action, whatever it may be, it's all justification. Every word that comes out of a senator's month these days is some sort of justification. Everyone is on the defensive, all the time. The justification and the lie are close cousins, and they often travel together. sometimes, it's just lying to yourself outloud.



By: Hillary Clinton ‘08 » Hillary Clinton’s War Vote

Tue, 05 Jun 2007 19:56:03 +0000

[...] out her 2008 campaign, the future of the war, and the political … See original here: Katherine Permalink Leave [...]



By: hurley

Tue, 05 Jun 2007 19:20:22 +0000

Apropos (courtesy of 3quarksdaily): http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=E7327616-E7F2-99DF-38F214BFD77FE010&chanID=sa006&colID=13



By: allison

Tue, 05 Jun 2007 19:04:55 +0000

The inability own up to a mistake, feels a lot like more of what we already have in the White House. But, I'm just as concerned about Clinton's current views on the situation. Arianna Huffington got at some of what bothers me, here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/why-hillary-clinton-was-t_b_50657.html It seems to me that we need someone who is willing to step up and talk us down from our need to be 'dominant'. We need to be led away from our consumerism and particularly our wanton use of petroleum. I don't see her walking that walk. She's far too enmeshed in the traditional realpolitik for me.



By: hurley

Tue, 05 Jun 2007 19:02:03 +0000

Like most politicians in our day, Hillary Clinton is a grasping, power-mad hypocrite, remorselessly trying to true (thank you Wm. James) reality to her warped sense of political entitlement, no matter the thousands upon thousands of lives lost in the process. Her refusal to admit her error admits of two conclusions: she doesn't regret it, or she finds it politically expedient to stand by it. Either one a disgrace. Monster.