Once Again, a Clinton Muddies the War Issue
MORE
Wise Guys
Here we go again.
The last time a Clinton’s path to the Democratic presidential nomination was blocked, the campaign used a war in the Middle East to create an artificial—but politically devastating—caricature of its opponent.
The year was 1992, the opponent was Paul Tsongas, and the war in question was the Gulf War, a subject on which Tsongas and Bill Clinton had one thing in common: When the war had been debated in Congress in January 1991, they’d both agreed with its opponents.
But Bill Clinton added a hedge: After ducking reporters for months, he finally said, on the eve of the invasion, that he would probably have voted for it—even though he agreed with those who opposed it.
And then, a year later, he used his “support” for it to bury Tsongas in the critical Florida primary, attacking Tsongas’ principled war opposition to advance his ridiculous charge that Tsongas was “soft” on Israel—a lethal accusation in Florida Democratic politics.
The Clintons took Tsongas’ Gulf War position and a few out-of-context quotes and old Senate votes, turned them into scary leaflets and blanketed heavily Jewish areas with them. Then, days before the primary, they sent in a New York congressman named Stephen Solarz to ratchet up the scare tactics to absurd—but, again, devastating—heights.
“At a moment when potentially the fate of Israel hung in the balance,” Solzarz told Jewish voters, “Clinton was prepared to use force. Tsongas was not.’’
Linking opposition to the Gulf War to Israel’s security was inflammatory and disingenuous, and Bill Clinton had only begun praising the war after it was fought and won. But the tactic worked.
Tsongas was thrown on the defensive, forced to rebut each supposed example of his “softness” on Israel manufactured by the Clintons, drowning out his own message. All the while, Bill Clinton fulminated against the press, fuming about its supposed favoritism toward Tsongas—a tactic that spurred much of the press to prove its fairness by treating Clinton’s sham attacks as a straightforward policy dispute.
Jewish voters turned on Tsongas and flocked to Mr. Clinton, who won Florida, and the Tsongas campaign was effectively finished.
And now, 16 years later, the Clintons are doing the same thing.
This time their target is Barack Obama. Their charge is that he is a flip-flopping hypocrite. And their new weapon is the Iraq war.
Just like Bill Clinton with the Gulf War, Hillary Clinton would hardly seem to be in position to rub the war in her opponent’s face. She voted to authorize it (and said absolutely nothing when President Bush launched the 2003 invasion without letting U.N. weapons inspectors finish their work), while Mr. Obama, months before the invasion, said that it would be “a dumb war, a rash war, a war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.”
That prescient war opposition, and the contrast with Hillary’s own war vote, has helped fuel the Obama campaign. So now the Clintons are trying to discredit him with the same strategy they used against Paul Tsongas.
Bill Clinton got the ball rolling just before the New Hampshire primary with his “biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen” characterization of Obama’s war opposition. The Clinton argument: Mr. Obama may have opposed the war in 2002 and 2003, but as a senator, he’s voted to fund it.
Hillary echoed the attack a few days later on NBC’s Meet the Press, and she dispatched Jamie Rubin, a State Department spokesman under Bill Clinton, to play the Solarz role, vouching for the Clintons’ version of events and asserting that there’s really no difference between Hillary and Mr. Obama on Iraq.
And once again they are launching their attack while Bill Clinton simultaneously slams the media for its supposed unfairness.
The Clinton attack is substantively thin. It’s certainly true that Mr. Obama has voted to fund the war—but those votes also provided funding for troops in the field, and they came only after it was clear that Congress lacked the votes to force an unwilling president to begin a withdrawal. Some of the top war opponents in Congress—like Wisconsin’s David Obey, who opposed the invasion from the start—have also resisted the idea of cutting off funds.
If the inability of Congressional Democrats to stop the war has taught us anything, it’s that the only vote on Iraq that has really mattered these past five years was the very first one, in October 2002.
Hillary Clinton supported it and Barack Obama opposed it.
Simple facts didn’t get in the way of Bill Clinton’s argument 16 years ago. They certainly don’t seem to bother Hillary Clinton today.
Thank you for the insightful analysis. The Clintons and their supporters campaign negatively and untruthfully. They spread lies about the other candidates. Today, they are spreading lies about Senator Obama, since he is her strongest competitor. For example, see how she smeared his record on abortion rights in New Hampshire, just in time for the primary, by googling "new hampshire clinton criticizes negative mailing", and clicking on a relevant link.
Hillary Clinton conveniently makes up facts whenever she believes it benefits her. For example, google "Edmund Hillary Clinton" to find the story that she claimed that her mother named her for the famous explorer, even though she was born 6 years before he gained fame as the co-conqueror of Mt. Everest. She ad-libbed this lie for political gain at the time.
Remember her book, "It Takes a Village"? She claims sole authorship it when another person, Barbara Feinman Todd actually wrote the majority of it. Other presidential candidates who write books with ghost writers give credit to the ghost writers on the cover of their books (for example, see the cover of John McCain's "Faith of my Fathers", where he gives credit to writer Mark Salter), while Clinton selfishingly refuses to Ms. Feinman Todd any credit at all-- not even an acknowledgement in the text! Remember-- claiming somebody else's work as your own is called plagiarism. (Google "it takes a village barbara feinman" to see the full true story).
For any of you doubters, note that all of these instances have been reported by many credible media outlets, like the Associated Press, the New York Times, and of course the New York Observer, etc.
Is Hillary Clinton a person you would want as a colleague or as the leader of your team? Someone who lies whenever it favors them? Readers, please do not vote for her. You will be giving a very selfish person power and thus by proxy give power to the lobbyists and the corporations who have funded her lifestyle and campaign.
Politicians who would distort Senator Obama's Iraq War stance for their own political gain should not be allowed back in the oval office. When will the American electorate rise up and reject the return of gutter politics and other risky behaviors in the oval office? Now is the time to end the deviant, divisive politics on the Iraq War issue. Now is the time to close the chapter on this War and end the political careers of those who would exploit this war for their own political gain. Elect Barack Obama President!
The media needs to do more of this, showing how the Clintons distort the records of their opponents. Barack Obama has not changed his stance on the war, nor his support for our troops. We can not let the politics of fear, hate, and business as usual continue to rule the day in Washington. Vote Barack Obama in 2008.
The media needs to do more of this, showing how the Clintons distort the records of their opponents. Barack Obama has not changed his stance on the war, nor his support for our troops. We can not let the politics of fear, hate, and business as usual continue to rule the day in Washington. Vote Barack Obama in 2008.
First, Obama's record is being completely distorted by the Clintons. Obama was against the war from jump and it was VERY risk for his to come out against it, especially since he was not a Senator yet. If it would have gone the other way, his career would have been ruined.
Second, Clinton voted to invade Iraq. All this "experience and insight that she has in Washington" should have led her to vote differently, especially when there was NOT valid information supporting the lie that the war was origianlly built on...the weapons of mass destruction.
Third:
a. Obama in 2005,called for a phased withdrawal of our troops;
b. 2006, he called for a timetable to remove our troops, a political solution within Iraq, and aggressive diplomacy with all of Iraq’s neighbors;
c. January 2007, he introduced legislation in the Senate to remove all of our combat troops from Iraq by March 2008; and
d. September 2007, he laid out a detailed plan for how he will end the war as president.
Do NOT believe the hype. Sen. Clinton CANNOT HONESTLY & CONFIDENTLY RUN on her record!! She has been inconsistent!!
SEN. OBAMA WILL RESTORE OPEN AND HONEST GOVERNMENT!!
Out with Old school politics....NEW SCHOOL FUTURISTIC POLITICS IN '08....
OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT!!!!
End the royal legacy of: Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clinton!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you for this insightful article. You can double check Barack Obama's record on the Iraq War here: http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/13/comparing_iraq_records.p...
It's well known that the Clintons don't mind fudging the truth a little when it suits them. I have been a little concerned about their willingness to use distortions of the facts to discredit a fellow Democrat.
It just shows how desperate they are to get back in the White House, and that they are in many ways just like so many other DC politicians we've come to view with disgust.
It also shows that they recognize the rising tide of support for Senator Obama, and they really need to try to derail the momentum.
They have chosen probably the most sensitive issue for most Americans, since almost all of us have someone that we know or are close to who is serving in harms way or is subject to deployment at any time. This is the most despicable aspect of their strategy. To play on our emotions and sensitivities toward such a raw wound as our lost and at-risk loved ones with misrepresentations of the facts, is just plain wrong.
While Senator Obama has done all that he can to keep the campaign above board, the Clintons can't seem to help but take us into a more seedy side of politics and public life. While much of the last episode was not really brought before us by them, the Clintons did provide the dirt from which the slung mud was made.
I only hope that we do not allow this same type of dirty politics to sway us like it has in the past. Even if you do not back Senator Obama, please don't let it be because of twisted versions of the facts.
The time is now for change in the way we conduct our political business. Most of us, if we are true to our own deepest instincts know that Barack Obama, while not perfect, is the best hope for a brighter future that we've had in this country in 40 years. Let's make sure we make this new day a reality.