MyDD :: NY Times Rich: Hillary 'Enabling' War with Iran = Democratic Defeat

NY Times Rich: Hillary 'Enabling' War with Iran = Democratic Defeat

by TarHeel, Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 11:31:56 AM EST

Frank Rich is making some of the points Obama, Edwards and others have made regarding Hillary both in terms of doubletalk, being bush-lite and enabling Bush on Iran.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/opinio n/04rich.html?n=Top/Opinion/Editorials%2 0and%20Op-Ed/Op-Ed/Columnists/Frank%20Ri ch

But what happens if President Bush does not bomb Iran? That is good news for the world, but potentially terrible news for the Democrats. If we do go to war in Iran, the election will indeed be a referendum on the results, which the Republican Party will own no matter whom it nominates for president. But if we don't, the Democratic standard-bearer will have to take a clear stand on the defining issue of the race. As we saw once again at Tuesday night's debate, the front-runner, Hillary Clinton, does not have one.

.....

This time around, with the exception of Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic candidates seem to be saying what they really believe rather than trying to play both sides against the middle. Only Mrs. Clinton voted for this fall's nonbinding Kyl-Lieberman Senate resolution, designed by its hawk authors to validate Mr. Bush's Iran policy. The House isn't even going to bring up this malevolent bill because, as Nancy Pelosi has said, there has "never been a declaration by a Congress before in our history" that "declared a piece of a country's army to be a terrorist organization."

............

Potentially facing that Republican may be a Democrat who is not in favor of rushing to war in Iran but, now as in 2002, may well be in favor of walking to war. In any event, she will not have been a leader in making the strenuous case for an alternative policy that defuses rather than escalates tensions with Tehran.

Noun + verb + 9/11 -- also Mr. Bush's strategy in 2004, lest we forget -- would once again square off against a Democratic opponent who was for a pre-emptive war before being against it.

I fully expect the middle portion of this youtube on Hillary's contradictory Iraq positions to end up in a TV commercial.

Tags: Frank rich (all tags)

Permalink :: 29 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: NY Times Rich: Hillary 'Enabling' War with Ira (none / 0)

At least Hillary is being honest and consistent. She says the IRG is a terrorist force that needs to be confronted with sanctions, and votes to do just that.

Biden, Richardson, Dodd, Edwards and Obama all say that the IRG is a terrorist force that needs to be confronted with sanctions, than oppose the bill that would actually apply the sanctions they all say we need. what the hell kind of sense does that make?

"What do Barack Obama and David Koresh have in common? Too god damn much."

by ThinkingDem on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 11:34:36 AM EST

how is saying (none / 0)

you're "going to bring the troops home" but "maintain combat troops in Iraq" consistent?

McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions

by TarHeel on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 11:35:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: how is saying (none / 0)

What does that have to do with Iran?

BTW, Edwards supports keeping troops in the region such as Kuwait. He even supports having 3500-5000 troops used as security to protect the embassies in Iraq. So the questions are: Why is he leaving troops in the region? Why is he using our troops as a security force? Isn't putting troops in Iraq to protect the embassies the same as putting troops in harms way? Do we let terrorist cells to form in Iraq after we leave, or do we respond and take them out?

Here are the links:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-smaRKuBp5E
http://youtube.com/watch?v=N0VsWvZPaPE

Edwards supporters love to call me a liar everytime I speak of Edwards and troll rate me. So here are the words out of Edwards' own mouth.

Restore America's Strength.

by RJEvans on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 06:21:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: how is saying (none / 0)

Taken from The Atlantic:

Edwards seems to me to have on display here a tendency to say something very smart and then to some extent take it back. After a strident call for withdrawal from Iraq, he said that, well, he actually might keep some troops in Iraq. After a great attack ("some politicians have fallen right in line behind President Bush's recent proposal to add 92,000 troops between now and 2012, with little rationale given for exactly why we need this many troops") on his rivals, Edwards winds up punting a little while later -- "we might need a substantial increase of troops . . . proposals are worth close examination . . . need to avoid throwing numbers around . . . I will carefully assess the post-Iraq threat environment . . . determine the exact number of troops we need."

Source: http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/a rchives/2007/05/on_the_speech_seriously. php

So is Edwards "changing" his mind again? He says we may have to keep troops in Iraq but does not voice that on the campaign trail and attacks Clinton for saying so?

Restore America's Strength.

by RJEvans on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 06:34:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clearly (none / 0)

"thinking Democrat" has all the foreign policy knowledge of my dog...or Rudy Giuliani. Which ever one knows less.

Methinks that "thinking Hillary Hack" was already taken.

The difference between the two is that being a "thinking Democrat" would not make you unique, but being a "thinking Hillary Hack" would make you VERY unique.

Thank you for stealing your last line from my grandfather.

With your "What the hell kind of sense does that make?", you remind me of him yelling at some football coach on TV.

As far as why you are wrong.

Two words - Unitary Executive.

Kyl-Lieberman are the two honorary co-chairs of CPD, which basically brings together a bunch of Wingnut organizations to play the fear card to, among other things, argue that Iran constitutes a "present danger" (hence the committee's name).

Pop quiz: What is the term "clear and present danger" often used to justify?

After all they've done, do you really want to give the neocons wiggle room?

I mean seriously, WHAT THE HELL KIND OF SENSE DOES THAT MAKE?

The bold progressive leader is the most electable candidate. Reclaim the Democratic Party! Support John Edwards.

by Michael 4 Edwards on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 11:58:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

migth want to read what nancy pelosi (none / 0)

says in the column.

that the congress has never in the history of the US taken up a resolution to declare part of a sovereign nations state sponsored group a terrorist agency

McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions

by TarHeel on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 11:58:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times Rich: Hillary 'Enabling' War with Ira (none / 0)

We might as well engaged those terrorists wherever they may be, including the Iranian Revolutionary Guard which would... oh wait, become a war with Iran. BRILLIANT!

by KainIIIC on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 12:17:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times Rich: Hillary 'Enabling' War with Ira (1.50 / 2)

Consistent? She votes for a non-binding resolution. How is that consistent with what you suggest?

The only thing consistent about Clinton is that she is a warmonger that supports Neocon wars.

If it's good enough for Joey it's good enough for Hillary! Like two peas in a pod.

by Hillary Lieberman on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 12:40:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times Rich: Hillary 'Enabling' War with Ira (none / 0)

RJEvans abused the rating system.

If it's good enough for Joey it's good enough for Hillary! Like two peas in a pod.

by Hillary Lieberman on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 06:50:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

2000 redux (none / 0)

just like when Frank Rich kept writing that Al Gore was a big fal liar and actually made up lies to accuse him being a liar...

i suggest you read the daily howler about this huge horses ass, if you wanna see the truth about this guys role in helping to destroy our chances in that crucial election.

its deja vu all over again...just like bradley, the Edwards campaign have picked up the attack lines pushed by the jerks in the Dc political media and think that this justifies their attacks on one of our own.

Morons.

Anybody who hasnt learned that those fools in the 'elite media" are our allies are dumber then a melting ice cube.

Remember in 2000, it was the fools like rich and the numnuts in the Bradley campaign who accused gore of being a liar - before the GOP ever DARED to....but after they did this to our own, the GOP gleefully joined in...

Its deja vu all over again...

Nader must be loving this!

"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Democrat Party "Hack" and President Harry S Truman

by holden caulfield on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 01:37:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times Rich: Hillary 'Enabling' War with Ira (none / 0)

she just signed a letter saying to bush to stop the sabre rattling with Iran- how is this consistent with her previous vote on this bill?

by bruh21 on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 04:39:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

seriously (none / 0)

we saw how Kerry was perceived.

Penn has his work cut out for him to convince people Hillary is not an insincere pol

McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions

by TarHeel on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 05:08:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: seriously (none / 0)

Well they have the advantage that the tides are against the GOP. i believe thats what theya re counting on more so than having to explain what they say. Remember much of what is posted here is really just from the campaign volunteers trying to neutralize any threat, as hwc has said, from A list blogs.

by bruh21 on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 06:56:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: seriously (none / 0)

I want to really emphasis that point- much of what you read here is just spin by the clinton campaign and online volunteers whether directed by the campaign or not. Its pretty much disingenous conversations- such as the fake conversions by some people here- all of its too clearly narrative and message driven stuff to be real thoughts of real supporters. I know real supporters offline who are unaffiliated- they typically know very little of the policy parsing you see here.

by bruh21 on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 06:58:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: seriously (none / 0)

I can't believe you are acusing Clinton supporters for working for the Clinton campaign. What proof do you have? Your baseless claims is insulting to the discourse. How do we know Edwards supporters are not working for the Edwards campaign? With the way the flock to Rec diaries supportive of Edwards, you would think they do, yet you don't hear me accusing them of working for the campaign.

Restore America's Strength.

by RJEvans on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 07:17:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times Rich: Hillary 'Enabling' War with Ira (none / 0)

You think her vote was a vote for war. Show me where the Amendment says it authorizes war with Iran. It does not. Saying Bush/Cheney will use it as a basis for war does not mean it authorizes military action. Second, In February of 2007, before any other Democratic candidates, Clinton said the President MUST seek congressional approval for any military action against Iran. Clinton's vote for the Kyl Amendment has been CONSISTENT and has always been CONSISTENT with her views of diplomacy. You are framing the debate to further your candidate's attacks.

Clinton's position is the following: She support's labeling the IRG a terrorist group because of it's meddling in Iraq and support for terrorism. She support vigorous diplomacy with the Iranian government to rein it in so it can end it's nuclear program. She does not want war with Iran and supports congressional approval for any offensive military action against Iran.

How is that inconsistent?

Restore America's Strength.

by RJEvans on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 06:00:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times Rich: Hillary 'Enabling' War with Ira (none / 0)

I can't show you anything you don't want to see. That's rather the point of dealing with many of you at this point. Light can't be shown to the willfully blind.

by bruh21 on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 06:24:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times Rich: Hillary 'Enabling' War with Ira (none / 0)

I am ASKING you to show me, which means I WANT to see the proof. You obviously have no definitive proof that the Kyl Amendment was a vote for war with Iran as many of you claim.

Restore America's Strength.

by RJEvans on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 06:36:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times Rich: Hillary 'Enabling' War with Ira (none / 0)

You just are repeating yourself. And, therefore, I guess I must due the same. In essense your point is that I can't convince you that Kyl had the effect of emboldening Bush to sabre rattle. I suppose Iraq or context doesn't weigh very much in your reality, if at all. But that's the point-w e are dealing with your faith based reality. Well, okay. I get that. But then to ask me to convince you understand such circumstances of anything is an impossibility. It's like the flat earth argument. I don't know if you are familar with it. It's like asking me to convince you that the earth is not flat when you have determined that despite all evidence to the contrary that in fact the earth is flat. At what point is your lack of belief on me, and at what point is it on you. I think there is more than enough information out there if this were a matter of evidence for you to figure this out. That you have no is indication or evidence of willful or deliberate blindness. This isn't a discussion of evidence to convince you- This is a discussion of your willful blindness to the evidence already on the table. Thus, returning me to my point- I can't make the willfully blind see the light. You asking for an impossibility.

by bruh21 on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 06:50:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times Rich: Hillary 'Enabling' War with Ira (none / 0)

By the way- over the short term your approach works because it's really in essense a problem that the American people have. They base much on faith. Bill Maher got it right when he asked- how can we trust people who have shown such fundamentally bad jugement. The reason I can support Edwards now is that he isn't making excuses for his fuck ups. As he said- her vote her shows she learned nothing from trusting Bush before. This vote whetehr you get it or not- means she gave a vote of trust for Bush. That's the politics of it. You can parse the bill as much as you want. You can claim it doesn't say that as much as you want. Clinton isn' stupid. She knows full well thats the politics of it. So do the people of Iowa- that's why it didn't poll well and she had to change strategy. I frankly not sure what to tell you beyond that its a sign of poor political judgement.

by bruh21 on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 06:54:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times Rich: Hillary 'Enabling' War with Ira (none / 0)

Buddy, stop philosophizing, stop insulting me and answer the question. I am ASKING you to provide the proof to me that the Kyl Amendment was a vote for war. You have yet to do that, which is a sign you have no proof.

Why won't you answer the question with proof? If I disagree, I will provide the proof that proves my rebuttal.

This is not the first time you have tried to dance around a question asked by me. Answer the question.

Restore America's Strength.

by RJEvans on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 07:11:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times Rich: Hillary 'Enabling' War with Ira (none / 0)

Okay- less nice. I am not interested in convincing the ignorant, not to be ignorant. How is that?

by bruh21 on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 07:16:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times Rich: Hillary 'Enabling' War with Ira (none / 0)

The only one that is ignorant is the one who can't answer a simple question.

I wonder why is that?

You see, I am here to have a conversation. When one person does not wish to respond intelligently to the question at hand, how am I to have a conversation?

I ask again: Please provide definitive proof that the Kyl Amendment was an authorization for war that you and many Edwards supporters claim.

Restore America's Strength.

by RJEvans on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 07:20:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times Rich: Hillary 'Enabling' War with Ira (none / 0)

By the way, you got my argument in the first post. All that has followed after that has beena bout the fact you aren't interested in that argument, but instead claiming "you are unconvinced." I am not interested in convincing someone like you not to be willfully ignorant. This will be my last post to you because like way way way too many posters on here, you aren't interested in anything but spin and a lot of fucking wasted electrons.

by bruh21 on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 07:19:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times Rich: Hillary 'Enabling' War with Ira (none / 0)

bruh21. I am ASKING you to PROVIDE the PROOF that the Kyl Amendment is a vote for war as you claim. I am ASKING you. I am not interested in spin. I am not interested in silencing you. I am asking you to prove your point. How are you suppose to change minds and bring people on your side if you don't "educate" them. Provide the proof. Provide the proof. Provide the proof. I am asking you to provide the proof and you are saying NO to me. Provide the proof. Why is that hard to do? Provide the proof, bruh.

Let it be seen today that bruh21 does not want to discuss the issues, does not want to answer questions and is only interested in insulting users.

Restore America's Strength.

by RJEvans on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 07:25:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Iran as election year football (none / 0)

Rich is convinced that Bush will not attack Iran, so in the terms of this column there is no war to "enable". He is arguing that Clinton's vote for Kyl/Lieberman neutralizes her ability to argue against the Republican nominee and will cause her to lose the general election. He is wrong for a number of reasons, but fundamentally:

1. Iran has a nuclear program and is working to build nuclear weapons.

2. Iran has legitimate interests in the future of Iraq and is taking action in Iraq to protect those interests. Iran's interest do not align with ours.

There is dispute over how long it will take Iran to build a nuclear weapon, and over what specific actions Iran has taken in Iraq, but none of the major candidate dispute these two points. There is also dispute within the administration over whether to deal with Iran militarily or diplomatically, Rich thinks that the diplomatic side has the upper hand.

The dispute within the Democratic presidential primary is whether to push the administration to use diplomatic tools (Kyl/Lieberman) or to focus only on preventing Bush from using military tools (Webb). Clinton has decided to do both, the rest only support the latter.

by souvarine on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 02:42:19 PM EST

Re: NY Times Rich: Hillary 'Enabling' War with Ira (none / 0)

Hillary's position is starting to look a bit attenuated. She triangulated herself into straddling the fence and now she's stuck. Good luck, Hillary, back out slowly the way you came in is the golden rule of barbed wire.

by Shaun Appleby on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 03:25:23 PM EST

I wonder (none / 0)

when someone besides dodd is going to point out that the text of the bill she called "stepped up diplomacy" does not contain the word diplomacy in it.

today Dodd claimed that the part of the bill requiring stepped up diplomacy was stripped from the final version

McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions

by TarHeel on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 04:21:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Rich has BALLS! (none / 0)

Isn't Rich one of the guys that enabled the Bush Administration push for the Iraq war? Now he has the audacity to come after Hillary on Iran? Give me a freakin' break.

by lonnette33 on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 08:23:54 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.