This is exactly what we need from members of Congress, and I hope we see more of it. Congressman Pascrell, who didn't have a great voting record on Iraq, now supports Murtha's position. He also apologized and is a fire-breather against Iraq.
Most importantly, he's participating in the debate as it's happening by pointing out that Hillary Clinton is just engaging in theater by refusing to admit her mistake.
I said a year and a half ago that I made a mistake. I mean, I confessed. But I mean, regardless of whether it was done in good faith, I did not blame George Bush for my mistake, either, although I think he has lied and deceived the American people. I have to be responsible for my own actions. I made the mistake. I apologized to my constituents. They accepted that apology.....I certainly think a lot of Hillary but I think that this is theater more than anything else. You gotta fess up if you make a mistake.
Clinton took every position possible on Iraq. She argued against preemptive war even as she voted for it, and then was silent on preemption for years until she got pressure from the left. She said that a vote for the war would decrease the chance it would happen. She criticized the competence of Bush while doing nothing to pressure him.
Above all, her argument on Iraq, for five years, is 'nothing can be done'. If you claim that Hillary took a specific position on Iraq, it's easy for her research shop to send you information on how she in fact criticized that particular approach. She did. But that's because she criticized every position on Iraq. Look at this incoherent dribble from her speech authorizing the vote on the war.
Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.
She's making three mutually exclusive arguments. One, her vote for authorizing force makes war less likely. Two, she's framing a vote against the war as being the vote of someone who 'pretends the problem will go away with delay'. Three, she's arguing that a vote against the authorization means that you don't support inspections through the UN.
Now she's able to say that she wanted inspections, she didn't want war, and the critics of her vote misunderstood her. Clinton took all sides of the issue in her arguments, but her vote was crystal clear. She voted for war. Lots of other people did too, but at least they aren't lying to us about it and have learned something.
We're all tired of this theater. Good for Pascrell.
UPDATE: Credit where credit is due. Here's Clinton just now on Iran:
It would be a mistake of historical proportion if the administration thought that the 2002 resolution authorizing force against Iraq was a blank check for the use of force against Iran without further Congressional authorization.Nor should the president think that the 2002 resolution authorizing force after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 in any way authorizes force against Iran. If the administration believes that any, any use of force against Iran is necessary, the president must come to Congress to seek that authority.
More please.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 36 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
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.
