Thursday, March 29, 2007

If You Were Staunchly Anti-War, Who Would You Support?

Apparently, if you're Congressman McGovern, the war-hawk candidate for President. Weird.


Anonymous said...


Ryan, you're always so very sober in your judgements. This comment seems uncharacteristically passionate!

While Senator Clinton's opposition to Bush's policies in Iraq has not been exactly strident, she has certainly not been a "war hawk" either.

I am not a moderate Democrat. However, the moderate Democratic view, as much as I can piece it together, is this: Bush needed authorization back in 2002 to force Iraqi compliance. The unilateral invasion went beyond Congressional intent. The occupation was immensely mismanaged. Having invaded, the U.S. has responsibilities to the Iraqis and to the region. We cannot leave behind a regional conflict or give the green light to genocide. Our redeployment must be measured.

I think that there are numerous things wrong with that view. I do not share it. However we are not going to get the kind of Democratic unity we need to withdraw from Iraq until it is answered fully and respectfully.

The War Hawks, by contrast, mouth incoherent things about the success of the escalation, Al Qaeda, Islamofascism, and democratic aspirations. Moderate Democrats are a whole league beyond that stuff.


Ryan Adams said...

Opinions polls show that America wants a pullout, at least starting within the year and finishing asap after. To stay in Iraq is not a moderate position.

Hillary Clinton IS a warhawk. She voted for Iraq, supported it all the way and still wants to stay there. That's a view far out of the mainstream, which means she is not moderate. Furthermore, Hillary has uttered several of those things in her time as well, utterring connections between Iraq and 9/11 and other such nonsense.

Anonymous said...

On the Hunt for Utterances

I've started looking into Hillary Clinton's war opinions more closesly as a result of your comments. I notice that Wikipedia has an entry not just on Senator Clinton but a separate one on her views as well. There's also a major Washington Post article from December 12, 2005, a Salon article from February 14 of this year, and a New York Magazine article from July 10, 2006. Maybe I should write a diary somewhere on this -- dKos or BMG.

I think the Iraq resolution vote was wrong, but largely because of who was in the White House. In the hands of President Gore, such an authorization would have been a force for good. Yes, I knew Bush was lying and yes, that seemed clear to me.

Hillary Clinton has been very slow to admit that "success" in Iraq, i.e., a stable and democratic government, was not achievable. She tries to strike a balance between the six month time table and an open-ended commitment. In fact, she has been adament about the open-ended commitment being wrong.

Her positions on Iraq seem to have been generally cautious. She has studiously avoided getting out in front on the issue. Senator Clinton is regarded by the Right Wing lunatics as the very personification of Defeatocrat Liberalism -- despite her actual views! Given their noise, caution seems warranted.

For me, I will choose a different mix of policies, skills, and temperments than what Senator Clinton offers. However, I want Hillary Clinton to remain an electable Democratic choice for President. If she is nominated, I want to see her crush whoever the Republicans put up.


Ryan Adams said...

I'll support her if she wins the nomination too - and I think she'd make a solid president, at least in competency. However, she really needs to stop obfuscating so much and come around on Iraq.

Anonymous said...

This Just In

Speaking of Hillary Clinton and Iraq, the folks at Talking Point Memo have come out with this handy voting comparison guide. It shows the Iraq-related votes of Obama, Clinton, and Lieberman. You will note that the voting records of Obama and Clinton are almost indistinguishable.


Ryan Adams said...

Obama doesn't thrill me either. None of them do.

Run, Al, Run!

Ed in Swampscott said...

Dennis Kucinich.

But he has already lost the "media primary", and is not being treated like a serious candidate on par with Clinton or Obama, even though his viewpoint more closely reflects the opinions of the majority of the American public on the war, and other things.

Such is the state of our democracy...

Ryan Adams said...

I'm not a fan of Dennis Kucinich at all. For starters, his only executive position, as the mayor of a large city (I think Cleveland)... he was ranked as one of the 10 worst ever and ran out of office. Second, he's said a lot of things that spark red flags all over me. Third, I don't think he's really pro-choice (he only started saying he was pro-choice literally just before he ran for president last time around). Kos posted about a lot of these things if you're interested in a read.

About Ryan's Take