Six Reasons I Will Not Vote for Clinton

Posted in Elections on Wednesday, January 9th, 2008 at at 9:11 pm by TheRanter

Yes vote on Public law 107-40 authorizing the use of military force anywhere and against anyone closely or remotely associated with the September 11 terrorists. The text says that this law does not supercede any requirement of the War Powers Resolution, limiting the president’s ability to use military force, but it effectively gave a blank check to the president, allowing him to attack anywhere he pleased. This is an unforgiveable breach of the public trust in the legislative branch to maintain a system of checks and balances and no less so because not a single senator had the backbone to stand up and say that the resolution was too broad and too vague.

Yes vote on the use of force in Iraq. In her speech on the senate floor, Senator Clinton noted that attacking Iraq was fraught with danger and set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. She said that international support was crucial. And yet, she voted to give Bush the power to attack Saddam without international support, without an exit plan. Yes, we are the cops of the world, like Phil Ochs said, and like it or not you have to be free. We have been violently “spreading democracy” for decades now, and which of these actions has succeeded? Putting the shah in power in Iran? Yup, they’re democratic allies of the US now, right? Assassinating the leader of South Viet Nam and waging war against the communists in North Viet Nam? Yup, they’re an enlightened democracy and good friends of ours (actually, they are friendly to us, but that’s despite our actions). Effectively waging war against Cuba first with the Bay of Pigs and then economically? Yup, we’re friends with them and they have a free and open democracy. Putting our buddy Pinochet in power in Chile? That certainly spread democracy in South America and stabilized the region. Think of one war or coup d’état that the US initiated that made us safer and made the world more stable and democratic. It has never worked anywhere to my knowledge. The cases where our use of military force ultimately led to freer and more democratic societies would basically be limited to joining the fray in the Great War and World War II.
Recent bellicose statements saying that she would consider using military force against Iran. I remember many years ago a leftist commentator (Alexander Cockburn) said that if you listen to any Democrat long enough he (or she) will promise to invade somewhere. Since I heard that about 15 years ago, it has basically held true. Prior to WWII, the Republicans at least had the virtue of being isolationist. Now that the Republicans are imperialists and the Democrats are too except in the liberal wing (and sometimes even there), the only check on the US use of military power seems to be lack of funds. I will only vote for someone with a slight sense of history who understands that Chamberlain appeasing Hitler is NOT the only episode in history from which one can draw lessons.
Clinton’s utter inability to give a straight up, non-political, non-nuanced answer to any question, but especially her bullshit refrain about how Bush misled the nation and she would not have voted yes for the use of force if she knew then what she knows now. Well DUH! Bush probably wouldn’t vote for the use of force in Iraq if he knew then what he knows now either. This answer is so aggravating that I could scream. Ms. Clinton is a US senator from the opposition party. It is her responsibility to make sure that the administration has vetted their intelligence and demand that they have their plans carefully considered. I didn’t believe Bush had sufficient proof or an adequate war plan. If I had been in the Senate I would have used my power to make Bush present his intelligence more fully prior to writing him a blank check to drive our nation into the ground. Hillary is packaged and prepared like a Big Mac. She has had so much practice being in the public limelight and biting her tongue that I just don’t believe she even has the capacity to say what’s on her mind anymore. Granted, that’s an improvement over Mister Bring-it-on, but I would like a straight answer from time to time that nevertheless has a bit of thought behind it.
Then of course, there’s the wolf in wolf’s clothing argument. We are talking, after all, about a former Wal-Mart lawyer. Even as her husband centered his campaign around criticizing Arkansas Power, she was the lawyer representing them, which is fine except for the fact that she carefully avoided all of this on her official First Lady biography.
Did she do anything about her husband’s use of Guantanamo for illegal detention of Haitian refugees? I don’t think so. Suddenly Bush does it and it’s terrible.