Do Over!

Sen. Clinton Thinks Senators Should Play by Kids’ Rules

By Mark I Posted in | Comments (25) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Remember when you were a kid and a disagreement erupted during a game? Remember how the sides would argue and argue until one side won? Remember how sometimes, the argument could not be settled and someone would suggest that there be a do over? The Do Over was the savior of many a kids game. It allowed both sides to end the disagreement satisfied that their argument prevailed, and it allowed each side a second chance at whatever caused the controversy in the first place. Usually, the Do Over result vindicated one side of the argument by convincing everyone that this is the way the controversy should have been settled all along.

With that as background, here comes America’s Ex-Wife™, Sen. Hillary!™ Clinton with a proposal designed to bring an end to the Iraq War. She and Sen. Robert Byrd are proposing a Do Over for the entire Iraq enterprise.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton proposed Thursday that Congress repeal the authority it gave President Bush in 2002 to invade Iraq,…” It is time to reverse the failed policies of President Bush and to end this war as soon as possible,” Mrs. Clinton said as she joined Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, in calling for a vote to end the authority as of Oct. 11, the fifth anniversary of the original vote.

And with one magic cry of, “Do Over!” Sen. Clinton seeks to paper over her original vote for the authorization for the use of military force in Iraq.

Read on…

The political calculation in Sen. Clinton’s plea for a second chance is so patently obvious that even the linked New York Times doesn’t bother treating the proposal as serious.

Even if Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Byrd succeed in their effort, it is not clear whether President Bush would have to withdraw troops, or if he could resist by claiming that Congress cannot withdraw its earlier authorization but instead has to deny money for the war to achieve that result. […]

Mostly, Mrs. Clinton appeared to be trying to claim a new leadership position among the Democratic presidential candidates against the war in Iraq.

Sen. Clinton’s original vote for the authorization has dogged her throughout her presidential campaign. Her two closest rivals, Sen. Obama and former Sen. Edwards, do not carry the baggage that she does on the Iraq war among the radically left wing base of the Democratic Party. Obama campaigns on his opposition to the war from the beginning. Sen. Edwards repudiated his vote for the war long ago. Sen. Clinton until now had been looking for a way to stand by her vote while at the same time criticizing the Administration for the conduct of the war. But, with Obama and Edwards pushing her from the left, and Obama actually overtaking her in a recent poll, Hillary!™ seems to have made the strategic choice to repudiate her original vote in a most Clintonian way, by making it disappear.

Now, her advisers say, a vote to withdraw authorization would make plain to antiwar and liberal Democrats that she was repudiating her 2002 vote. The hope among her aides was that demands by antiwar voters for her to apologize for her vote would be rendered moot.

She made her announcement in a speech on the Senate floor and in a series of supposedly clarifying statements by aides. If her intent was to lay out a coherent position on the war, she failed miserably. Try to follow the bouncing ball in this passage of the Times article.

Mrs. Clinton said her push for a new vote on the war authority did not mean she would oppose whatever new spending measure might emerge from negotiations between Congress and the White House. But she said she was joining Mr. Byrd in trying to force a new examination of the war in its entirety, rather than simply joust over specific elements of the spending measure.

Talking to reporters after her floor speech in a mostly empty Senate chamber, Mrs. Clinton indicated that her view was that rescinding the original vote would mean that troops would be out as of October. “They have no authority to continue,” she said. “That is the point.”

Later, however, her aides said Mrs. Clinton was not seeking a total withdrawal of troops from Iraq, or a quick pullout that could put troops at risk. They said she had called for a phased pullout that would leave a reduced American force to pursue terrorist cells in Iraq, support the Kurds and conduct other missions — a position she continued to support, her aides said.

So, from the earlier quote, Sen. Clinton wants to end the war as soon as possible, but she may still support funding for the war to continue. She wants the troops out by October but she doesn’t want a total withdrawal or a quick pullout. The one thing that is clear in this message is that the only thing Sen. Clinton is truly against is any more discussion of her original war authorization vote.

Sen. Clinton doesn’t have the courage to stand up to the base of her party and defend her vote, or to call for an immediate end to the war. She would rather play children’s games and try to avoid any responsibility for anything. She would do just as well to cover her ears and yell, “Nah-nah-nah-nah-boo-boo! I can’t hear you!” every time she is challenged by the anti-war left. Too bad for the Senator that in the adult world, presidents have to make decisions based on the best information available at the time, and Senators have to live with the consequences of their votes.

« Do Nothing Dem Congress Slow-Bleeding US Auto IndustryComments (46) | Double Dog Darin' DemocratsComments (13) »
Do Over! 25 Comments (0 topical, 25 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

Make EVERY federal agency, department and subject to sunset laws and I'd give 'em a do-over.
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

But could we try and stick to the point of the piece, please?

Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman

That comment was on point. In fact, this is the only vote in the last zillion years that the Democrats would even think about "doing over".

It's the utter height of hypocrisy.
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

Pat Dollard's website reveals a girl's school rigged throughout with IEDs, and a R rep one minute speech reveals, a bill that studies bison and monkeys as part of the emergency war supplemental.
Courtesy of the Republican Study Committee blog
Is tThis morning, RSC member Ted Poe (R-TX) put things in perspective in a humorous but profound a one-minute speech on the House floor:

"This House, last night about 11:30 pm, authorized money for some absurd projects including the study of bison hunting on the Great Plains and the study of the sex lives of the Phayre’s Leaf Monkeys. Meanwhile, our troops in Iraq are running out of money to fight the bad guys. Why? Because some Members of Congress think they know more about conducting the War in Iraq than the Generals.

So, this Congressional Surrender Group refuses to send more money without also demanding a day the U.S. will retreat and quit the fight.

This Nation is at war with the people of Hate. Those ill-informed, ignorant Americans who are determined that we lose this conflict by keeping a tight fist on the war money have their priorities wrong.

Money for the study of monkey business, but no money for the Troops makes no sense. Money for our troops is more important than the sex lives of Phayre’s Leaf Monkeys and the study of bison on the Great Plains. We need to work as late tonight to provide money for our Troops as we did last night to send money to the monkeys. That’s Just the Way It Is."

You guys are still trying to equate terms used with kids games with a war where over 3000 Americans have died? It's not a game! You insult the memory of every soldier when you use terms like this. Argue on serious terms, or just shut up.

There is a balance of power in the country, and if we get a democrat as president, you'll be glad there is. Congress has the right to do this. Even Hillary has the right to try to do this. You need to base an argument on the validity of the war, the help to our nation's interests, and the moral nature of helping the Iraqi people.

It doesn't help anyone when you argue like an idiot!

you don't get to make posts like this.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

Huh. Just trying to keep the rules straight...newbies who fervently agree with vapid comments are still welcome, right?

oh, you mean like yours?

You wound me, sir.

Too bad the Dems only want such seperation when it suits their own ends.

The current funding "debate" is reprehensible.

You march in here and have the absolute unmitigated gall to 1) accuse RS of insulting the memory of every soldier, and 2) imply that perhaps ANYTHING that the Democrats have to say on this subject is serious.

You want to make an argument, make one. Otherwise, crawl back under your rock and commune with the roaches.
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

let's see, anti war base = total inability to back up what you say with force= end of super power status with Dem president. Hillary wants a do over, but wants to leave troops in for the long term, why? Is she going to tell the girls at the girl's school to go to hell because she wants the military in a reactionary mode like the pre surge strategy?

We will have bipartisanship when the Democrats thank Bush for ridding the world of Saddam and ensuring that Iraq will not have WMDs for the foreseeable future. We will have bipartisanship when the Dems ask Bush what else the military needs and gets it there with the priority that they had for those monkeys in the supplemental that was mentioned in my first comment. Dems = ricky tick top priority to the monkeys-
troops, they got to think about what emergency means over the easter break and get Asad's input for a true consensus bill
glad indeed for Democrat's majority!!!!!!

Hillary has every right to support defunding the troops - and if she does that, it'll have the added benefit of actually being consistent with the Constitution.

Hillary's "revoke the authorization" notion is being treated with derision because it is such obvious political pandering that it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

Finally, the notion that 3,000 soldiers losing their lives in the service of their country is enough for the United States to surrender is far more insulting than mocking Hillary for playing politics with their mission.

only now Hillary can say "I was for the resolution before I was against it".

I think the majority were for the resolution. I think the majority are now against it.

not your so-called "majority". I would like to see your support for that statement in terms of representatives who will actually vote in the congress, not the moonbats polled while they are watching Oprah or Rosie O'Donnell, etc. etc.

Assuming there was to be a "do over", I think that President Bush would not be given authorization to invade Iraq. I also think that that public opinion today would not support that as it did in 2002. I've on occasion, vaguely caught glimpses of Oprah while having lunch or such. I've never watched O'Donnell to my knowledge.

public opinion polls to sway us after we lost 5,000 men on Iwo Jima, a tiny volcanic spec in the Pacific. I have no doubt, though, that if we had the Zogbys and the NYT of the world giving us the same drivel then, we would have had a much different outcome of WWII. Not saying we would have lost it, but it would have continued longer and our casualties would have been much greater. They would have had us fighting a PC war, much as we are today in Iraq. After fire-bombing Dresden, they would have been polling people with the question "do you think we should stop this slaughter now and end the war by pulling all troops back and terminating the bombing missions?". If we even go near a mosque in Iraq, we have hell to pay.

but it won't work. The hard left of the Democratic Party is "owned" by Edwards and may be open to an insurgent movement by Obama is he tacks left with the potential compromise over the timeline funding. While I don't like the hard left at all, many of those people are voicing their view from a position of ideology, in that they are doves, and perhaps you should feel sorry for ignorance rather than hate it, but it's darned hard not too. What Ms. Clinton is doing is perhaps an astute political move, but it won't make much of an impact. Democrats with regard to Ms. Clinton have likely made up their minds about her. If she wins the nod, which is not a "slam dunk" expect a strong third party move, and I wouldn't count Sen. Hagel out of that potential mix, aligned with a moderate dove.

Hillary's left flank will be really, really hard to cover. Those pantsuits seem to be doing OK, though...

That's a key disanalogy between the two cases.

Interesting point, but since the Democrats in Congress treat the war and international affairs in general as a kid's game, the analogy is right on point.
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

They act like someone just beamed them down from the Enterprise. We voted for this war? Are you serious? Was I around then? You mean I had all the information George Bush did? No WAY!

Democrats are finding that being ideological terrorists is much easier than sacking up and actually making a decision.

Warp speed, Scotty.:)

Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)

©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service