[Dialogue] More about Hillary

Thu Feb 15 16:46:36 EST 2007

Much Appreciated.  Hope the DEMS don't kill all their candidates so  none get 
elected.
Cynthia

In a message dated 2/15/2007 3:11:55 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
kcwhit at ecentral.com writes:

Thank you, Priscilla.  I'm sure it will be in  tomorrow's Denver Post, but 
glad to read it today.  I am grateful for the  insights he brings, because I'm 
sort-of wondering if it is the Democratic left  that is really having trouble 
with Hillary, almost as much as the Far Right  is.  Isn't there a story about 
how life is circular.  Is it possible  that the two are almost touching?  
Scarry!  Maybe the DemLeft thinks  it can control Obama easier than it can have an 
effect on Hillary.   That's also scarry.  Keep well and keep sending stuff for 
us to  ponder.  Clare W.

----- Original Message ----- 
From:  _Wilson Priscilla_ (mailto:pwilson at teamtechinc.com)  
To: _Dialogue ica_ (mailto:dialogue at wedgeblade.net)  
Cc: _Community OE_ (mailto:OE at wedgeblade.net)  
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 12:28  PM
Subject: [Dialogue] More about  Hillary

To add to the conversation about Hillary. David Brooks is  usually more 
conservative than I am...so interesting writing.  

February 15,  2007
OP-ED COLUMNIST
No Apology  Needed 
By  _DAVID  BROOKS_ 
(http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/davidbrooks/index.html?inline=nyt-per) 
Far be it from  me to get in the middle of a liberal purge, but would anybody 
mind if I  pointed out that the calls for Hillary Clinton to apologize for 
her support  of the Iraq war are almost entirely bogus? 
I mean, have the  people calling for her apology actually read the speeches 
she delivered  before the war? Have they read her remarks during the war 
resolution debate,  when she specifically rejected a pre-emptive, unilateral attack 
on Saddam?  Did they read the passages in which she called for a longer U.N. 
inspections  regime and declared, ?I believe international support and 
legitimacy are  crucial?? 
If they went  back and read what Senator Clinton was saying before the war, 
they?d be  surprised, as I was, by her approach. And they?d learn something, as 
I did,  about what kind of president she would make. 
The Iraq war  debate began in earnest in September 2002. At that point 
Clinton was saying  in public what Colin Powell was saying in private: emphasizing 
the need to  work through the U.N. and build a broad coalition to enforce  
inspections. 
She delivered  her Senate resolution speech on Oct. 10. It was Clintonian in 
character. On  the one hand, she rejected the Bush policy of pre-emptive war. 
On the other  hand, she also rejected the view that the international 
community ?should  only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security 
Council  approves it.? Drawing on the lessons of Bosnia, she said sometimes the 
world  had to act, even if the big powers couldn?t agree. 
She sought a  third way: more U.N. resolutions, more inspections, more 
diplomacy, with the  threat of force reserved as a last resort. She was 
triangulating, but the  Senate resolution offered her a binary choice. She voted yes in 
order to  give Powell bipartisan leverage at the U.N. 
This is how  she?s always explained that vote, and I confess that until now, 
I?ve  regarded her explanation as a transparent political dodge. Didn?t 
everyone  know this was a war resolution? But now, having investigated her public  
comments, I think diplomatic leverage really was on her mind. I also know,  
from a third person, that she was spending a lot of time with Powell and  wanted 
to help. 
On Nov. 8, 2002,  the Security Council passed a unanimous resolution 
threatening Saddam with  ?serious consequences? if he didn?t disarm. 
The next crucial  period came in March 2003, as the U.S. battled France over 
the second  Security Council resolution. Clinton?s argument at this point was 
that  inspections were working and should be given more time. ?It is 
preferable  that we do this in a peaceful manner through coercive inspection,? she said 
 on March 3, but went on, ?At some point we have to be willing to uphold the  
United Nations resolutions.? Then she added, ?This is a very delicate  
balancing act.? 
On March 17,  Bush gave Saddam 48 hours to disarm or face attack. Clinton 
tried to be  critical of the Bush policy while being deferential to the office of 
the  presidency. She clearly had doubts about Bush?s timing, but she kept  
emphasizing that from her time in the White House, she knew how unhelpful it  
was for senators to be popping off in public on foreign  policy. 
At one press  event in New York, she nodded when Charles Rangel said Bush had 
failed at  the U.N. But when reporters asked Clinton to repeat what Rangel 
had just  said, she bit her tongue. On March 17, as U.S. troops mobilized, she 
issued  her strongest statement in support of the effort. 
Clinton?s  biggest breach with the liberal wing actually opened up later, in 
the fall  of 2003. Most liberals went into full opposition, wanting to see 
Bush  disgraced. Clinton ? while an early critic of the troop levels, the postwar 
 plans and all the rest ? tried to stay constructive. She wanted to see  
America and Iraq succeed, even if Bush was not disgraced. 
When you look  back at Clinton?s thinking, you don?t see a classic war 
supporter. You see a  person who was trying to seek balance between opposing 
arguments. You also  see a person who deferred to the office of the presidency. You 
see a person  who, as president, would be fox to Bush?s hedgehog: who would see 
problems  in their complexities rather than in their essentials; who would 
elevate  procedural concerns over philosophical ones; who would postpone 
decision  points for as long as possible; and who would make distinctions few  heed. 
Today, the  liberal wing of the Democratic Party believes that the world, and 
Hillary  Clinton in particular, owes it an apology. If she apologizes, she?ll 
forfeit  her integrity. She will be apologizing for being herself. 

??

Priscilla Wilson
TeamTech Press
Mission Hills, KS 66208
_pwilson at teamtechinc.com_ (mailto:pwilson at teamtechinc.com) 

____________________________________
_______________________________________________
Dialogue mailing  list
Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net

_______________________________________________
Dialogue  mailing  list
Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net

Cynthia N.  Vance
Strategics International Inc.
8245 SW 116 Terrace
Miami, Florida,  33156
305-378-1327; fax 305-378-9178
_http://members.aol.com/facilitationfla_ 
(http://members.aol.com/facilitationfla) 

Want  to build your own facilitation skills? 
Want to meet facilitators from around  the world and in your own backyard? 
Mark your calendar for the International  Assoc. of Facilitators Conference 
2007 
Portland, Oregon -- March 8-10, 2007.  See _www.iaf-world.org_ 
(http://www.iaf-world.org/) 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20070215/0305cc71/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 1810 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20070215/0305cc71/attachment.gif 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 43 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20070215/0305cc71/attachment-0001.gif 