Joe Wilson Endorses Hillary

-

joe wilson.jpg
Hillary Clinton’s Director of Online Everything, Peter Daou, sent a tantalizing email today inviting a handful of political bloggers to a conference call with a mystery endorsement of the campaign. I called him and didn’t press very hard as he preemptively and craftily said “of course I can’t say yet who it is, but I can tell you it is someone bloggers will appreciate.”
I was hooked.
So at 1:30 pm, I jumped out of an event where I was speaking about America’s backward visa policies in the House of Representatives, and Peter introduced the mystery endorser: Ambassador Joe Wilson.
This is actually very significant — even though Stuart Rothenberg writes disparagingly about these sorts of endorsements in a piece he wrote today in Roll Call titled “Do Endorsements Matter in Today’s Presidential Races?
Rothenberg mentions former House Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt endorsing Hillary Clinton. And then Edwards scoring “the support of several prominent Ohio leaders”, various “prominent Latinos”, and a bunch of “African American leaders.” Rothenberg also mentioned Biden scooping up “three Iowa state Representatives” into his camp.
But the clincher from Rothenberg is this:

So let the candiates roll out their list of state legislators, city council officials, dogcatchers and “activists” who support them. Just remember that only those few people who have a campaign treasury under their control or real fundraising clout, a near-unique ability to motivate and mobilize real people, or unusual influence in Iowa are truly important supporters.

Well, back to Ambassador Wilson. He does have a unique ability to motivate and mobilize real people as the encounter he and his wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, have had with the Bush administration over the President’s war in Iraq has been the single most important event exposing serious crimes and duplicity committed by Bush administration officials.
Wilson and Plame are favorites among the leftish “net-roots.” They are a favorite among many bloggers for taking them seriously and for working with them to understand the nooks and crannies of what was real and not in their David and Goliath battle with the White House. Wilson gave young political activists hope that they could get traction in their battles against an occasionally vulnerable Bush/Cheney machine.
But now Joe Wilson has endorsed someone that many in the blogosphere have been slow to love: Hillary Rodham Clinton. This will have impact and will shock some. Some lefty bloggers will not abandon Obama and not forgive Clinton for being complicit in the decisions that empowered the Bush White House to wage the Iraq War. But others will now rethink their positions.
During the conference call, Joe Wilson said that he had been friends with Hillary for the last ten years. He stated that he believed that Hillary had emerged as a well-established, serious critic of the Bush administration and felt that she believed that “the Iraq War needed to be ended soon, that troops needed to be removed from harm’s way, and that a political process had to be started, a process that would end the war and preserve some shred of our strategic position in the Middle East.”
Wilson argued that the President had show no leadership in affecting the real political process in Iraq — and that this had to happen and was something Clinton understood. Wilson mentioned that he was involved in helping to get the political circumstances right in the Middle East during the first Gulf War and had later worked with key players before and during the Dayton Accord process. In 1998, Hillary Clinton was pivotal in convincing her husband to travel to Africa — a trip that Wilson was in charge of.
And since the point at which the Bush administration decided to punish Wilson for his efforts to hold the Bush White House accountable for its statements in the lead up to Iraq War II by outing the covert status of his CIA-employed wife, Valerie Plame — Hillary Clinton had reached out repeatedly to the Wilsons. She helped advise, counsel, and compare the experiences Joe and Valerie Wilson were having in the Republican meat-grinder with her own experiences in the same situation.
His endorsement was compelling — and made a lot of sense — but still will be a interesting move for net-roots bloggers to consider.
I asked him whether given Wilson’s support of a “grand bargain” approach to Iran and broad Middle East negotiations that solve many of the interlinking realities in the region whether he felt there was much distance in his own views from Hillary Clinton’s.
Wilson replied that he believed that “the more diplomacy the better — though we ought always be prepared to defend our national security interests.” He subscribes to views on Iran that are shared by “Zbigniew” and others that he and I have mutual acquaintance with. And Wilson stated that he felt that “there is no sunlight between my own views on Iran and Hillary’s.”
Very interesting development that will no doubt make the papers tomorrow — and of course, the blogs today.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

43 comments on “Joe Wilson Endorses Hillary

  1. MP says:

    Pauline writes: “Did you move out of the market in the third week of January, 2000, to profit at the top, or did you take a real cold bath like millions of Americans did?”
    You only take a cold bath if you don’t have risk management in place. A trailing stop of even 25% would have protected a lot of those profits.

    Reply

  2. MP says:

    That’s interesting. Never knew that.
    Thanks for the info.

    Reply

  3. pauline says:

    If you’re holding gold/silver in an IRA/401K, you pay taxes on the withdrawal from your plan, just like they were stocks/bonds.
    If you own silver/gold outside of an IRA/401K, you can buy/sell on the open market with currently no need to report any gains/losses.
    If you sold grandma’s old gold jewelry, you don’t need to report that either.

    Reply

  4. MP says:

    “Also, on hard assets, there are no tax consequences, unless they are in a 401/IRA plan.”
    Not sure what you mean here. I assume, by “hard assets,” you mean gold and silver, etc. Are you saying that this appreciation doesn’t get taxed or does get taxed? And what difference does it make whether you’re holding gold in your IRA?
    Please explain…

    Reply

  5. pauline says:

    MP wrote:
    “But over time, stocks have outperformed pretty much every other asset.”
    Did you move out of the market in the third week of January, 2000, to profit at the top, or did you take a real cold bath like millions of Americans did?
    Silly Alan Greenspan gave no clue to the public about the hugh market correction coming. Many lost large portions of their 401’s, IRA’s and personal investing.
    I don’t think you could convince them because over the past x years the market did so great they benefited one red cent from their big loses in early 2000.
    Also, on hard assets, there are no tax consequences, unless they are in a 401/IRA plan.

    Reply

  6. MP says:

    “I’ll continue to develop my personal hard asset plan as my wise father taught me years ago. I can live with the variations in precious metal pricing. You can continue to believe in inflation-racked, unbacked paper currency if you want. Just ask Enron stockholders if they got their money’s worth.”
    That’s one way to do it, for sure.
    But over time, stocks have outperformed pretty much every other asset.

    Reply

  7. pauline says:

    Ok, there is plenty of discussion out on the precious metal forums by knowledgable experts about the possible US manipulation of the gold market and how gold might be over twice the price it is now if allowed to exist in a “free market”.
    Also, the precious metal backed “Liberty dollar” has been overpowered by the big muscle of the unconstitutional federal reserve banks.
    If anyone wants to see more, try http://www.libertydollar.org/ and kitco.com and start reading.
    imo, precious metals in an asset portfolio make sense. The gold/silver/plantinum/palladium percentage of the total asset portfolio depends on individual preferences.
    I’ll continue to develop my personal hard asset plan as my wise father taught me years ago. I can live with the variations in precious metal pricing. You can continue to believe in inflation-racked, unbacked paper currency if you want. Just ask Enron stockholders if they got their money’s worth.

    Reply

  8. MP says:

    Posted by pauline at July 18, 2007 05:50 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Yes, but gold is only spendable because you convert it into flat dollars, as you just did: $650. It only increases in value vis a vis flat dollars, not in terms of itself. In terms of itself, it’s only worth $20–its face value. Unless you want to go to a barter system.
    You could also have invested that gold into another asset that would have appreciated in value…but again, measured in flat dollars.
    It’s also worth pointing out that gold has fluctuated quite a bit over the years. It’s generally higher when there’s a fear of inflation.

    Reply

  9. pauline says:

    Posted by: MP at July 18, 2007 10:59 AM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    First, Congress is not following the Constitution in allowing a non-government private bank, the Federal Reserve, (“federal” only in name) to control our money. So Americans are hoodwinked into believing “all is fine” because, hey, the US Treasury prints all those dollar bills and mints all those coins, so what’s the big deal?”
    There is nothing backing up the currency anymore, that’s the big deal.
    My great grandfather could have bought a nice three piece suit in 1920 for one twenty dollar gold coin. If my relatives would have kept his three piece suit in my family for decades AND my great grandfather put an extra twenty dollar gold coin in a pocket of the suit, I could sell that gold coin on the market today for over $650. I believe most men could purchase a fairly nice three piece suit for $650 in 2007. And I don’t shop in men’s clothing stores, but it’s obvious the value would still be there.
    If my great grandfather had stuck an extra twenty federal reserve note in his suit pocket, well, today that wouldn’t buy diddly-squat.
    No different than fiat currency? If you don’t think so, i’ve got swamp land in Florida for you.

    Reply

  10. MP says:

    Posted by pauline at July 17, 2007 06:12 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    This is an interesting topic. I’ve read a bit about the gold standard. As far as I can understand it, inflation is held in check by the limited supply of gold. But I fail to see how what is obviously an arbitrary limit–only so much gold in the ground–helps. We end up putting our faith in a quirk of nature, rather than in our abilities to order our economies and affairs.
    More philosophically, gold is only valuable because we say it is. In that sense, it’s no different than flat money, IMO.

    Reply

  11. section9 says:

    Jeff Goldstein had it so right: now begins the agonizing Lefty Rehabilitation of Hillary Clinton.

    Reply

  12. pauline says:

    MP wrote:
    “Sounds like Paul is for…the gold standard…”
    Apparently our fiat currency which is created really out of thin air and a fed printing press is your preference?
    A very high % of inflation is really caused by the feds creating fiat dollar bills and adding them to the money supply. (Like adding a lot of water to a once delicious soup.) Inflation is not you and I keeping our own economic houses in disorder. It’s the feds disorder and printing press, along with their failed energy policies.
    After Nixon removed us from the silver standard back in the ’70s, there ain’t nothin’ backing up our currency anymore.
    Oh, the politician will say on the stump, the dollar is backed by “the full faith and credit of our federal government…” But who’s that besides us the taxpayers!?!
    So running up federal deficits until you can’t say the big numbers anymore is somehow ok, because, hey, we’re the suckers paying for their totally-out-of-control spending mismanagement.
    Fiat currency eventually always fails. Gold or other precious metal standards keep true value in paper money and precious metals are a great hedge against inflation. Gold is highly valued worldwide.
    Ron Paul is so right with his gold standard comments. Fiat currency is so wrong!

    Reply

  13. MP says:

    Sounds like Paul is for going back on the gold standard. Hmmm.

    Reply

  14. WhatBillOfRights says:

    Ron Paul, a man I very much admire, while being mostly spot-on in his analysis, makes a couple mistakes in this. The most glaring being that Ahmadinejad threatened to destroy Israel — he didn’t. Ahmadinejad said that Israel would “vanish from the pages of time” much like the Soviet Union did.
    If it’s any consolation to fellow Paul fans, I have been doing a lot of traveling lately via car (I refuse to fly as the “Papers please” and/or “Ve haf the authority to strip search you” attitude of the TSA I feel is indicative that we are now a police state) Anyway, I keep seeing stencils of “Ron Paul Revolution” all over my state.
    Maybe “GoRonGo” is out here freeway-blogging 😉
    And count me in as one who would rise from my death bed to vote against Hitlery. I would rise to vote against any candidate GOP or Dem except for Paul or Kucinich and perhaps Gravel — they are the only three with America’s best interests at heart.
    And I would suggest that anyone who hasn’t already read Kevin Phillips’ book “American Dynasty. Phillips was the architect of the “Reagan Revolution” — no “lefty he. Phillips pretty accurately predicts that Americans prefer dynasties, hench Hillary leading the Dimbocrap pack.
    After 4-8 years of her, we’ll have Clinton fatigue once more and then George P. Bush will step in because at that point Hispanic Catholics will have the numbers to drown out “Rapture” evangelicals at the polls.
    Heck, maybe Jebbie will throw his crown into the ring. He did infamously say that George W. (s)election as Preznit was a miracle done by the Virgin of Guadalupe. And he said it in Spanish! Jebbie actually speaks it unlike Dick Cheney’s puppet.

    Reply

  15. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “poa- did you write it yourself or grab it from somewhere else? if the later, leave a link next time. if the former, i am unwilling to read it as it is too long. a link and i will consider it.”
    I did put up a link, and it is clearly headed as a Ron Paul speech. Did you miss your coffee this morning or something?

    Reply

  16. ... says:

    >>New York and New Jersey’s four Democratic Senators intend to block a diplomatic mission to Libya that would attempt to negotiate the freedom of five nurses and one doctor who have been sentenced to death for treating children who were later found to be infected with HIV. The Senators say that no diplomatic relations with Libya should be established until the country has coughed up the remaining cash it owes the families of Americans killed in bombings in 1986 and 1988.<< that tells one all they need to know about hillary. again it is about money!! although i am sure she would explain the warped principle for a stand such as this..

    Reply

  17. ... says:

    poa- did you write it yourself or grab it from somewhere else? if the later, leave a link next time. if the former, i am unwilling to read it as it is too long. a link and i will consider it.

    Reply

  18. PissedOffAmerican says:

    I hope anyone that just skipped over that loooooong post above will reconsider, and read it, carefully, in its entirety. It is painfully obvious why Washington wants to silence Ron Paul. I am having Ron Paul bumper stickers printed up. Not because I think he can win, but because I think America needs to hear what he has to say. I hope they don’t kill him before he gets his message out.

    Reply

  19. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Geez, I thought Wilson was a stand up guy. Screw ‘im. One of my worst nightmares is that Hillary, Edwards, or Obama slither their posturing fraudulent asses into the Oval office. The last thing this nation needs is four more years of criminal governing.
    Read the following, carefully. After you do, ask yourself why in God’s name should we accept anything but the truth when our “statesmen” speak to us? People, don’t let Washington and the media, (and the insiders like Steve), silence this man, Ron Paul. And don’t let them ignore him either, like Steve is doing.
    And Steve, you are rabidly losing credibility and respect by feeding us a constant barrage of “news” about the media marketed whores that are going to give us just more of the same old criminal SHIT. We aren’t stupid.
    http://tinyurl.com/kmpnz
    Iran: The Next Neocon Target
    http://www.House.Gov. ^ | April 5, 2006 | Ron Paul
    HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
    Before the U.S. House of Representatives
    April 5, 2006
    Iran: The Next Neocon Target
    It’s been three years since the U.S. launched its war against Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. Of course now almost everybody knows there were no WMDs, and Saddam Hussein posed no threat to the United States. Though some of our soldiers serving in Iraq still believe they are there because Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11, even the administration now acknowledges there was no connection. Indeed, no one can be absolutely certain why we invaded Iraq. The current excuse, also given for staying in Iraq, is to make it a democratic state, friendly to the United States. There are now fewer denials that securing oil supplies played a significant role in our decision to go into Iraq and stay there. That certainly would explain why U.S. taxpayers are paying such a price to build and maintain numerous huge, permanent military bases in Iraq. They’re also funding a new billion dollar embassy- the largest in the world.
    The significant question we must ask ourselves is: What have we learned from three years in Iraq? With plans now being laid for regime change in Iran, it appears we have learned absolutely nothing. There still are plenty of administration officials who daily paint a rosy picture of the Iraq we have created. But I wonder: If the past three years were nothing more than a bad dream, and our nation suddenly awakened, how many would, for national security reasons, urge the same invasion? Would we instead give a gigantic sigh of relief that it was only a bad dream, that we need not relive the three-year nightmare of death, destruction, chaos and stupendous consumption of tax dollars. Conceivably we would still see oil prices under $30 a barrel, and most importantly, 20,000 severe U.S. causalities would not have occurred. My guess is that 99% of all Americans would be thankful it was only a bad dream, and would never support the invasion knowing what we know today.
    Even with the horrible results of the past three years, Congress is abuzz with plans to change the Iranian government. There is little resistance to the rising clamor for “democratizing” Iran, even though their current president, Mahmoud Almadinejad, is an elected leader. Though Iran is hardly a perfect democracy, its system is far superior to most of our Arab allies about which we never complain. Already the coordinating propaganda has galvanized the American people against Iran for the supposed threat it poses to us with weapons of mass destruction that are no more present than those Saddam Hussein was alleged to have had. It’s amazing how soon after being thoroughly discredited over the charges levied against Saddam Hussein the Neo-cons are willing to use the same arguments against Iran. It’s frightening to see how easily Congress, the media, and the people accept many of the same arguments against Iran that were used to justify an invasion of Iraq.
    Since 2001 we have spent over $300 billion, and occupied two Muslim nations–Afghanistan and Iraq. We’re poorer but certainly not safer for it. We invaded Afghanistan to get Osama bin Laden, the ring leader behind 9/11. This effort has been virtually abandoned. Even though the Taliban was removed from power in Afghanistan, most of the country is now occupied and controlled by warlords who manage a drug trade bigger than ever before. Removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan actually served the interests of Iran, the Taliban’s arch enemy, more than our own.
    The longtime Neo-con goal to remake Iraq prompted us to abandon the search for Osama bin Laden. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was hyped as a noble mission, justified by misrepresentations of intelligence concerning Saddam Hussein and his ability to attack us and his neighbors. This failed policy has created the current chaos in Iraq– chaos that many describe as a civil war. Saddam Hussein is out of power and most people are pleased. Yet some Iraqis, who dream of stability, long for his authoritarian rule. But once again, Saddam Hussein’s removal benefited the Iranians, who consider Saddam Hussein an arch enemy.
    Our obsession with democracy– which is clearly conditional, when one looks at our response to the recent Palestinian elections– will allow the majority Shia to claim leadership title if Iraq’s election actually leads to an organized government. This delights the Iranians, who are close allies of the Iraqi Shia.
    Talk about unintended consequences! This war has produced chaos, civil war, death and destruction, and huge financial costs. It has eliminated two of Iran’s worst enemies and placed power in Iraq with Iran’s best friends. Even this apparent failure of policy does nothing to restrain the current march toward a similar confrontation with Iran. What will it take for us to learn from our failures?
    Common sense tells us the war in Iraq soon will spread to Iran. Fear of imaginary nuclear weapons or an incident involving Iran– whether planned or accidental– will rally the support needed for us to move on Muslim country #3. All the past failures and unintended consequences will be forgotten.
    Even with deteriorating support for the Iraq war, new information, well planned propaganda, or a major incident will override the skepticism and heartache of our frustrating fight. Vocal opponents of an attack on Iran again will be labeled unpatriotic, unsupportive of the troops, and sympathetic to Iran’s radicals.
    Instead of capitulating to these charges, we should point out that those who maneuver us into war do so with little concern for our young people serving in the military, and theoretically think little of their own children if they have any. It’s hard to conceive that political supporters of the war would consciously claim that a pre-emptive war for regime change, where young people are sacrificed, is only worth it if the deaths and injuries are limited to other people’s children. This, I’m sure, would be denied– which means their own children are technically available for this sacrifice that is so often praised and glorified for the benefit of the families who have lost so much. If so, they should think more of their own children. If this is not so, and their children are not available for such sacrifice, the hypocrisy is apparent. Remember, most Neo-con planners fall into the category of chicken-hawks.
    For the past 3 years it’s been inferred that if one is not in support of the current policy, one is against the troops and supports the enemy. Lack of support for the war in Iraq was said to be supportive of Saddam Hussein and his evil policies. This is an insulting and preposterous argument. Those who argued for the containment of the Soviets were never deemed sympathetic to Stalin or Khrushchev. Lack of support for the Iraq war should never be used as an argument that one was sympathetic to Saddam Hussein. Containment and diplomacy are far superior to confronting a potential enemy, and are less costly and far less dangerous– especially when there’s no evidence that our national security is being threatened.
    Although a large percentage of the public now rejects the various arguments for the Iraq war, 3 years ago they were easily persuaded by the politicians and media to fully support the invasion. Now, after 3 years of terrible pain for so many, even the troops are awakening from their slumber and sensing the fruitlessness of our failing effort. Seventy-two percent of our troops now serving in Iraq say it’s time to come home, yet the majority still cling to the propaganda that we’re there because of 9/11 attacks, something even the administration has ceased to claim. Propaganda is pushed on our troops to exploit their need to believe in a cause that’s worth the risk to life and limb.
    I smell an expanded war in the Middle East, and pray that I’m wrong. I sense that circumstances will arise that demand support regardless of the danger and cost. Any lack of support, once again, will be painted as being soft on terrorism and al Qaeda. We will be told we must support Israel, support patriotism, support the troops, and defend freedom. The public too often only smells the stench of war after the killing starts. Public objection comes later on, but eventually it helps to stop the war. I worry that before we can finish the war we’re in and extricate ourselves, the patriotic fervor for expanding into Iran will drown out the cries of, “enough already!”
    The agitation and congressional resolutions painting Iran as an enemy about to attack us have already begun. It’s too bad we can’t learn from our mistakes.
    This time there will be a greater pretense of an international effort sanctioned by the UN before the bombs are dropped. But even without support from the international community, we should expect the plan for regime change to continue. We have been forewarned that “all options” remain on the table. And there’s little reason to expect much resistance from Congress. So far there’s less resistance expressed in Congress for taking on Iran than there was prior to going into Iraq. It’s astonishing that after three years of bad results and tremendous expense there’s little indication we will reconsider our traditional non-interventionist foreign policy. Unfortunately, regime change, nation building, policing the world, and protecting “our oil” still constitute an acceptable policy by the leaders of both major parties.
    It’s already assumed by many in Washington I talk to that Iran is dead serious about obtaining a nuclear weapon, and is a much more formidable opponent than Iraq. Besides, Mahmoud Almadinjad threatened to destroy Israel and that cannot stand. Washington sees Iran as a greater threat than Iraq ever was, a threat that cannot be ignored.
    Iran’s history is being ignored, just as we ignored Iraq’s history. This ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation of our recent relationship to Iraq and Iran is required to generate the fervor needed to attack once again a country that poses no threat to us. Our policies toward Iran have been more provocative than those towards Iraq. Yes, President Bush labeled Iran part of the axis of evil and unnecessarily provoked their anger at us. But our mistakes with Iran started a long time before this president took office.
    In 1953 our CIA, with help of the British, participated in overthrowing the democratic elected leader, Mohamed Mossedech. We placed the Shah in power. He ruled ruthlessly but protected our oil interests, and for that we protected him– that is until 1979. We even provided him with Iran’s first nuclear reactor. Evidently we didn’t buy the argument that his oil supplies precluded a need for civilian nuclear energy. From 1953 to 1979 his authoritarian rule served to incite a radical Muslim opposition led by the Ayatollah Khomeini, who overthrew the Shah and took our hostages in 1979. This blowback event was slow in coming, but Muslims have long memories. The hostage crisis and overthrow of the Shah by the Ayatollah was a major victory for the radical Islamists. Most Americans either never knew about or easily forgot our unwise meddling in the internal affairs of Iran in 1953.
    During the 1980s we further antagonized Iran by supporting the Iraqis in their invasion of Iran. This made our relationship with Iran worse, while sending a message to Saddam Hussein that invading a neighboring country is not all that bad. When Hussein got the message from our State Department that his plan to invade Kuwait was not of much concern to the United States he immediately proceeded to do so. We in a way encouraged him to do it almost like we encouraged him to go into Iran. Of course this time our reaction was quite different, and all of a sudden our friendly ally Saddam Hussein became our arch enemy. The American people may forget this flip-flop, but those who suffered from it never forget. And the Iranians remember well our meddling in their affairs. Labeling the Iranians part of the axis of evil further alienated them and contributed to the animosity directed toward us.
    For whatever reasons the Neo-conservatives might give, they are bound and determined to confront the Iranian government and demand changes in its leadership. This policy will further spread our military presence and undermine our security. The sad truth is that the supposed dangers posed by Iran are no more real than those claimed about Iraq. The charges made against Iran are unsubstantiated, and amazingly sound very similar to the false charges made against Iraq. One would think promoters of the war against Iraq would be a little bit more reluctant to use the same arguments to stir up hatred toward Iran. The American people and Congress should be more cautious in accepting these charges at face value. Yet it seems the propaganda is working, since few in Washington object as Congress passes resolutions condemning Iran and asking for UN sanctions against her.
    There is no evidence of a threat to us by Iran, and no reason to plan and initiate a confrontation with her. There are many reasons not to do so, however.
    Iran does not have a nuclear weapon and there’s no evidence that she is working on one–only conjecture.
    If Iran had a nuclear weapon, why would this be different from Pakistan, India, and North Korea having one? Why does Iran have less right to a defensive weapon than these other countries?
    If Iran had a nuclear weapon, the odds of her initiating an attack against anybody– which would guarantee her own annihilation– are zero. And the same goes for the possibility she would place weapons in the hands of a non-state terrorist group.
    Pakistan has spread nuclear technology throughout the world, and in particular to the North Koreans. They flaunt international restrictions on nuclear weapons. But we reward them just as we reward India.
    We needlessly and foolishly threaten Iran even though they have no nuclear weapons. But listen to what a leading Israeli historian, Martin Van Creveld, had to say about this: “Obviously, we don’t want Iran to have a nuclear weapon, and I don’t know if they’re developing them, but if they’re not developing them, they’re crazy.”
    There’s been a lot of misinformation regarding Iran’s nuclear program. This distortion of the truth has been used to pump up emotions in Congress to pass resolutions condemning her and promoting UN sanctions.
    IAEA Director General Mohamed El Baradi has never reported any evidence of “undeclared” sources or special nuclear material in Iran, or any diversion of nuclear material.
    We demand that Iran prove it is not in violation of nuclear agreements, which is asking them impossibly to prove a negative. El Baradi states Iran is in compliance with the nuclear NPT required IAEA safeguard agreement.
    We forget that the weapons we feared Saddam Hussein had were supplied to him by the U.S., and we refused to believe UN inspectors and the CIA that he no longer had them.
    Likewise, Iran received her first nuclear reactor from us. Now we’re hysterically wondering if someday she might decide to build a bomb in self interest.
    Anti-Iran voices, beating the drums of confrontation, distort the agreement made in Paris and the desire of Iran to restart the enrichment process. Their suspension of the enrichment process was voluntary, and not a legal obligation. Iran has an absolute right under the NPT to develop and use nuclear power for peaceful purposes, and this is now said to be an egregious violation of the NPT. It’s the U.S. and her allies that are distorting and violating the NPT. Likewise our provision of nuclear materials to India is a clear violation of the NPT.
    The demand for UN sanctions is now being strongly encouraged by Congress. The “Iran Freedom Support Act,” HR 282, passed in the International Relations Committee; and recently the House passed H Con Res 341, which inaccurately condemned Iran for violating its international nuclear non-proliferation obligations. At present, the likelihood of reason prevailing in Congress is minimal. Let there be no doubt: The Neo-conservative warriors are still in charge, and are conditioning Congress, the media, and the American people for a pre-emptive attack on Iran. Never mind that Afghanistan has unraveled and Iraq is in civil war: serious plans are being laid for the next distraction which will further spread this war in the Middle East. The unintended consequences of this effort surely will be worse than any of the complications experienced in the three-year occupation of Iraq.
    Our offer of political and financial assistance to foreign and domestic individuals who support the overthrow of the current Iranian government is fraught with danger and saturated with arrogance. Imagine how American citizens would respond if China supported similar efforts here in the United States to bring about regime change! How many of us would remain complacent if someone like Timothy McVeigh had been financed by a foreign power? Is it any wonder the Iranian people resent us and the attitude of our leaders? Even though El Baradi and his IAEA investigations have found no violations of the NPT-required IAEA safeguards agreement, the Iran Freedom Support Act still demands that Iran prove they have no nuclear weapons– refusing to acknowledge that proving a negative is impossible.
    Let there be no doubt, though the words “regime change” are not found in the bill– that’s precisely what they are talking about. Neo-conservative Michael Ledeen, one of the architects of the Iraq fiasco, testifying before the International Relations Committee in favor of the IFSA, stated it plainly: “I know some Members would prefer to dance around the explicit declaration of regime change as the policy of this country, but anyone looking closely at the language and context of the IFSA and its close relative in the Senate, can clearly see that this is in fact the essence of the matter. You can’t have freedom in Iran without bringing down the Mullahs.”
    Sanctions, along with financial and political support to persons and groups dedicated to the overthrow of the Iranian government, are acts of war. Once again we’re unilaterally declaring a pre-emptive war against a country and a people that have not harmed us and do not have the capacity to do so. And don’t expect Congress to seriously debate a declaration of war resolution. For the past 56 years Congress has transferred to the executive branch the power to go to war as it pleases, regardless of the tragic results and costs.
    Secretary of State Rice recently signaled a sharp shift towards confrontation in Iran policy as she insisted on $75 million to finance propaganda, through TV and radio broadcasts into Iran. She expressed this need because of the so-called “aggressive” policies of the Iranian government. We’re seven thousand miles from home, telling the Iraqis and the Iranians what kind of government they will have, backed up by the use of our military force, and we call them the aggressors. We fail to realize the Iranian people, for whatever faults they may have, have not in modern times aggressed against any neighbor. This provocation is so unnecessary, costly, and dangerous.
    Just as the invasion of Iraq inadvertently served the interests of the Iranians, military confrontation with Iran will have unintended consequences. The successful alliance engendered between the Iranians and the Iraqi majority Shia will prove a formidable opponent for us in Iraq as that civil war spreads. Shipping in the Persian Gulf through the Straits of Hormuz may well be disrupted by the Iranians in retaliation for any military confrontation. Since Iran would be incapable of defending herself by conventional means, it seems logical that some might resort to a terrorist attack on us. They will not passively lie down, nor can they be destroyed easily.
    One of the reasons given for going into Iraq was to secure “our” oil supply. This backfired badly: Production in Iraq is down 50%, and world oil prices have more than doubled to $60 per barrel. Meddling with Iran could easily have a similar result. We could see oil over $120 a barrel and, and $6 gas at the pump. The obsession the Neo-cons have with remaking the Middle East is hard to understand. One thing that is easy to understand is none of those who planned these wars expect to fight in them, nor do they expect their children to die in some IED explosion.
    Exactly when an attack will occur is not known, but we have been forewarned more than once that all options remain on the table. The sequence of events now occurring with regards to Iran are eerily reminiscent of the hype prior to our pre-emptive strike against Iraq. We should remember the saying: “Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.” It looks to me like the Congress and the country is open to being fooled once again.
    Interestingly, many early supporters of the Iraq war are now highly critical of the President, having been misled as to reasons for the invasion and occupation. But these same people are only too eager to accept the same flawed arguments for our need to undermine the Iranian government.
    The President’s 2006 National Security Strategy, just released, is every bit as frightening as the one released in 2002 endorsing pre-emptive war. In it he claims: “We face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran.” He claims the Iranians have for 20 years hidden key nuclear activities– though the IAEA makes no such assumptions nor has the Security Council in these 20 years ever sanctioned Iran. The clincher in the National Security Strategy document is if diplomatic efforts fail, confrontation will follow. The problem is the diplomatic effort– if one wants to use that term– is designed to fail by demanding the Iranians prove an unproveable negative. The West– led by the U.S.– is in greater violation by demanding Iran not pursue any nuclear technology, even peaceful, that the NPT guarantees is their right.
    The President states: Iran’s “desire to have a nuclear weapon is unacceptable.” A “desire” is purely subjective, and cannot be substantiated nor disproved. Therefore all that is necessary to justify an attack is if Iran fails to prove it doesn’t have a “desire” to be like the United States, China, Russia, Britain, France, Pakistan, India, and Israel—whose nuclear missiles surround Iran. Logic like this to justify a new war, without the least consideration for a congressional declaration of war, is indeed frightening.
    Common sense tells us Congress, especially given the civil war in Iraq and the mess in Afghanistan, should move with great caution in condoning a military confrontation with Iran.
    Cause for Concern
    Most Americans are uninterested in foreign affairs until we get mired down in a war that costs too much, last too long, and kills too many U.S. troops. Getting out of a lengthy war is difficult, as I remember all too well with Vietnam while serving in the U.S. Air Force from 1963 to 1968. Getting into war is much easier. Unfortunately the Legislative branch of our government too often defers to the Executive branch, and offers little resistance to war plans even with no significant threat to our security. The need to go to war is always couched in patriotic terms and falsehoods regarding an imaginary eminent danger. Not supporting the effort is painted as unpatriotic and wimpish against some evil that’s about to engulf us. The real reason for our militarism is rarely revealed and hidden from the public. Even Congress is deceived into supporting adventurism they would not accept if fully informed.
    If we accepted the traditional American and constitutional foreign policy of non-intervention across the board, there would be no temptation to go along with these unnecessary military operations. A foreign policy of intervention invites all kinds of excuses for spreading ourselves around the world. The debate shifts from non-intervention versus interventionism, to where and for what particular reason should we involve ourselves. Most of the time it’s for less than honorable reasons. Even when cloaked in honorable slogans– like making the world safe for democracy– the unintended consequences and the ultimate costs cancel out the good intentions.
    One of the greatest losses suffered these past 60 years from interventionism becoming an acceptable policy of both major parties is respect for the Constitution. Congress flatly has reneged on its huge responsibility to declare war. Going to war was never meant to be an Executive decision, used indiscriminately with no resistance from Congress. The strongest attempt by Congress in the past 60 years to properly exert itself over foreign policy was the passage of the Foley Amendment, demanding no assistance be given to the Nicaraguan contras. Even this explicit prohibition was flaunted by an earlier administration.
    Arguing over the relative merits of each intervention is not a true debate, because it assumes that intervention per se is both moral and constitutional. Arguing for a Granada-type intervention because of its “success,” and against the Iraq war because of its failure and cost, is not enough. We must once again understand the wisdom of rejecting entangling alliances and rejecting nation building. We must stop trying to police the world and instead embrace non-interventionism as the proper, moral, and constitutional foreign policy.
    The best reason to oppose interventionism is that people die, needlessly, on both sides. We have suffered over 20,000 American casualties in Iraq already, and Iraq civilian deaths probably number over 100,000 by all reasonable accounts. The next best reason is that the rule of law is undermined, especially when military interventions are carried out without a declaration of war. Whenever a war is ongoing, civil liberties are under attack at home. The current war in Iraq and the misnamed war on terror have created an environment here at home that affords little constitutional protection of our citizen’s rights. Extreme nationalism is common during wars. Signs of this are now apparent.
    Prolonged wars, as this one has become, have profound consequences. No matter how much positive spin is put on it, war never makes a society wealthier. World War II was not a solution to the Depression as many claim. If a billion dollars is spent on weapons of war, the GDP records positive growth in that amount. But the expenditure is consumed by destruction of the weapons or bombs it bought, and the real economy is denied $1 billion to produce products that would have raised someone’s standard of living.
    Excessive spending to finance the war causes deficits to explode. There are never enough tax dollars available to pay the bills, and since there are not enough willing lenders and dollars available, the Federal Reserve must create enough new money and credit for buying Treasury Bills to prevent interest rates from rising too rapidly. Rising rates would tip off everyone that there are not enough savings or taxes to finance the war. This willingness to print whatever amount of money the government needs to pursue the war is literally inflation. Without a fiat monetary system wars would be very difficult to finance, since the people would never tolerate the taxes required to pay for it. Inflation of the money supply delays and hides the real cost of war. The result of the excessive creation of new money leads to the higher cost of living everyone decries and the Fed denies. Since taxes are not levied, the increase in prices that results from printing too much money is technically the tax required to pay for the war.
    The tragedy is that the inflation tax is borne more by the poor and the middle class than the rich. Meanwhile, the well-connected rich, the politicians, the bureaucrats, the bankers, the military industrialists, and the international corporations reap the benefits of war profits.
    A sound economic process is disrupted with a war economy and monetary inflation. Strong voices emerge blaming the wrong policies for our problems, prompting an outcry for protectionist legislation. It’s always easier to blame foreign producers and savers for our inflation, lack of savings, excess debt, and loss of industrial jobs. Protectionist measures only make economic conditions worse. Inevitably these conditions, if not corrected, lead to a lower standard of living for most of our citizens.
    Careless military intervention is also bad for the civil disturbance that results. The chaos in the streets of America in the 1960s while the Vietnam War raged, aggravated by the draft, was an example of domestic strife caused by an ill-advised unconstitutional war that could not be won. The early signs of civil discord are now present. Hopefully we can extricate ourselves from Iraq and avoid a conflict in Iran before our streets explode as they did in the 60s.
    In a way it’s amazing there’s not a lot more outrage expressed by the American people. There’s plenty of complaining but no outrage over policies that are not part of our American tradition. War based on false pretenses, 20,000 American casualties, torture policies, thousands jailed without due process, illegal surveillance of citizens, warrantless searches, and yet no outrage. When the issues come before Congress, Executive authority is maintained or even strengthened while real oversight is ignored.
    Though many Americans are starting to feel the economic pain of paying for this war through inflation, the real pain has not yet arrived. We generally remain fat and happy, with a system of money and borrowing that postpones the day of reckoning. Foreigners, in particular the Chinese and Japanese, gladly participate in the charade. We print the money and they take it, as do the OPEC nations, and provide us with consumer goods and oil. Then they loan the money back to us at low interest rates, which we use to finance the war and our housing bubble and excessive consumption. This recycling and perpetual borrowing of inflated dollars allows us to avoid the pain of high taxes to pay for our war and welfare spending. It’s fine until the music stops and the real costs are realized, with much higher interest rates and significant price inflation. That’s when outrage will be heard, and the people will realize we can’t afford the “humanitarianism” of the Neo-conservatives.
    The notion that our economic problems are principally due to the Chinese is nonsense. If the protectionists were to have their way, the problem of financing the war would become readily apparent and have immediate ramifications– none good. Today’s economic problems, caused largely by our funny money system, won’t be solved by altering exchange rates to favor us in the short run, or by imposing high tariffs. Only sound money with real value will solve the problems of competing currency devaluations and protectionist measures.
    Economic interests almost always are major reasons for wars being fought. Noble and patriotic causes are easier to sell to a public who must pay and provide cannon fodder to defend the financial interests of a privileged class.
    The fact that Saddam Hussein demanded Euros for oil in an attempt to undermine the U.S. dollar is believed by many to be one of the ulterior motives for our invasion and occupation of Iraq. Similarly, the Iranian oil burse now about to open may be seen as a threat to those who depend on maintaining the current monetary system with the dollar as the world’s reserve currency.
    The theory and significance of “peak oil” is believed to be an additional motivating factor for the U.S. and Great Britain wanting to maintain firm control over the oil supplies in the Middle East. The two nations have been protecting “our” oil interests in the Middle East for nearly a hundred years. With diminishing supplies and expanding demands, the incentive to maintain a military presence in the Middle East is quite strong. Fear of China and Russia moving into this region to assume more control alarms those who don’t understand how a free market can develop substitutes to replace diminishing resources. Supporters of the military effort to maintain control over large regions of the world to protect oil fail to count the real costs once the DOD budget is factored in. Remember, invading Iraq was costly and oil prices doubled. Confrontation in Iran may evolve differently, but we can be sure it will be costly and oil prices will rise.
    There are long-term consequences or blowback from our militant policy of intervention around the world. They are unpredictable as to time and place. 9/11 was a consequence of our military presence on Muslim holy lands; the Ayatollah Khomeini’s success in taking over the Iranian government in 1979 was a consequence of our CIA overthrowing Mossadech in 1953. These connections are rarely recognized by the American people and never acknowledged by our government. We never seem to learn how dangerous interventionism is to us and to our security.
    There are some who may not agree strongly with any of my arguments, and instead believe the propaganda: Iran and her President, Mahmoud Almadinjad, are thoroughly irresponsible and have threatened to destroy Israel. So all measures must be taken to prevent Iran from getting nukes– thus the campaign to intimidate and confront Iran.
    First, Iran doesn’t have a nuke and is nowhere close to getting one, according to the CIA. If they did have one, using it would guarantee almost instantaneous annihilation by Israel and the United States. Hysterical fear of Iran is way out of proportion to reality. With a policy of containment, we stood down and won the Cold War against the Soviets and their 30,000 nuclear weapons and missiles. If you’re looking for a real kook with a bomb to worry about, North Korea would be high on the list. Yet we negotiate with Kim Jong Il. Pakistan has nukes and was a close ally of the Taliban up until 9/11. Pakistan was never inspected by the IAEA as to their military capability. Yet we not only talk to her, we provide economic assistance– though someday Musharraf may well be overthrown and a pro-al Qaeda government put in place. We have been nearly obsessed with talking about regime change in Iran, while ignoring Pakistan and North Korea. It makes no sense and it’s a very costly and dangerous policy.
    The conclusion we should derive from this is simple: It’s in our best interest to pursue a foreign policy of non-intervention. A strict interpretation of the Constitution mandates it. The moral imperative of not imposing our will on others, no matter how well intentioned, is a powerful argument for minding our own business. The principle of self-determination should be respected. Strict non-intervention removes the incentives for foreign powers and corporate interests to influence our policies overseas. We can’t afford the cost that intervention requires, whether through higher taxes or inflation. If the moral arguments against intervention don’t suffice for some, the practical arguments should.
    Intervention just doesn’t work. It backfires and ultimately hurts American citizens both at home and abroad. Spreading ourselves too thin around the world actually diminishes our national security through a weakened military. As the superpower of the world, a constant interventionist policy is perceived as arrogant, and greatly undermines our ability to use diplomacy in a positive manner.
    Conservatives, libertarians, constitutionalists, and many of today’s liberals have all at one time or another endorsed a less interventionist foreign policy. There’s no reason a coalition of these groups might not once again present the case for a pro-American, non-militant, non-interventionist foreign policy dealing with all nations. A policy of trade and peace, and a willingness to use diplomacy, is far superior to the foreign policy that has evolved over the past 60 years.
    It’s time for a change.

    Reply

  20. rich says:

    Two thoughts:
    Peter Daou seems to’ve forgotten that the bloggers did as much of a service for Joe Wilson as he did for them.
    Clinton’s political judgment is at issue:
    jon at 07:12 PM:
    >I also think Hillary’s negatives will rise as >the campaign continues, particularly after the >convention. Republicans dream of running >against her and Bill. Folks will get off their >death beds to vote against her.
    After all the venom and outright hatred unleashed for eight years on William Jefferson Clinton and heaped upon herself, Ms. Clinton is choosing to walk right into that buzz-saw and may re-ignite that divisive abuse.
    The me-first attitude is Kerry-esque, and it doesn’t recommend her.
    OTOH, waiting 4 or 8 years would deprive that hatred of oxygen, and allow it to die w/o even grazing or touching her. It’d give her time to build a record. And what IS her record?
    I’ve often been the first to say Hillary Clinton is better than anyone says/knows. But I question the political judgment involved here. I can see she’s looking a lot better as a candidate. But co-sponsoring legislation with Trent Lott declaring October Mississippi Heritage Quilting Month doesn’t quite strike me as the record of an accomplished candidate. Hillary Hate is one of few, if not the only, sliver of hope still glimmering for Republicans. Don’t ever doubt they’ll be ready.
    is Clinton choosing what’s best for the country

    Reply

  21. aileench says:

    While the U.S. government and media keep focusing on defense policies and the war in Iraq, 1.2 billion people in the world continue surviving on less than $1 dollar a day. I would like see Sentaor Clinton support more international problems that affect our place in this world, such as global poverty. We should not forget the commitment made towards the U.N. Millennium Goals (a pact of ending extreme world hunger by the year 2025) in 2000. While the U.S. government and media keep focusing on defense policies and the war in Iraq, 1.2 billion people in the world continue surviving on less than $1 dollar a day. According to The Borgen Project, an annual $19 billion dollars is needed to eliminate half of the extreme poverty affecting the world by the year 2015. To my sense, it is almost unacceptable to have spent so far more than $340 billion in Iraq only, when we have more than war immunities to change the world and eliminate poverty.

    Reply

  22. rich says:

    Classic first post:
    >
    >I never quite trusted Wilson and now I know why.
    >
    >Posted by WhatBillOfRights at July 16, 2007 02:45 PM
    When a U.S. Senator has to weigh the political cost of standing up for the Bill of Rights (& the rest of the Constitution), they’re clearly unfit to hold the Office of Prznt.
    On one level, that’s ridiculous. But by conventional measures, it’s all we need to know.
    What they won’t do as Senators tells us plenty about what they would do as President.
    I don’t know that this helps Hillary more than it hurts Joe Wilson.
    Oh, don’t get me wrong. I understand what Hillary can offer. But ultimately, there has to be a bottom line that both parties recognize and honor.
    Hillary Clinton does not know what that line is.
    Now, you can argue that she does know, but she just “can’t” say so, or somehow benefits from not saying so. Is that what a leader does? Is that what’s best for the nation? Does that move the country forward, or bind us together?
    At minimum, there’s a message that’s just not getting through. Bad precedent.

    Reply

  23. eCAHNomics says:

    Correction to me @ 6:55pm.
    It was April Glaspie who baited the trap to lead Saddam into Kuwait. My problem with Wilson is that I’ve heard him defend her statement as “standard diplomatic speak,” or words to that effect. Ever since then, I’ve included him in the group blame.

    Reply

  24. ... says:

    what a disappointment.. i’d like to see a women as pres, but find another one please!

    Reply

  25. WhatBillOfRights says:

    I am the poster, and I take full responsibility for my comment: Hillary (Hitlery) Clinton supports and/or has supported, the invasion of two counties, Iraq and Afghanistan, neither of which are a threat to the U.S.
    Hitlery is now supporting an attack on a third country, Iran, which is no threat to the U.S. (the U.S. being the country she purports to represent in the Senate, but we should, in all faith, put into the context that we are just the dog for Israel’s tail and Hitlery knows that better than she knows how much comes in to her campaign coffers per minute)
    The Bill of Rights and Constitution have been superceded by the USRael Uber Alles mentality. Hitlery is a prime example of this, as are all the *presidential* candidates execept for Kucinich, Paul and Gravel.
    We have now launched an endless war against Islam which, by Hitlery’s *standards*, demands the destruction of the documents and ideals (Bill of Rights, Constitution, Declaration of Independence) that made America great.
    For Israel — these wars are for Israel –don’t forget that when you stand above the remains of your child or grandchild, should the U.S. *Treasury* have enough money, after we’re bled dry, to remand them to your care for burial.
    Call Pelosi’s office now, and Clinton’s and Edward’s and Obama’s and ANY OTHER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE WHO CLAIMS TO BE ANTIWAR BUT WHO ARE WILLING TO SEE OUR CHILDREN SLAUGHTERED IN IRAN and DEMAND CHENEY’S IMPEACHMENT.

    Reply

  26. jon says:

    It’s an excellent pickup for Hillary.
    She’ll get my attention and respect when she stops triangulating on what she’ll have for lunch, and when her mid-east policy doesn’t sound like it came direct from AIPAC’s back room. Her AUMF vote did not distinguish her, and all of her explanations are absurd.
    At best her foreign policy will be an extension of the Foggy Bottom consensus, DNC driven, and continue to extend US interests through power politics. Lot’s better that what we’ve got now, but I doubt it will be a golden era of enlightened statecraft.
    I also think Hillary’s negatives will rise as the campaign continues, particularly after the convention. Republicans dream of running against her and Bill. Folks will get off their death beds to vote against her. Her salvation has been the weakness of the Republican field. If she does win it will be a wall-to-wall sequel of Whitewater, for 8 years.
    So, who is Valerie endorsing?

    Reply

  27. B.Nacos says:

    A previous comment here that referred to Senator Clinton as “Hitlery Clinton” is not worth of serious political discourse. Obviously the poster of the comment has no knowledge what-so-ever of the Hitler regime. and certainly should not have invoked it in the context of Hillary Clinton.
    I do not know whether I will cast my vote for Mrs. Clinton or another candidate, but this much I do know: Poisoning the political discourse on a perfectly fine political blog contributes to the poisoning of healthy mass-mediated politics. I observe this on the most prominent blogs around and visit them less and less. I had hoped that more sophisticated minds would be the exclusively realm of this rather moderate blog–I hope that despite the above comment this will be the case.

    Reply

  28. eCAHNomics says:

    Clinton is a warmonger and corporate whore. The 1990s are over. The Third Way was probably a undercover plan of Karl Rove, anyhow. Shame on Wilson. I’ve always wondered about him since he gave the goahead to Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait (baited the trap, that is).
    Wellesley College ’66

    Reply

  29. fiat lux says:

    WTF was Wilson thinking? Hillary???

    Reply

  30. Carroll says:

    I don’t care who endorses who.
    Still no one to vote for.

    Reply

  31. WhatBillOfRights says:

    Actually, that Wilson supports Her Royal Highness Hitlery Clinton was on the Drudge Report almost right after Steve posted it.
    Bush/Clinton/Clinton/Bush/Bush/Clinton — doesn’t that give anyone besides me pause? Didn’t we fight a war to prevent dynasties/ monarchies?

    Reply

  32. bob mcmanus says:

    Dan, Joe Wilson has a lot of biography preceding Plamegate, as does his wife. Plamegate is not the significant reason for my admiration of the Wilsons.

    Reply

  33. Dan Kervick says:

    Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame are prominent in the lefty blogosphere because of what happened to them, and because their stories are woven into a couple of the subplots in the Iraq melodrama. People also remember that Wilson did his job and debunked a bad intelligence report, which only shows that he was something other than a neocon hack telling lies for the White House. But nobody really cares who Wilson’s favorite Democratic candidate is, any more than they care where Sandy Berger buys his socks.

    Reply

  34. bob mcmanus says:

    I would trust Joe Wilson with my family. And maybe Larry Johnson, but I can’t think of anyone else in the world. Oh, Pat Lang. This doesn’t necessarily mean I like these people.
    I also presume that Joe’s endorsement is based on more than a personal relationship to the Clinton’s. I wish the world was one that fit John Edward’s capabilities and talents, but I don’t think we live there right now.
    More in sorrow than enthusiasm, I am leaning to HRC.

    Reply

  35. profmarcus says:

    i’ve stated ad nauseam, that i will support no candidate unless and until he or she forcefully speaks out about the critical constitutional crisis that has been underway in the united states since 20 december 2000… jack balkin has an excellent summary and chronology of just exactly what has taken place in the last 6 1/2 years over at his blog, balkinization, with the telling title, “constitutional hardball…”
    over and above everything else (yes, INCLUDING iraq), stopping the destruction of our constitutional republic is THE number one national priority, followed closely by not only the rollback but also the formal REPUDIATION of the power excesses of the bush administration BEFORE a new president takes office, be it hillary or someone else…
    http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/

    Reply

  36. Brigitte N. says:

    If nothing else, endorsements like this latest one in particular ignite posts and comments and thus debate on the leading blogs. This, I am sure, is precisely what Senator Clinton’s media-savvy staffers want to achieve–thus the arrangement of a conference call with bloggers like Mr. Clemons.
    In the meantime, I want Senator and presidential candidate Clinton to read today’s Guardian story “Cheney pushes Bush to act on Iran” (or my comments on it) and tell us what her stance vis-a-vis Iran is.

    Reply

  37. john somer says:

    I wasn’t as yet in the US when Bill Clinton was elected but I remember a quip at the time “We’ve elected the wrong Clinton”, so she probably is a good candidate.
    I also remember at the beginning of the Valerie Plame saga a report that the couple had contributed equally to both parties in the run-up to the 2000 election
    Finally, as a European, I am always mystified by this practice of endorsing. Can’t people make their own mind ? We used to have similar practices in the first quarter of last century with priests urging the faithful in a sermon before the lections to vote for the right candidates or unions telling illiterate miners to vote “in the middle of the upper part of the ballot” but that’s a long way back

    Reply

  38. selise says:

    joe wilson is a hawk. senator clinton is a hawk. it kinda makes sense.
    i greatly admire what joe and valerie wilson have done and are doing… but i don’t agree with joe wilson’s politics. that has been clear from discussions he’s participated in over at firedoglake.

    Reply

  39. JohnH says:

    We don’t know what Hillary stands for, and we don’t know what Joe Wilson stands for, except for his opposition to Bush’s lying us in to war. Joe Wilson at least has the courage of his convictions. Hillary (and Obama) could take some lessons and show us they have leadership qualities.

    Reply

  40. liz says:

    I have great respect for the Wilson’s . I appreciate Ms. Wilson’s work, and I understand what happened to her and her network. However, respect and my personal decisions are two different things. Since we all have that right to our opinion, I see Hilliary as an extension of Bush. It’s Bush Clinton Bush Clinton then what… more Bush.
    No thanks.

    Reply

  41. Marky says:

    I haven’t been much of a fan of a Hillary Presidency, but she looks like a winner for the nomination these days. For me, Obama never caught fire, and his numerous gaffes make me question his readiness.
    I like Edwards, but I’m not convinced he’s a strong leader, to be frank.
    Richardson has what it takes to be President, but he has a lot of rough edges, to say the least. He certainly adds something to the debate, as does Edwards.
    That means I’ll have to go with Dennis “outer space” Kucinich! Rah rah!

    Reply

  42. Greg Priddy says:

    Very interesting — and maybe part of a significant repositioning. One piece of relevant context your readers may find of interest is that Hillary Clinton recently confirmed a speaking slot at the YearlyKos convention in Chicago in early August — a venue Edwards and Obama had agreed to speak at quite a while ago, and which Hillary was expected to avoid since it was assumed to be a potentially unfriendly audience.
    Anyway, I’d still class myself as ‘undecided’ at this point, but having been a bit skeptical of Hillary in the past, I must say, she’s looking a bit better at this point.
    (I also was somewhat favorably impressed by Hillary’s positive comments on Anatol Lieven’s book Ethical Realism that you’d mentioned a while back – don’t have a link handy…)

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *