Lawrence O'Donnell's anti Clinton propoganda last night

[karynnj]

132. Consider several things:

Kerry was far less hawkish - and like Biden worked to try to get a better resolution. They actually succeeded to some degree - but for their own sakes, it might have been better had they failed to get any changes. They then would have voted against it.


The other reason is that it is harder to get a clip of Kerry"s - without truncating sentences - that are for invading. Note the Republicans have no problem with leaving out part of a sentence when that part qualifies what he was speaking of. (In fact, one quote they have used was part of a speech that was reported (by the few that reported it) as Kerry says "not to rush to war" - a speech that the former Bush speech writer in National Review whined about saying they were very slow to go to war and that Kerry and France would never agree that enough was done. )

A third reason is that as SOS, HRC was on the hawkish edge of the administration - pushing Obama to back a surge in Afghanistan and wanting to arm the Syrian rebels. (In the Senate she backed the Kyle/Lieberman Iran resolution) The point is these three later positions show that her IWR was not an exception but the rule.

The fourth reason is that she is being pushed by very powerful people as the inevitable 2016 nominee. Biden is mentioned, but his role in the administration was to end the Iraq role and he was the LEAST hawkish person in the room on Afghanistan by all accounts. This gives his reason for voting for the IWR - similar to Kerry's - a lot of credibility.Kerry has not been mentioned and he can't run without quitting as SOS, which would not be a good way to start a long shot run.