Matthews: "It's very hard to tell" whether Sen. Clinton is with Democrats or Lieberman on Iraq
SUMMARY: On two different occasions, Chris Matthews suggested that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's position on the war in Iraq was close to that of Sen. Joe Lieberman than to that of congressional Democrats. In fact, Clinton has come out in opposition to President Bush's troop escalation plan and has introduced a bill to stop the escalation and begin a "phased redeployment" from Iraq, unlike Lieberman, who has publicly stated that he not only supports the war but Bush's troop increase, as well.
On the February 26 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews said of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY): "It's very hard to tell whether she's with [Sen. Joseph I.] Lieberman [CT] or she's with the Democratic Party on the issue of the war" in Iraq. Similarly, the previous day on his NBC-syndicated television show, Matthews had asked his guests whether Clinton is "in the Lieberman position of being more hawkish." Yet a glance at the recent Senate voting records of Clinton and Lieberman shows that Clinton voted with nearly all Senate Democrats to advance a resolution condemning President Bush's troop escalation in Iraq while Lieberman voted with Republicans to block debate on the measure. While Clinton has recently introduced a bill to stop the escalation of the Iraq war and to begin a "phased redeployment" of troops from Iraq, Lieberman has publicly stated that not only does he support the war, he also supports Bush's troop increase.
On February 5, Lieberman voted with most Senate Republicans to stop the Senate from considering a resolution opposing Bush's Iraq escalation plan, while Clinton, along with all but three Democrats,* voted to proceed with the debate. On February 17, Senate Republicans again blocked the Democrats' attempt to go on record rejecting Bush's troop increase, and again, Lieberman sided with most Republicans -- five more Republicans joined Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Norm Coleman (R-MN) in voting with the Democrats -- while Clinton voted with all her Democratic colleagues who were present.**
In addition, just before the February 5 Senate vote, during the January 23 Senate Armed Services Committee confirmation hearing of then-Lt. General David H. Petraeus to head the Multi-National Forces in Iraq, Clinton specifically stated that she disagreed with Lieberman's position on the Senate resolution rejecting the troop increase in Iraq. During the testimony, Lieberman told Petraeus: "A Senate-passed resolution of disapproval for this new strategy in Iraq would give the enemy some encouragement, some feeling that -- well, some clear expression that the American people were divided." Later in the hearing, Clinton said that she rejected the ideas "of our other friends on the panel who think that statements of disapproval are somehow going to undermine our effort when I think they will send the clearest message."
Further, Clinton's bill, the "Iraq Troop Reduction & Protection Act of 2007," introduced on February 16, stands in stark contrast to Lieberman's position on the Iraq war. According to Clinton's Senate website, the four main components of her bill include: "Stopping the president's escalation of the war," "Ending the blank check for the Iraqi government," "Starting phased redeployment and involving countries in the region in the future of Iraq," and "Protecting our troops sent into Iraq."
Lieberman, on the other hand, as the Associated Press reported, has recently praised Bush's troop increase plan, even echoing the Bush administration's rhetoric that "[w]e're fighting them in Iraq ... so we don't have to fight them here at home":
Sen. Joe Lieberman, who was assailed for his pro-war views during his fall re-election race, praised President Bush's plan to increase the number of troops in Iraq and urged his colleagues in Congress to proceed with respectful debate.
"Excessive partisan division and rancor at home only weakens our will to prevail in this war," Lieberman, I-Conn., said in a statement Wednesday.
[...]
"The president did not take the easy path, but he took the correct and courageous course," Lieberman said. "It is a dangerous illusion to believe that we can depart Iraq and the inevitable killing fields and terrorist violence will not follow us in retreat -- even to our own shores."
*Sens. Mary Landrieu (LA) and Tim Johnson (SD) did not vote; Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV) voted yes then changed his vote to vote with the Republicans as a procedural move so he could later move to reconsider the motion -- a right reserved only for those voting with the majority.
**Sen. Tim Johnson did not vote.
From the February 26 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: You know, I'm trying to figure what out you're running on as a platform, Governor, and how the Democrats -- I saw Hillary the other day -- Hillary Clinton took a shot at other Democrats by saying that there are some people that don't believe there's a terrorist threat out there. Who's she talking about? Is she talking about you? Is she talking about Obama? About Kucinich? Who's she saying in the Democratic Party doesn't believe that terrorism is a threat to our country?
GOV. BILL RICHARDSON (D-NM): Well, I don't know who she's talking about, but I want to tell you --
MATTHEWS: Well, don't you take umbrage at the fact that she's broad-brushing other Democrats, perhaps, to her left? I mean, it's easy to get to her left on the war in Iraq. She takes a somewhat -- well, it's a hard ambivalent position. It's very hard to tell whether she's with Lieberman or she's with the Democratic Party on the issue of the war. But who does she mean when she says that?
From the February 25 edition of NBC-syndicated The Chris Matthews Show:
DAN RATHER (former CBS News anchor): And there's danger for Hillary because, you know, this argument, "Well, is she a hawk, is she a dove?" -- she has to be careful not to come across as a chickenhawk.
MATTHEWS: Well, what does that mean?
RATHER: Well, what that means is trying to have it both ways.
MATTHEWS: Well, that -- here's the question. This week, she attacked her Democratic opponents in saying, "There's some people running for president," Michele, "who don't really think terrorism is a problem." Who's she talking about?
MICHELE NORRIS (National Public Radio anchor): Oh, I think she's talking about almost every other person --
MATTHEWS: Obama!
NORRIS: -- in the race right now. And probably Obama is, too, but --
MATTHEWS: But that puts her over in the Lieberman position of being more hawkish. Does she want to get over there?















I agree with Matthews on this one. Hillary is losing votes daily by not be up-front with her Iraq position -- or, maybe she is? If she's in the Lieberman category... forget it.
I don't think there's any misinformation here. I feel the same way. I want to know what her stance on this Iraq conflict is.
Her problem is that many on the left see her and Lieberman nearly the same on this issue - don't blame Matthews or the media on this one.
There is truth to that Tommy. As an unabashed liberal I get almost as ticked off when Hillary is referred to as such, as I do when someone says Lieberman is a Democrat. This posting doesn't have as much teeth as MMfA thinks it does. But hey, it's a slow news day.
Actually, in Hillary's defense - I find her explanations and stance on the war pretty straightforward and honest. I like it when she said that life isn't "do-overs", and she challenged people who don't accept her position to look elsewhere for a candidate, if they must.......good for her candor. But she is in a pickle with her base on this........but then again this is a mess for most politicians, thanks to Bush and his mishandling debacle.
I agree again! She has been quite accurate in her remarks regarding her vote. I still don't like her vote but she's answered the question. Some on the left do want her to say the magic words "I'm sorry" for what ever reason. Personally, I'm satisfied with her statement. That's about all I am staisfied with when it comes to her but that's another thread.
You have a point , but Senator Clinton is not equal to Lieberman on this issue. Matthews is spewing his anti Clinton hate again.
When you put Hillary next to Lieberman she looks like a dove. I do think this analogy is a bit unfair. To her credit she has comeout against the surge and offered a coherent answer to her critics regarding the Iraq vote. Liberman, just today berated anyone who questions Bush on Iran now. I don't like either of them honestly.
Israel is drooling to attack Iran. And they want the US to do it for them.
"Israeli Defense Force chief artillery officer Gen. Oded Tira has griped that "President Bush lacks the political power to attack Iran," adding that since "an American strike in Iran is essential for [Israel's] existence, we must help him pave the way by lobbying the Democratic Party (which is conducting itself foolishly) and US newspaper editors. We need to do this in order to turn the Iran issue to a bipartisan one and unrelated to the Iraq failure." Tira urges the Lobby to turn to "potential presidential candidates. . . so that they support immediate action by Bush against Iran,""
from http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp02242007.html
There's also rumours in Israel of another planned attack on Lebanon and the new US intelligence "czar" is whining that Hezbollah, which has never attacked the US, is now a "threat to our interests".
Makes you wonder who our politicians work for, don't it?
Understanding there's a Terrorist Threat out there has zilch to do with Iraq.
That Matthews is trying to equate the two issues is disappointing because I like the guy & enjoy Hardball.
Matthews dislikes Hillary. And he's being disingenuous here.
What really ticks me off is that I'm not a Hillary fan, and this is the second time today I find myself defending her...
I agree with you, I won't vote for Clinton (I vote Dem mostly) but if the media keeps it up and picks on her, and not on the others in the same manner Hillary will get a sympathy vote.
Well, I do think Hillary has done too much dodging on the Iraq thing. Now, it's too late. If she'd have come out initially and said something to the affect of "I made a bad choice...we all did... now, let's move on". This is - more than anything - a chink in her armor, I feel. Smacks of Bill's tactics...riding the fence all the time to appease everyone. It'll hurt her, I think. "Terrorism"...although important... is not the main issue here. It is Iraq. I sort of feel that Matthews is stretching it, but bringing the topic back on line to Hillary (purposefully, or not). I still want to know what her plan is.
If she's getting thrown in the ringer with Lieberman by these guys...her goose is cooked.
I really disagree with MM here. I think MM needs to be careful here not to appear supporting a particular candidate in this case. Hilary has a real problem in not being clear, and has a real history of poor choices and statements on this illegal war.
Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman were the biggest impediments to the Democrats taking an anti-war position for at least 3 years. That is a hell of a lot of blood. Hillary is shedding the Iraq War now that it no longer works for her politically. At least Lieberman is consistent on the issue. He is actually showing more integrity than Clinton.
How many times must Hillary state that she voted for the war because of faulty information before it sticks? Come on guys. How much more clear do you want it? If she says"sorry" that will be the next thing to jump on. You didn't think that her detractors would actually let her win this one did you? Silly Rabbit
test...this is only a test:
http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/carbon_offset_wind_credits_carbon_reduction.htm