More of the Same from Hillary Clinton

I can agree that Hillary Clinton did an excellent job last night of defining herself in the debate. However, on the two most important issues, Iraq and the war on terror, she defined herself in such a way that I want no part of her. Here's the relevant part of Scarecrow's take.

I have serious misgivings about Senator Clinton’s unwillingness to acknowledge the egregious error of her original war authorization vote. She said she was thoroughly briefed on the intelligence, knew all the evidence, talked to the dissenters, and yet — and this is the error she can’t admit — her judgment was to trust George Bush to do the right thing.

What I did not count on, and what none of us did who voted to give the President authority, is that he had no intention to allow the inspectors to finish the job.

The argument is essentially "I was fooled by that evil wizard George Bush." There were plenty of Democrats who didn't buy what Bush was selling, and that's a fundamental issue of judgment. Sadly, Edwards and Dodd didn't pass the test either. But they've both admitted they were wrong. To say that George Bush, mastermind that he is, fooled you, doesn't put a lot of faith in me that you're going to be able to deal with world leaders with competing interests on the world stage.

Kos essentially sayys the same thing.

Shorter Hillary Clinton: "I trusted Bush on Iraq." That, alone, should be enough to disqualify her. "Good judgement" is a must-have trait for our next president.

I don't know why she just can't say about her war authorization vote: "I regret that vote. It was a mistake." Edwards did so and it hasn't hurt him. In fact, given our current president's inability to admit a mistake, being honest about the biggest whiffs is kind of refreshing. But Hillary is learning the worst lessons from Bush. And thus, rather than admit she screwed up, she's reduced to arguing that she placed all her trust on Bush.

In my book, saying "I made a mistake" will always trump "I trusted Bush."

Because those of us who were watching closely, in 2003, knew damn well that Bush couldn't be trusted on anything.

This is also essentially the same thing John Kerry said in 2004 ("I trusted Bush") that got him twisted up in knots, and while Hillary is a better communicator, I don't think we need to go through this endless parsing again and again when it comes to Iraq. It's distracting and it doesn't inspire leadership.

I totally agree with Scarecrow on the next point (although I thought Edwards did a better job on his war on terror re-frame than Scarecrow gives him credit for):

Perhaps even more disturbing was her response to Edward’s attempts to reframe the “war on terror.” The Democrats should not be arguing about this; it is a ticket out of the morass. I thought Edwards was right to make this effort, even though it’s a tough sell, but his explanation last night of what he meant seemed weak. That gave Clinton the chance to wave 9/11 in the same way Bush does; it was an ugly moment in which the Democrat’s possible Presidential candidate missed an opportunity to improve her own image and her party’s ability to confront terrorism by helping Edwards reframe the terror debate. That she chose to use that moment not only to discredit Edwards but worse, to reinforce the most poisonous of the Bush/Cheney talking points is discouraging. That moment illustrated why so many of us have strong misgivings about a Clinton Presidency, no matter how authentic she is.

In fact, she parroted Bush's language verbatim on this. She used the construct "we're safer, but not yet safe."

Here's Bush using that phrase in September 2006:

The president's remarks came hours after the White House released its updated plan for combating terrorism. The document describes many successes in the war on terrorism, but warns that the nation faces an evolving threat from small terrorist networks and al-Qaeda, which is as much an ideology as a terrorist network. The document calls the administration's policy of spreading freedom and democracy the best means of countering that threat over the long haul.

"America is safer, but we are not yet safe," the document concludes.

Not only did the document conclude that, but the President said the words in that speech to the nation in September 2006.

Stephen Hadley in December of 2005:

White House national security adviser Stephen Hadley said the Bush administration accepted a large majority of the (9/11) panel's recommendations, but he acknowledged that the job of implementation is incomplete.

"Obviously, as we've said all along, we are safer, but not yet safe. There is more to do," Hadley told "Fox News Sunday."

Alberto Gonzales, December 2005:

Thankfully, there has not been another attack on our homeland in the four years since. America quickly united in the fight against terrorism, and we’ve prevented this evil from returning to our shores. However, the horrors of terrorism have been felt around the globe. And as you’ve heard the President repeat: “We are safer, but not yet safe.”

Here's a transcript from a White House chat with Deputy National Security Advisor J.D. Crouch.

There is no doubt that this President’s leadership, the dedication of U.S. government officials at all levels, and the cooperation of our many foreign partners that we have both significantly damaged al-Qaida and also significantly improved our defenses against terrorist attack. It certainly has been more than good fortune that has prevented another attack on the U.S. Homeland since 9/11. However, this fact is no cause for complacency. I believe we are safer, but not yet safe. As the President indicated in his speech this morning, al-Qaida continues to plot against us and our allies around the world. We must remain vigilant and continue aggressively taking the fight to the terrorists if we are to continue to prevent future attacks.

Here's Condi Rice from March 2004:

Q Is the Bush presidency, or the Bush legacy, at stake here?

DR. RICE: This President doesn't care about his legacy (hah! -ed). What he cares about is keeping this country safe and secure. We are safer today than we were on September 10th. We're not yet safe. We've got a lot of work to do. We've got a lot of work to do in homeland security. We've got a lot of work to do against the terrorists abroad. This is a war and it's going to take time. But all of the -

Bush used it in his closing remarks of the second 2004 Presidential debate, obviously the most scripted moment of any debate.

And abroad, we're at war. And it requires a president who is steadfast and strong and determined. I vowed to the American people after that fateful day of September the 11th that we would not rest nor tire until we're safe.

The 9/11 Commission put out a report that said America is safer but not yet safe. There is more work to be done.

Here's Ron Reagan Jr. making fun of it:

“We are fighting them on the streets of Baghdad so we don’t have to fight them here at home.”

This has been the mantra of the bush administration regarding an invasion and occupation they’re pleased to lump into the category “war on terror.” It’s usually paired with, “we’re safer but not yet safe.” In other words, we the Republicans have made you more secure through our steadfast efforts in Iraq, but not safe enough that you should consider voting for the “cut and run” democrats.

Jon Stewart tackled this as well.

Stewart: George W. Bush in the right man to lead us in the era of post-whatever horrible calamity he leads us into next."

Hillary Clinton last night used a 3 year-old talking point that the Bush Administration employs to minimize criticism of its security policies but to ratchet up fear by warning that we're "not yet safe." It's a cyncial and manipulative trick, designed to appear critical of the Bush Administration while adopting their rhetoric at the same time. I was blown away when I heard her actually say this. There are a variety of unsubstantive reasons not to warm to the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. But the most direct reason is that she offers no real change from the system as it is working today. Her being advised by corporate PR spin-man Mark Penn is an example of this on the economic side. And her willingness to adopt a Republican frame that is used to keep people in a state of paralysis when it comes to terror is another. Hillary comes off as knowledgeable, thoughtful, and extremely competent on the issues. She is not looking to change America's role in the world. She is a consensus candidate. In this day and age, I don't think that's what we need.

UPDATE: Relevant part of the transcript here.

Senator Clinton, do you agree with Senator Edwards that this war on terror is nothing more than a bumper sticker; at least the way it's been described?

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D) NEW YORK: No, I do not. I am a senator from New York. I have lived with the aftermath of 9/11, and I have seen firsthand the terrible damage that can be inflicted on our country by a small band of terrorists who are intent upon foisting their way of life and using suicide bombers and suicidal people to carry out their agenda.

And I believe we are safer than we were. We are not yet safe enough. And I have proposed over the last year a number of policies that I think we should following.

Worse than I remembered. The idea that because she's from New York (and, you know, she's NOT, she just happened to be the Senator from that state on 9/11), she has some kind of greater authority about the war on terror is just completely bogus. Greg Sargent wrote about that today.