Hillary's O'Hanlon Problem

Why does Hillary Clinton need to disavow the support of Michael O'Hanlon? Why does his support or non-support matter in the scheme of things? Because of the Iraq Debacle. Because of Hillary's vote in support of granting President Bush the power to go to war against Iraq in 2002. Because Michael O'Hanlon was a cheerleader for the Iraq Debacle. Because O'Hanlon was a cheerleader for the Surge. Because O'Hanlon will fiercely criticize anyone who disagrees with the current Bush Administration policy in Iraq:

Michael E. O’Hanlon, a military analyst at the Brookings Institution, criticized General Sanchez for implying in his speech that the current military strategy of relying on additional troops and on protecting the Iraqi people is little different than the strategy employed when he was in command.

Because if Michael O'Hanlon were an honest man, and he is not, he should not be supporting Hillary Clinton at all. He should be fiercely criticizing her. The support of Michael O'Hanlon, supporter of the Bush policy on Iraq, must be disavowed by the Clinton campaign. She has not earned our trust on Iraq. She can not expect that her acceptance of O'Hanlon's support would not be troubling to any one who cares about ending the Iraq Debacle.

< Clinton Derangement Syndrome | Fred Hiatt's Joe Klein Imitation >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    One wonders why the actual motivation (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by andgarden on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 09:54:12 AM EST
    is for Hillary to have taken O'Hanlon on in the first place.

    Coincident foreign policy views? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Edger on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 03:24:17 PM EST
    Why would she care ?? (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by RedHead on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 11:04:09 PM EST
    Clinton has the nomination wrapped up.  

    If she kissed O'Hanlon on tomorrow's O'Reilly Factor and said "He's my SecDef," how would it hurt?

    What are you going to do?


    All Talk - No Action.

    Can anyone reassure me about Hillary? (none / 0) (#1)
    by robrecht on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 09:32:18 AM EST
    Because if Michael O'Hanlon were an honest man, and he is not, he should not be supporting Hillary Clinton at all.

    The larger question, of course, is whether Hilary is really opposed to the Iraq (or Iran) war.

    Walter's citation in your first link from the Garaldi article ("Neolibs and Neocons, United and Interchangeable", 8/14/07) is very disturbing:

    The two leading Democratic candidates for president are undeniably Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Hillary is regarded as by far the more conservative candidate in that she has carefully triangulated her potential supporters and is unwilling to say that her vote in the Senate in support of the Iraq war was a mistake. She has also positioned herself with the Israel lobby through her pledge to disarm Iran by whatever means necessary and her threat to use nuclear weapons on terrorists. Her foreign policy advisers are a who's who of neoliberal hawks, including former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who famously believed that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children due to sanctions was "worth it." Clinton is also being advised by Richard Holbrooke, who is reported to be close to Paul Wolfowitz. Holbrooke is a possible candidate for secretary of state if Clinton is elected president. Holbrooke has been a supporter of the Iraq war, and he was an architect of the 1999 bombing of Serbia. Strobe Talbott, who advised Bill Clinton and was also involved with the bombing of Serbia, is reported to be another Hillary adviser.

    It seems there is reason to be concerned not only about O'Hanlon, but other advisors, and, of course, the candidate herself.

    Can anyone reassure me about Hillary?

    I now have the same concerns about (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 02:25:48 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton.  During a campaign appearance in NH (which I watched on C-Span last week) I thought she sd., w/o elaboration, Iran is supplying weapons to Iraqis.  And she firmly supported her vote for Kyl-Lieberman.  She is quite proud of that vote as far as I could tell and agin stated she voted for it to encourage diplomacy.

    Simple explanation (none / 0) (#7)
    by manys on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 05:11:19 PM EST
    She is the Establishment candidate for the Democratic party.

    In my opinion, it is not that simple. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 05:16:30 PM EST
    She must think, through her advisors and pollsters, that U.S. likely voters want her to rattle the cage on Iran, but I don't think they do.  Also, why would an intelligent politician who voted for the AMUF based on intelligence provided to Senators by the Bush admin., jump on the Iran is fueling the Iraq insurgents w/o telling us why she thinks that?  Yes, she is privy to more detailed info than we are, but this is sounding a lot like D. Feinstein, for whom I have lost all respect on these issues.   BUck up ladiesl.  Challenge the Bush blitz.

    Learn something new daily (none / 0) (#3)
    by Donna Z on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 10:56:59 AM EST
    Holbrooke is close to Wolfowitz! Yikes. However, considering Holbrooke's support of Iraq this makes some sense.

    "Can anyone reassure me about Hillary?" (I'm not the person to talk to about that one.)

    Even if Michael O'Hanlon is pushed out now, what does this say about the senator's judgement when befriending this creep?


    Clinton Advisors - IF Clinton Wins, THEN (none / 0) (#4)
    by seabos84 on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 01:34:40 PM EST
    it is a good advisor.

    My cousin worked for bob kerrey (sp?) in 1991 in d.c. he used to tell me that clinton didn't care about anything or anyone except clinton.

    when the monica came along, it was the first time I really really understood what my cousin was saying.  that perspective allowed me to make sense of all of clinton's actions.

    I'd have NO problem with them if they reflected where most of hte tens of millions of working serfs live and breath,

    instead they reflect the fascist defined 'middle', 'independent', 'bipartisan'

    why do they do that, decade in and decade out?
    are they stupid patsy's of the fascists, are they corrupted ...

    let them keep their fascist lite sell out advisors.

    let them join the fascists and temper them.


    Terrific title. (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 02:26:27 PM EST

    Get over yourself, (none / 0) (#10)
    by elrapido on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 03:13:07 PM EST
    Armando.  Your opinion on this issue is of no importance.  The queen simply awaits her coronation.