David Corn's False Smear of Hillary Clinton

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 01:29:09 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

(speaking for me only)

This is the type of stuff that makes me want to defend Hillary Clinton. Matt Yglesias approvingly cites David Corn's smear of Hillary Clinton:

Clinton insisted that her support for the war resolution had been merely a vote to pressure the Iraqi dictator to allow weapons inspectors into Iraq. She quickly moved on to attack Obama: . . . "His judgment was that, at the time in 2002, we didn't need to make any efforts. My belief was we did need to pin Saddam down, put inspectors in." . . . That was one helluva charge. Obama was willing to sit back and let a WMD-toting dictator go along on his merry own way (while Clinton was doing what she could to pin down that snake). Could this be true? . . . Was favoring the continuing containment of Saddam Hussein in October 2002 the equivalent of doing nothing?

Now I reject Hillary's argument that the IWR vote was about getting the inspectors in for President Bush, but Bush DID say that. And indeed, the inspectors WERE NOT in Iraq prior to the IWR. This is worthy of a debate. But Corn does not just decide to agree with Obama's position. He decides to falsely accuse Clinton of lying. And that is a lie by Corn. It is very wrong of Corn to do that and very wrong of Yglesias to approvingly cite Corn for this proposition. Would Corn call it a lie that Obama says Clinton voted for the Iraq War when she says she did not and she can point to her speech saying exactly that? These are opinions about judgments. Obama is expressing his, one I share, and Clinton is expressing hers, one I do not share. [More...]

This is truly ugly work by Corn. If you want to find a lie to condemn, and do not hold your breath waiting for David Corn or Matthew Yglesias to call this one - Michelle Obama lied about what Bill Clinton was talking about when he said there was a fairytale about Obama's supposed consistent opposition to the Iraq War. Do Corn or Yglesias [NOTE - reference to Josh Marshall deleted. It was unfair of me to include him in this reference] care about that? Of course not. Beating up on the Clintons is just much more fun than telling the truth.

< Monday Non-Politics Open Thread | Obama Nevada Flyer: "You Can Be A Democrat For One Day" >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

David Corn's False Smear of Hillary Clinton | 23 comments (23 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

David Corn (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by BDB on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 02:35:45 PM EST

does not like Hillary Clinton. I generally like Corn, but he has been repeatedly unfair to her, printing things based on sourcing he'd never print about Obama (or at least I'd like to think that because if his standards are the same for others, then his standards stink). Everything he says about Clinton should be taken with a giant shaker of salt.

I get why people like that Obama was against the war, but so many seem invested in the idea of Obama as an anti-war candidate to the point that they can't see his actual record clearly. It's like they want a strong anti-war candidate so badly that they have to turn Obama into that candidate because, really, what choices do they have among the leading Dems? So they try to build him up in ways that, frankly, he just doesn't measure up to.

Obama deserves credit for his Iraq speech. Levin is right, that wasn't an easy thing to say and good for Obama for saying it. But his leadership since that speech has been sorely lacking and that's just the way it is. Which isn't to laud Clinton's record on Iraq, it's not any better, but it's also not all that much worse.

Michelle Obama no direct quote (none / 0) (#1)
by Jgarza on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 01:41:18 PM EST

you accused Michelle Obama of lying, to points, the post by JA never direct quotes Michelle Obama. My recollection of what she said, since i heard it, and no one seems to have direct quote. Was this is no fairy tale, she was certainly mocking his talking point, but to call it a lie, is going over board.

Seems like a pretty good political skill on Michelle's part, not lying.

Seems like a lie to me (4.00 / 1) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 02:01:48 PM EST

"Greeted by a standing ovation when she took the stage at the opening of the Trumpet Awards -- an event celebrating black achievement -- she went on to criticize anyone who would "dismiss this moment as an illusion, a fairy tale" in an obvious reference to comments made by Bill Clinton, the spouse of her husband's main rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, who used the term "fairy tale" to refer to Obama's characterization of his position on the Iraq war."


Well i have a list (none / 0) (#20)
by Jgarza on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 06:28:59 PM EST

of people for you to label liars if you are in the business of doing that.

I find it a bit disrespectful, and thought you and this website were above that.


this website is above that (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Jeralyn on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 06:39:18 PM EST

name-calling and personal attacks are not allowed. You can dispute someone's assertions as being false without calling them a liar. And I'd prefer it if people did that. Also, saying something isn't true reads better than saying it's a lie. Semantics, of course, but it also promotes courtesy and a higher level of discourse.


: Sorry (none / 0) (#22)
by Jgarza on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 06:54:06 PM EST

I would not have posted in the other thread if i had seen this. Thank for deleting.

I agree (none / 0) (#2)
by athyrio on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 01:55:32 PM EST

that beating up the Clintons serves no purpose. If their candidate cannot win on his own then so be it. I am sure the republicans love this war between us.

Pro-war vote (none / 0) (#4)
by Heather on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 02:18:59 PM EST

The vote was for war. The Clinton's cannot rewrite history. Everyone knew that once the Congress took that vote it was all over and Bush was headed to war.

Hillary voted to go to war. Period. There is no other way to tell that story.

: I agree with (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 02:28:42 PM EST

your opinion.

: Sorry but (none / 0) (#8)
by RalphB on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 02:25:29 PM EST

that's your opinion only. It is not shared by me.

There is a pathology here (none / 0) (#5)
by RalphB on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 02:21:33 PM EST

that's perplexing. Among the candidates, from both parties, Sen Clinton seems to be the only one who inspires this whacky attack filled coverage. It comes from both ends of the political spectrum. There doesn't seem to be anything too small to lie, misconstrue, or obfuscate about where she is concerned.

Since the continuum from left to right is not a line but a circle, they must meet at the point where Clinton hatred blooms. Everytime this kind of crap happens it just makes me support her more strongly. Anyone who is hated by both ends of the sprectrum must be right.

: Or will be treated unfairly and lose the (none / 0) (#24)
by DA in LA on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:13:38 PM EST

general election. Gore wasn't exactly treated fairly by the press. I would expect 10 times worse treatment of Clinton. And the results will follow.

MSM (none / 0) (#6)
by koshembos on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 02:23:30 PM EST

Don't forget both Corn are members in good standing of the MSM, the Nation and the Atlantic. Both are also part of the left wing conspiracy against the Clintons. The funny part is that both support a right of Hillary candidate.

Hillary voted for war... (none / 0) (#11)
by eddeevy on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 02:36:53 PM EST

Most of us know exactly what happened during the months leading up to the war. It made me sick to see Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, vote for a pre-emptive war against a country that presented no treat to American security. I'm just a 'layman' and I knew at the time that the war was based on a pack of lies.
Why did Hillary and Co vote for the war? Maybe it was pressure from special interest groups.

Wait, please clarify this... (none / 0) (#12)
by ctrenta on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 02:41:37 PM EST

BTD writes:

the inspectors WERE NOT in Iraq prior to the IWR.

Hans Blix was not an inspector? What was he then? Not being sarcastic or anything, just want to know the subtle nuances, if there are any. What about Scott Ritter before that? Wouldn't he be classified as an inspector too? BTD says this topic is worthy of debate. If so, I'd like to know why. It's news to me. Thanks!

Prior to the IWR (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 03:01:23 PM EST

There were no inspectors in Iraq.

There WERE inspectors in AFTER the IWR but BEFORE the war.


Follow-up (none / 0) (#17)
by ctrenta on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 03:14:36 PM EST

OK. This is all very helpful. What I was also wondering is Hans Blix's was the head of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) inspectors, He also entered Iraq on November 27, 2002 and left shortly before the March '03 invasion.

Given the name of his title (and his organization nevertheless) how does he (and/or they) not qualify as inspectors?

Just wanna know for clarification. Thanks folks!


: The IWR (none / 0) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 03:20:27 PM EST

was passed in October 2002.

Scott Ritter was (none / 0) (#14)
by RalphB on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 03:02:37 PM EST

an arms inspector in Iraq prior to them being taken out in 1998. From '98 until after the AUMF, there were no arms inspectors in Iraq. That's one reason the intelligence could be so cherry picked.

One of the reasons I don't necessarily agree that the vote was a 'vote for war' is the avowed purpose of the Bush admin was to get inspectors back in and look for the WMD. The pressure got Hans Blix and the inspectors in and then, when I think Bushies determined they were not going to find WMD, they were pulled out and we went to war.


: It's irrelevent what you believe regarding (none / 0) (#25)
by DA in LA on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:17:20 PM EST

the vote. Public perception is that it was for the war, so that is what it is.

Iraq war resolution (none / 0) (#19)
by judyo on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 04:40:24 PM EST

Has anyone actually read this?
It has been my understanding that it gave the President "any means". It did NOT say war.
This whole, voted for the war jazz is just that (no beat).

: Any means (none / 0) (#26)
by Warren Terrer on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:44:56 AM EST

includes war. We all knew it at the time. After all, this is President "All Options Are on the Table" Bush we are talking about.
The whole point of the wording of the resolution, rather than issuing a formal declaration of war, was to give Bush everything he wanted, i.e. the power to go to war, while pretending exactly what Clinton is trying to pretend, namely that it was Bush's decision to go to war, not Congress's.
They gave a drunk the keys to the car, then try to pretend they weren't really letting him drive it.

I wish I could remember the word (none / 0) (#23)
by chemoelectric on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 08:15:11 PM EST

Once when David Corn got into a disagreement with Randi Rhodes, he referred to her as "honey" or something like that, I can't remember the word, because all I can remember is my shock at hearing him address a woman that way to try to shut her up.