The Common Ills: At this point, Hillary, what difference does it make?

In her new book, Hillary Clinton's testing the waters for a possible presidential run. It's all so disappointing, it's all so yesterday.

But the same press that applauded her aggression in January of 2013 is mainlining her still-not-released book. For example, Joel Siegel (New York Daily News) gets giddy:

In a stark admission, Hillary Clinton says she "got it wrong. Plain and simple” when she voted as a U.S. senator to authorize the war in Iraq, according to her new memoir.
Clinton’s support, in 2002, for the Iraq War Resolution dogged her unsuccessful 2008 run for President against Barack Obama, who opposed the war from the start.
Clinton has distanced herself from her vote — but never in such forceful terms as in her soon-to-be released book, “Hard Choices.”

Is it a stark admission?

Sounds a little weak to me -- plain and simple.

Catalina Camia (USA Today) offers:

Recounting the criticism she encountered in the 2008 campaign for voting for the Iraq War, Clinton writes her “mistake” became more painful every time she sent a condolence letter while she was a U.S. senator to a New York family that lost a son or daughter.
“I thought I had acted in good faith and made the best decision I could with the information I had. And I wasn’t alone in getting it wrong,” Clinton says, according to CBS News. “But I still got it wrong. Plain and simple.”

And that seems strangely untrue.

Here's CBS quoting from the book:

"[M]any Senators came to wish they had voted against the resolution. I was one of them. As the war dragged on, with every letter I sent to a family in New York who had lost a son or daughter, a father or mother, my mistake become (sic) more painful."
"I thought I had acted in good faith and made the best decision I could with the information I had. And I wasn't alone in getting it wrong. But I still got it wrong. Plain and simple."

For the record, ahead of the New Hampshire primary, I started rooting for Hillary in January 2008. Prior to that, I wasn't supporting her. I wasn't supporting anyone. I was focused on Iraq. I was asked, by a friend at a college, to fill in for the Hillary speaker. The poli sci class was hearing from a variety of people speaking for candidates and the Hillary speaker couldn't make it for whatever reason. I was there to speak to another of my friends' courses (two I believe) about Iraq. But I filled in and thought about it -- I honestly was not focused on the primaries other than Iraq -- and thought she'd do a good job, Hillary.

I'd already been face to face with the other two. And I know Hillary. So she seemed like the best choice. John Edwards? Please, Mr. Grabby Hands? No. Barack? Elaine and I met him when he was seeking the Senate seat. A friend was throwing a big bash to get big money donations and Elaine and I wanted to support this anti-war candidate. But in our face to face, we brought up Iraq and the 'antiwar' politician told us the US was in Iraq so . . . Antiwar, our ass. Elaine and I walked out right then without writing a check.

At that point, it was Hillary, Edwards and Barack.

"Bloody War Hawks," Isaiah had dubbed the three.

Dennis had given his voters to Barack to allow Barack to 'win' Iowa. With that fake ass move exposed, Dennis found himself out of the debates and out of the running.

So I was okay with Hillary. I was also sick of all the sexism.

But I could handle Hillary despite the Iraq War vote. And of the remaining candidates, none voted against it (in 2004, Barack told the New York Times he didn't know how he would have voted for the 2002 measure if he was in the Senate at that time).

But that was then.

Let me screech like Hillary did January 23, 2013, "At this point, Hillary, what difference does it make?"

Her story now makes no sense.

She knew it was wrong while she was in the Senate writing to the families of the fallen?

Then why she didn't take real responsibility for it then or now?

A few lines in a book?

In 2008, her vote was used by Barack's campaign to destroy her.

She might have said then what she says in her book, it might have meant something back then.

But today?

What it proves today is she doesn't appear fit to be president.

She wasn't smart enough to save her own campaign by sharing this then.

That does not speak well to her efforts to save the country.

It takes her 12 years to own up to a mistake?

That does not speak well to the skills required for a leader.

What we're left with is that she's testing a trial run and trying to get Iraq behind her.

That would explain the stupidity on her part that thought a few lines about an American disaster -- one she supported -- that tore apart at least two countries (the US and Iraq) -- would let her off the hook.

It feels like tossed out sop. It feeds into her negatives with the public which include "craven."

National Iraqi News Agency reports a Tikrit bombing left 1 police officer dead. and 2 Qadisiyah bombings left one police member and his brother injured. They also noting fighting in Mosul has left 7 Iraqi soldiers dead and three more injured, six police members injured, 25 rebels were killed, 7 police members were killed and twenty-three injured, 10 Iraqi soldiers dead and fourteen injured, and 2 car bombings left 25 civilians dead and thirty-five injured.

That's just some of the violence.

And it's on Hillary's hands.

She supported the illegal war with her vote.

Bad enough.

Worse, she knows Nouri's a thug but she went along with Barack's unconstitutional plotting to give Nouri a second term. When does she write about that? About how, under Barack, the US government stomped out possible move towards democracy by Iraq? About how demanding Nouri got a second term caused one crisis after another in Iraq over the last four years?

Do we have to wait 12 years for her to get honest about that?

She tosses out the fallen, stands on their backs, please note.

There's no soul searching.

She just tosses out the dead in one sentence where she makes it about her pain.

Surely, it's more painful to write a letter than it is to lose a child in the Iraq War, right?

To believe Hillary today, you have to believe that lie.

She has yet again made it all about herself.

She still hasn't dealt with Iraq or what her vote did or what the administration she was a part of from 2009 to to January 2013.

Before Nouri was given a second term by the US government (via the US brokered Erbil Agreement), violence in Iraq had fallen, the Minister of Women was speaking out about what was needed, the woman even resigned in protest. There was so much hope that a free Iraq might be created.

Instead, Nouri was handed a second term by the US government and violence increased, he attacked protesters, he attacked and tortured journalists, he ran secret prisons and on and on.

When Hillary wants to get honest about that, she may have something to say.

Right now, she's just standing on the backs of the American dead trying to pretend she's genuinely sorry. Book writers who are genuinely sorry about something tend to devote a minimum of a chapter to what they're sorry about.

Hillary just tosses out a couple of sentences.

Reading that ridiculous sop, you really do have to wonder, "At this point, Hillary, what difference does it make?"

The following community sites -- plus UK Socialist Worker, Cindy Sheehan, Tavis Smiley, FPIF and Antiwar.com -- updated: