Actually, her votes. Her initial vote was in 2002, but, yes, she repeatedly voted to continue the war as a member of the US Senate.
For those who missed it, at last night's debate, she attempted to deflect criticism of her vote (and praise for Bernie Sanders for voting against the war in 2002) by saying a 2002 vote against the war was not a plan to deal with the Islamic State.
How could it be?
What fool would think it was?
They insist "Hillary Clinton has finally found a good answer on her Iraq vote."
Well, they would insist that, wouldn't they?
I mean, look at who they are.
Ezra Klein and Matthew Yglesias did not lead in 2002 (or since).
For those who missed it, they supported the Iraq War.
They will lie today as they lied then.
They will excuse Hillary because it's excusing themselves.
Both men -- of course, they're men -- are MSNBC no-stars.
It's really interesting how we pretend like MSNBC is all that but, like every other facet of the corporate media, it only brings on the pro-war voices.
For all the railing in some parts of the left about how this WEEKLY STANDARD War Hawk or that one shouldn't be on TV as an expert anymore because they promoted the Iraq War, you note the silence that allows faux lefties like Ezzie and Matty and their princess Kevin Drum to have a seat at the left table despite their own promotion of the Iraq War.
And let's note that the diversity argument on corporate media is you better think the same (pro-war) and you also better be White and a man.
VOX is a new creation.
By White men for White men.
Where are the people of color?
Pretend not to notice.
Pretend not to get that a bunch of White men (and one token woman) were given a sandbox to play in only because they are betrayers of ethics and whores for war and the Democratic Party.
Hillary's response makes no sense unless you are a whore.
No one would ever claim that a 2002 vote would be a plan fourteen years later.
Hillary better watch it because she's setting herself up big time.
Should she get the nomination, Republicans won't shy from attacking Barack.
And if, like Hillary, you publicly declared Nouri al-Maliki a thug in 2008 and yet in 2010 you did not object when Nouri was given a second term as prime minister by Barack (Nouri lost that 2010 election), you can be slammed.
And, if she gets the nomination, she most likely will be.
She can be slammed for her refusal to have an Inspector General for the State Dept during her entire tenure as Secretary of State.
When we began noting that weakness three years ago, some thought it would never happen.
But already it's starting to bubble up.
Hillary's record is weak and embarrassing.
And, as we noted in yesterday's snapshot, she has no plan for confronting the Islamic State.
At present, she's lying to the American people.
She offered one bit of honesty on the Islamic State and if she'd follow through on that she might be able to propose a real plan to eliminate IS.
But she's craven and she's cowardly . . . She's Clinton.
In yesterday's snapshot, we noted Muir's analysis. If you missed it, use the link above to read his analysis.
While Hillary -- and her guilty War Hawk buds -- offer lies, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is now offering silence on Iraq's political problems.
REUTERS explains it has been announced his Friday sermons will no longer address the political issues.
Most likely because he gave voice to genuine concerns that were then used by the US government to promote their own wants and desires and life did not improve for Iraqis.
Without Sistani to hide behind, Barack's actions in Iraq are going to be a lot harder to sell.
The following community sites -- plus Dissident Voice and Jody Watley -- updated:
The e-mail address for this site is firstname.lastname@example.org.