That’s Siva Vaidhyanathan who writes at his blog, Sivacracy, and also pinch hits for Eric Alterman at Altercation. Today he poses two questions to our mutual Senator from New York, Hillary Clinton.
And good ones they are:
* What are you going to do to get our troops out of Iraq? You have come out against the Murtha proposals for redeployment of our troops to the edges of the theatre, thus forcing the Iraqi government to push harder for self-sufficiency and removing the chief targets of insurgent wrath. But what’s your plan? Surely it falls between Murtha’s informed and responsible plan and Bush’s reckless lack of a plan. But what is it?
* What are you going to do to get Wal-Mart to stop blocking port security measures? You served on the company’s board of directors. Don’t you have enough juice there to convince Wal-Mart that the safety of millions of New Yorkers is kind of important? If something very bad happens because Wal-Mart blocked efforts to inspect cargo coming into New York Harbor, we will certainly hold the company accountable. And we will hold you accountable as well. Well, those of us left alive would hold you accountable.
Let’s look at those questions in reverse order, shall we?
(cont. below)
Perhaps like me, you were unaware that Walmart was actively working to oppose increased security measures at our ports. Sounds crazy, I know, but it’s true:
Wal-Mart and its Washington, D.C., lobbyist, the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA), have systematically undermined America’s security by working to defeat or weaken rules to make America’s seaports and supply chains safe from terrorist attacks. A new report by the AFL-CIO, Unchecked: How Wal-Mart Uses Its Might to Block Port Security, documents their efforts since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to ensure that “security requirements should not become a barrier to trade.”
On port security, that representation has included pressuring Congress to reject requirements for “smart containers” and electronic seals on cargo coming into the United States, independent and regular inspections of supply chain security practices, container-handling fees to help finance port security measures and requirements to let U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) know what is being shipped in and from where it is coming.
The report goes on to document Walmart’s efforts, including passage of a watered down “voluntary” security program that Walmart lobbyists obtained. Essentially our port security is based on a “honor system” rather than a comprehensive law enforcement and national security effort to block potential terrorist threats from coming in through our ports.
Not that I’m terribly surprised by Walmart’s actions (Profits before Country is their motto, I’m sure), but I was surprised to find out that Senator Clinton, my Senator from New York, site of the largest terrorist attack in our history, used to sit on Walmart’s board of directors. So, considering her connections and current position, why hasn’t she had a friendly chat with Walmart executives to persuade them to stop endangering our nation’s security? At the very least, you’d think she’d speak out against Walmart’s lobbying efforts to weaken port security.
Sadly, I think I already know the answer to Siva’s first question for Senator Clinton: What are you going to do to get our troops out of Iraq? That’s easy: absolutely nothing. She’s so concerned about her prospects for the Democratic nomination for President in 2008, that she has simply refused to take any stand at all with respect to our troop levels in Iraq. Afraid of being tarred with Republican chants of “cut and run” she’s been the ultimate waffler.
She will wait until it’s quite clear which way the wind is blowing before coming out in favor of any plan for Iraq like the one proposed by Congressman Murtha. No, Hilary Clinton will not do anything for our troops in Iraq other than offer them insincere platitudes of her support for their mission. There’s about a hair’s breadth of difference between her position on Iraq and that of Joe Lieberman, President Bush’s favorite kissing Dem.
But I do wish she’d speak up about Walmart’s callous disregard of our port security. I mean, she made a stink about that Dubai company that is operating our ports, so why not raise the same complaint about what Walmart has done to obstruct port security? Considering the risk to New York City from a bomb or other terrorist weapon smuggled in via container ship, it seems the least she could do.
Hillary is going to pursue her Thatcher strategy. That is, unless she finally has a grinch moment and her heart grows ten times in size. Then she might think about putting our troop’s safety ahead of her presidential ambitions.
If she wants to be the next Tony Blair, she should emigrate to the UK, imo.
The repubs, starting with Gingrich and continuing through Delay did a great job of enforcing party discipline. Seldom, if ever, did a significant repub buck the party line. They wrote a tune and everyone sang to it.
That’s started to change as they continue to bear the burden of the unpopularity of the war, the lack of economic opportunities in what statistically is a strong economy (ask the economists, not working people). But even with the growing infighting in their party, the repubs still seem viewed as more unified and actually standing for something (even if it’s loathsome) than the democrats.
Hillary is simply an example of another democrat creating her own (opportunistic) world view in the absence of a larger party line that they can and are expected to follow. These are obviously two rhetorical questions – she can get away with whatever she wants in the current environment. She clearly believes she can get away with pissing off the left wing of her party because they have no where else to go. That’s what history has taught her. What, gays, Blacks, environmentalists, labor are going to vote repub? LOL.
The fact that some dems are even entertaining the idea of supporting an independent bid by Lieberman if (when?) he loses to Lamont in the PA primary underscores the overall weakness of the party.
Doesn’t matter how right wing they are, they’re welcome as long as they say they’re democrats. These guys have surrendered debate to the right wing, letting the right wing define debates on the environment, the war, labor, you name it. Liberal and left are pejorative words in the US these days, even though most Americans are at least social liberals.
The same is true for feminists. How many times have I heard a woman say “I’m no feminist” who is clearly living a feminist life based on our view of the world in the 70s. She played sports throughout high school, never thought twice about going to college and law school/medical school/graduate school/ and getting a decent paying job (still earning less than white men, but at least able to get the job and in some cases without sexual harassment). The right has been able to re-define feminist as some extreme viewpoint without relevance to a normal (hetero?) woman’s life. And let’s get ’em back home with the kids where they belong while we’re at it…
It’s because we, and especially the dems, have let the right wing define feminist, liberal, labor, environmentalist etc. as negatives that they control the debate.
Until dems figure out how to take control and not mimic the repubs, expect opportunists like Hillary to continue to pull the dems to the right, to hell with the left wing of the party – I need those southern and suburban white (male) votes!
I don’t think the danger of terrorism is any greater than it’s ever been. I think people in positions to know are aware of that. So, it’s a subject that a politician needs to make good noises about and something that creates business opportunities. This late in the game, it is not necessary to impose a contrived scenario on the real world of commerce just to push the propaganda.
I’m sure that Sen. Clinton is not thrilled with the alternate reality of the war on terror. It may even have occurred to her that only very powerful people would have the means, motive and opportunity to nuke a port.
It’s not a good idea to use neocon constructions of what is and isn’t when questioning or criticizing others, including neocons. Maybe Clinton doesn’t want to play the game you are playing. Maybe Clinton, Wal Mart and Bush are not too worried about terrorism. Maybe there’s a reason they’re not.
Glad to see you here. When you get a chance, stop over at the Froggy Bottom Cafe, or Breakfast Cart, or whatever version is most recent in the diaries list and introduce yourself. We’re always glad to see new folks come aboard.