Bill Clinton's Obama obfuscations.

Hillary on the war (0.00 / 0)

 My highlights in bold.

-------------- 

October 10, 2002

Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

As Delivered

Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.

I am honored to represent nearly 19 million New Yorkers, a thoughtful democracy of voices and opinions who make themselves heard on the great issues of our day especially this one. Many have contacted my office about this resolution, both in support of and in opposition to it, and I am grateful to all who have expressed an opinion.

I also greatly respect the differing opinions within this body. The debate they engender will aid our search for a wise, effective policy. Therefore, on no account should dissent be discouraged or disparaged. It is central to our freedom and to our progress, for on more than one occasion, history has proven our great dissenters to be right.

Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.

In 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait, losing the support of the United States. The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab states, and threw Saddam out after forty-three days of bombing and a hundred hours of ground operations. The U.S.-led coalition then withdrew, leaving the Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to Saddam's revenge.

As a condition for ending the conflict, the United Nations imposed a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to do the work. Saddam Hussein agreed, and an inspection system was set up to ensure compliance. And though he repeatedly lied, delayed, and obstructed the inspections work, the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities.

In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated "sovereign sites" including the so-called presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.

In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?

Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.

Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it. This too has great appeal for different reasons. The UN deserves our support. Whenever possible we should work through it and strengthen it, for it enables the world to share the risks and burdens of global security and when it acts, it confers a legitimacy that increases the likelihood of long-term success. The UN can help lead the world into a new era of global cooperation and the United States should support that goal.

But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto, on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act. In Kosovo, the Russians did not approve NATO military action because of political, ethnic, and religious ties to the Serbs. The United States therefore could not obtain a Security Council resolution in favor of the action necessary to stop the dislocation and ethnic cleansing of more than a million Kosovar Albanians. However, most of the world was with us because there was a genuine emergency with thousands dead and a million driven from their homes. As soon as the American-led conflict was over, Russia joined the peacekeeping effort that is still underway.

In the case of Iraq, recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve force against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons.

So, Mr. President, the question is how do we do our best to both defuse the real threat that Saddam Hussein poses to his people, to the region, including Israel, to the United States, to the world, and at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations?

While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.

If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.

If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.

If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls for Saddam's compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving some nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose any Security Council action. They will say we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only support the United Nations when it does exactly what we want.

I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein's biological and chemical weapons. Today he has maximum incentive not to use them or give them away. If he did either, the world would demand his immediate removal. Once the battle is joined, however, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and to give what he can't use to terrorists who can torment us with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed by this possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it. And according to recent reports, the CIA agrees with this analysis. A world united in sharing the risk at least would make this occurrence less likely and more bearable and would be far more likely to share with us the considerable burden of rebuilding a secure and peaceful post-Saddam Iraq.

President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.

This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.

And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them.

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.

And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am.

So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.

Thank you, Mr. President.

---

by: mrstas @ Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 21:11:23 PM CST

"Use these powers wisely" (0.00 / 0)

Well, there it is.

You know, these are all very fine words, and it doesn't mean much. A Senator's record is not so much comprised of the words, justifications, and rationalizations for the votes he or she casts. It all boils down to "Yea" or "Nay". You don't get to vote "Yea -- but". There are no signing statements for senators.

It doesn't mean what you want it to mean. It means what it means. We all knew what it meant. If she wanted more time, more inspections, she should have voted "nay."

---

Blue Mass. Group
So what politics do you deserve?

---

by: Charley on the MTA @ Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 21:19:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Sorry Charley, but (4.00 / 1)

a Senator's record should be comprised of what reasons he or she gave for a vote and Hillary Clinton's reasons show how qualified she is for the presidency.  The world is a complicated place and being president requires more than talking about hope.  I get that for some people it is a lot easier to just view the world simplistically; see George Bush jr. (not senior).  I opposed the invasion of Iraq, but I supported the yes vote.  The two positions are not contradictory.  I have never had it explained to me by people who refuse to look beyond the vote as just a yes or no vote how we could have gotten Saddam to allow the inspectors back if the President did not have the threat of invasion as the worst alternative to a negotiated settlement.  I think simply saying to Saddam, "let's just work it out" would not have been very effective (and I think it was tried a number of times).  Obama shows how unprepared he is for the Presidency by his simplistic position on this issue. (However, I wonder what he would have done if he had been in the Senate at the time and had had to actually vote on the resolution.)  Has anyone asked him what he would have done beyond voting no?  Would he have told the people in Iraq to just have hope for a better day?  Would he have told the rest of us, that despite the intelligence and Saddam's past behaviour, we should just have hope that the intelligence is wrong and Saddam will change if we are nice enough to him?  

       

---

by: TheOpenSociety @ Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 06:53:18 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Clinton supported the war through her actions (0.00 / 0)

Whatever reasons she gave, she still voted to authorize war. It was obvious to many people that Bush wanted to invade Iraq and would use any justification he could get away with. If you want to convince me that she really thought Bush would only invade if necessary, then show me her speech on the eve of the invasion where she pleaded with Bush to not invade. At the time of the invasion, Saddam was cooperating. The weapons inspectors had to flee Iraq to escape the war. Where was Clinton's speech condemning Bush for rushing to war when it wasn't necessary? Where is the censure resolution she introduced to officially condemn an unnecessary war?

---

by: jkw @ Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 09:33:10 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Oh please (6.00 / 2)

The Senators voted in favor of this resolution because they saw what happened to those who voted against the first Gulf War and they thought the same story would apply here. If Kerry and Clinton had really had the courage of their convictions, they would have voted against this resolution. Kerry already lost one election by trying to pretend that he was against this war even though he voted for it, and now Clinton is trying to do the same thing. It will be just as unsuccessful. If she really opposes this war, let her admit that she was wrong with this vote.

BMG: Reality-based commentary.

---

by: Bob Neer @ Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 11:38:59 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Just so I understand... (0.00 / 0)

...are you saying that Hillary's war vote makes her unelectable in the general?

~~~~
Believe it or not, I have even more to say...

---

by: sabutai @ Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 11:59:18 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Not unelectable (6.00 / 2)

But it will be a point of substantial difficulty for her, if she does get the nomination. It is easy to paint her as obfuscatory on this issue, in a similar way to Kerry, because she won't take a clear position, just as he didn't. On the one hand, she defends her vote to approve the war, on the other hand, she claims she doesn't really support the invasion, or our presence in Iraq -- at least, in all honesty, that's about as clearly as I understand her position, and I've read her website and listened to her try to articulate her position on the war, and her vote for the war, several times.

BMG: Reality-based commentary.

---

by: Bob Neer @ Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 20:26:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

nice spin... (6.00 / 2)

...but the vote was a month after Iraq agreed to allow weapons inspectors back into the country.  Iraq was not a threat to us or its neighbors and had been vastly weakened by a decade of sanctions. It had no WMD and was not seeking them, as was clear at the time and was close to proven when the US invaded. Everyone knew in October 2002 that it was a vote to allow the president to invade if he wanted to. Kerry gave a nice speech about why it was a bad idea too, right before voting for it.

Edwards and Dodd and Kerry have said not only "knowing what we know now" they wouldn't have voted, but that knowing what we knew THEN it was a bad move to give the president that power. Hillary has said she believes presidents should have such authority, which shows a real lack of judgment and at best a  mediocre support for the separation of powers and international cooperation.

---

by: alexwill @ Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 13:03:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Read the article. (0.00 / 0)

The article only refers to a letter from the Iraqi Foreign Minister which stated,  

"The Government of the Republic of Iraq is ready to discuss the practical arrangements necessary for the immediate resumption of inspections."

The article is not about the inspectors actually being let into Iraq.  In addition, the article reports:

Iraq's move appeared to receive a cautious welcome from governments around the world. In Britain, a spokeswoman for Prime Minister Tony Blair's office said the Iraqi regime "had a long history of playing games." (Full story)

The timing of Iraq's letter coincides with a major push by the Bush administration to draft a new, tougher U.N. resolution ordering weapons inspectors back into Iraq on a tight deadline -- and threatening the use of military force if Saddam does not comply.

Saddam actually allowed the inspectors in only after the vote. Do you really maintain that the letter as described in the aticle you reference was sufficient to ensure that the inspections would be allowed, particularly given Saddam's past history?    

By the way, here is what Senator Clinton said this morning on Meet the Press about her vote, "I would not have given President Bush the authority if I knew he would deliberately misuse and abuse it," i.e, by invading even though the inspectors had been allowed back into Iraq. Best not to mischaracterize her position.  

Again, I ask, if the President had not been given the authority to use military force in the event that the U.N. inspectors were not allowed back into Iraq, what do you think Saddam would have done?  You either have to think  Saddam would have let the inspectors in anyway (an improbability and really naive) or you have to think that the United States should have just walked away from Iraq no matter what the consequences.  

---

by: TheOpenSociety @ Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 19:43:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Elections... (6.00 / 1)

Are funny things.

Since he got to the Senate, Obama's voted Yeah on every war funding bill.

Others didn't. He did. So, in your words: "A Senator's record is not so much comprised of the words, justifications, and rationalizations for the votes he or she casts. It all boils down to "Yea" or "Nay". You don't get to vote "Yea -- but". "

Don't trust me? Here's your proof. Once elected to the US Senate, Obama and Clinton differed on 1, out of 69, Iraq War votes.

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/...

---

by: mrstas @ Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 10:01:53 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Charley, you should probably see Clinton's speech first.... (5.00 / 1)

It is very clear he was talking about Iraq.  What I don't understand is how it was reported by anyone any differently.

Fact of the matter is that Obama's Senate voting record is the same as Hillary's.  Show me where it's different.  After the '06 elections there was the big push to not fund the war to get troops out.  He was nowhere to be found.

The speech you talk about, turns out he did remove it from his website when Bush's ratings were up.  He walked away from his words when he entered the Senate.  He was silent about the war until 2006.  That's leadership?  Don't get me wrong, what you say about Hillary is correct.  But Obama is not far behind, and both did what they did for political reasons.  To me it pretty much a wash.  Obama is favored, but slightly.  It's not cut and dry as you make it appear.  Show anything he's done in the Senate.

Listening to Charlie Baker talk about fiscal responsibility is like getting lectured on abstinence from Paris Hilton - Tim Murray

---

by: johnk @ Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 21:16:54 PM CST

Fair point. (0.00 / 0)

Obama's lack of leadership on Iraq in the Senate, his willingness to play pundit and predict defeat for his own side, etc., have all been covered in a number of outlets, and you'll get no argument from me there.

However, I disagree with your conclusion that therefore it's pretty much a wash. The debates have shown what I think is a significant temperamental difference between the two: Hillary being more politically cautious and therefore more militarily hawkish; Obama willing to take political risks but not military. If it's between the two, I'd definitely take the latter.

---

Blue Mass. Group
So what politics do you deserve?

---

by: Charley on the MTA @ Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 21:37:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Agreed... (0.00 / 0)

I got Obama on this too, but a slight edge.  Not significant enough to move me one way or another.  They have the same ultimate goal of withdrawing troops.  

Same thing with their health care proposals, Hillary is beating up Obama on the mandate issue but in reality each candidate has their little caveat that weakens the mandate.

To he honest I don't see much of a difference between either one.  I guess it gets down to who will be better able to accomplish their goals.  I haven't decided.

Listening to Charlie Baker talk about fiscal responsibility is like getting lectured on abstinence from Paris Hilton - Tim Murray

---

by: johnk @ Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 21:57:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

A slight edge? I think it's a significant edge, at a minimum (0.00 / 0)

The difference between the two is that Obama speaks much more clearly about right and wrong. He says the war was a mistake at the beginning. That we never should have invaded. Clinton is far more opaque. She sounds much like Kerry -- always hedging and being careful and never willing to go out on a limb. It's pathetic, in my opinion, not, "savvy politics," or whatever some call it. Just compare what they say they would do if elected. Obama says he would withdraw the troops. Clinton says she would convene a group to make a plan for withdrawal within 60 days. I'll grant that both say they want to withdraw, but Clinton is being deliberately vague, which is not what we need at this point in Iraq.

BMG: Reality-based commentary.

---

by: Bob Neer @ Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 11:45:21 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Not vague, realistic. (0.00 / 0)

Have you ever moved from one house to another? Notice how it took time, and was certainly easier if you planned for it?

Now imagine doing it under enemy fire, 140,000 times.

I'm willing to give her 60 days to think that process through. Just because Obama's not saying it, doesn't mean he goes in on January 21st and pulls the troops out.

Are you really willing to fault Hillary for saying we need to have a plan to withdraw 140,000 troops? Are you completely ignoring that Hillary's been calling for the Bush Administration to have such a plan, which they have constantly and consistently refused to do?

Since 2004, there's been no daylight between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on the Iraq War. If it's been such a popular issue, and Obama's been so right since the beginning, where is the great Obama filibuster of the war funding bills? You know, the way Chris Dodd showed real leadership against FISA wiretap immunity. Where is Obama's hold on the bills?

There's more to leadership than lofty rhetoric.

---

by: mrstas @ Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 15:16:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Obama willing to take political risks but not military? (0.00 / 0)

Didn't he answer a question with something like he'd be willing to use nukes in Pakistan?

---

by: joeltpatterson @ Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 21:58:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Uh ... I don't think so? (0.00 / 0)

Unless you've heard some stuff I missed ...

"During a major foreign policy speech on Wednesday Senator Barack Obama promised that as president he would consider military strikes against terrorists in Pakistan if the country refused to root them out. Those comments drew a sharp response from Pakistani officials as well as the Bush administration today."
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes...

That "if" is a pretty big qualifier, but yeah, it sounds hawkish. At the same time, he said he would meet with baddies "without precondition", which I think is basically correct.

---

Blue Mass. Group
So what politics do you deserve?

---

by: Charley on the MTA @ Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 22:20:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes. (6.00 / 1)

This is a key reason why HRC's candidacy doesn't have my support, even though, as an old lesbian feminist, I've supported her in the past, and I'd usually be up for helping a credible woman candidate break a glass ceiling. She should have known better. In addition to then-State Senator Obama, 23 US Senators and 123 US Representatives did.

"Perseverance is a great element of success. If you knock long enough and loud enough at the gate, you are sure to wake up somebody." -Longfellow

---

by: Bean in the 'Burbs @ Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 21:39:00 PM CST

Sirota debates if Obama is laudable or damnable (6.00 / 1)

Good background here from David Sirota:

First Bill's remark on Obama saying he didn't know how he would have voted is in deed misleading.  But talk about obfuscation, what's your thoughts on Obama's response?  Do you fully believe the explanation?

They are one in the same.  Doesn't mean that I wouldn't vote for either of them.  Both want to get us out of Iraq, but this whole nonsense of Obama was right really needs to be addressed truthfully.

Listening to Charlie Baker talk about fiscal responsibility is like getting lectured on abstinence from Paris Hilton - Tim Murray

---

by: johnk @ Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 21:50:28 PM CST

Enough already! (0.00 / 0)

I'm getting really tired of all the second guessing regarding a five-year-old vote.  I really don't care about whether a candidate was always opposed, voted in favor and now regrets it, or stands by it.  Sure, there may have been politics involved.  I for one opposed going to Iraq on the grounds that we should have kept our focus on Afghanistan.  However, I supported Kerry in the 2004 primary in part because he voted for it and figured somebody like Dean would be toast.  Clinton is very disappointed, as I am, that the President misused his authority, but I too am inclined to give a President the benefit of the doubt.  I once read that when Harry Truman was asked later whether he should have bombed Japan, he simply replied to the effect of, "We did what we thought was best at the time - next question."  That's good enough for me.

---

by: Christopher @ Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 22:56:56 PM CST

All due respect, (5.67 / 3)

that's a really low bar you've set for Truman and Senator Clinton, regardless of who you support in this or any other primary. It allows a Senator or President to do whatever he or she would like and simply explain any action away as what "we thought was best at the time." It is undoubtedly true that Truman agonized over whether to drop the bombs or not, and from the speech posted above it seems that Clinton also carefully thought through her vote. Such careful consideration ought to also have a careful assessment of that judgment of whether a choice was right or wrong. It is not enough for me to know that Clinton did what she thought was right at the time -- I'd like to know what she learned from that vote, and so far I haven't heard that she learned very much at all.

Also, Christopher, let's get real about the "President misusing his authority." We who were opposed to the war from the beginning knew at the time the vote was a blank check to allow President Bush to do whatever he wanted. And we knew at the time that the President had not laid out any plans for after a victory. We knew at the time (even Cheney in 1994 predicted) that Iraq would splinter and turn into a quagmire. So it's baffling to me how anybody could be satisfied with such a glib answer.

---

by: afertig @ Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 23:29:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

sorry to keep pestering you with this... (0.00 / 0)

I'm getting really tired of all the second guessing...

I wonder if the parents, wives and children of the 3921 dead are getting really tired of visiting the cemeteries. or the rehab hospitals with the 39,298 wounded.

Some of the politicians who voted YEA in 2002 get really tired of being reminded of their vote. Like you, they don't want to wallow in the past. Most have not apologized either.

I guess we're there, so we just have to look toward the future and not obsess with how we got there. Right?

---

by: hubspoke @ Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 07:11:32 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Your last line IS exactly right (0.00 / 0)

Yes, I know you were being sarcastic, but the fact is you cannot change the past.  Clinton has said time and time again that she wants to withdraw as quickly and responsibly as possible.  What else can she do at this point?  She clearly regrets the later effects of her vote, but does not want to play the "hindsight-is-20/20" game.  Some people are way too obsessed that she won't say, "I was wrong" or "I made a mistake", but she has always said she takes responsibility for her vote.  That is what I look for in a leader.

---

by: Christopher @ Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 07:57:03 AM CST

[ Parent ]

almost one quarter of the Senate... (6.00 / 1)

voted NO in 2002. They didn't need hindsight to see 20-20. I believe we need to wallow, and wallow again, in that vote that enabled Bush and the neo-con-men to involve us an unnecessary war that has severely damaged this country in many ways. Incredible amounts of taxpayer money have been spent and wasted, as have unconscionable amounts of lives and limbs. The war has been a boon to Al Qaeda and it took our attention off of Afghanistan.

Wallow and wallow again, my friend. We need to see the results of the cowardly vote of politicians who allowed themselves to be bullied by a swaggering, irresponsible, lying president. I am sure some politicians voted sincerely. I am also sure that some just didn't want to seem soft on terrorists and voted YEA even though they could see ample doubt about the need to start a war with Iraq. For the latter, there is a special place in hell. To shirk your duty as a member of Congress and enable a president to launch an unnecessary war is one of the worst things anyone can do.

---

by: hubspoke @ Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 08:22:50 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Then vote for one of those senators for president (0.00 / 0)

Oh, wait, you can't, can you?

I think Christopher's got a point here. Why are we mucking about over who was right and who was wrong back then? Sen. Clinton and Edwards made the same mistake. They assumed the President gave them good information and could be trusted to act wisely. That proved wrong.

Whoever becomes president can't turn back time, all they can do is deal with the mess that's in front of them.

---

by: Argyle @ Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 13:58:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

anger is appropriate - where's yours? (6.00 / 2)

I disagree. First... yes, Clinton and Edwards made the same mistake, but Edwards has made fairly sufficient amends and Clinton has not. Second... I believe that many senators, including Kerry, were highly skeptical of the president's information and voted "yea" only out of fear of looking soft. Historical revisionists or amnesiacs are conveniently forgetting that there was a publicly available (to you, to me and to the senators) National Intelligence Estimate before the 2002 vote that indicated 1) doubt that Saddam had WMD and 2) that even if he did, he would be highly unlikely to use them unless backed into a corner, e.g. if someone militarily attacked him. This clearly indicated that war was far from a last resort for us at that point. Plus anyone watching Rumsfeld at his press conferences could see that the decision had already been made to attack, even as he said they hoped they wouldn't have to. Third... my bet is that senators, like most sane people in the USA, did not think our idiot-nonsavant president could be trusted to act wisely ("wise" has never gone together well with "George W. Bush").

No, you can't turn back time but when our elected leaders pushed or enabled our country to get into an unnecessary war, you'd damn well better go over it again and again and try to learn exactly why and how it happened and assess blame as much as possible where it belongs. At the same time we have to deal with the mess that's in front of us.

---

by: hubspoke @ Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 14:24:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

(like it or not). The problem gets down to....... (0.00 / 0)

.... what you really do in the pressure cooker of Washington. The whole debate on votes on Iraq before during and after, gets down to a muddy fog of what a Punk rock group referred to as the 20 second attention span of Americans where one or two quotes becomes the unassailable facts. For Hillary, the entire speech sheds light on her original Iraq war position as nuanced as Obama's had to be when he voted for war funding as a Senator as opposed to what he could do as a local politician. The debate still is (or should be) why is it Bill Clintons job to question Obama's record and not the Media. Has the Media still not learned the disservice it did our country by not vetting W?? They don't seem to have a problem questioning everything about Hillary from tears to cleavage and cackles ( because she actually has a record that can be vetted). After the Deval experience I want to know the real man, not the one glowing from lectern and the more I learn of Obama I can tell you he's got my vote in 2016 after serving as Hillary's Vice President.

"There is something not well in the soul of man when he is too far removed from nature" Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings  

---

by: freshayer @ Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 06:50:33 AM CST

Clinton was referring to--> (0.00 / 0)

this comment made in 2004 :

''But, I'm not privy to the Senate intelligence reports,'' Mr. Obama said. ''What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.''

And also in 2004, when he said there was ''room for disagreement'' on the war resolution.

In context, he was trying to not contradict the Kerry/Edwards ticket. But is Bill fair insinuating that Obama is getting a free pass on his 'judgement' statements? I think so.

---

by: Leonidas @ Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 08:52:48 AM CST

Unfortunately, the past and the present look each other squarely in the eye. (0.00 / 0)

Congress, including Hillary Clinton, allowed G. W. Bush to do whatever he wanted..inotherwords, launch the United States into an illegal, immoral, unnecessary and wrongheaded war that has not only cost taxpayers zillions of dollars, but at least the lives of roughly 4, 000 American men and women GI's, maiming and psychologically damaging hundreds, if not thousands more, and the killing, maiming and sickening of untold numbers of Iraqis.  This is unconscionable, and Hillary's vote for the war has also come home to roost.  It's sad, because I'd ordinarily support her.  It's good to see a woman in the running for the Oval Office, and I'd like to see a woman lead this country at some point in my lifetime.  However, I'm not sure Hillary is the right one, but I'll support whoever wins the Democratic nomination this fall.

---

by: mplo @ Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 11:55:49 AM CST

Obama isn't right. (0.00 / 0)

He wasn't in the Senate at the time of the Iraq vote.  He was in the Senate at the time of the Lieberman-Kyl Amendment.  Look at how he voted:
http://www.senate.gov/legislat...

If any of you watched the past Fox debate you know that this issue came up and that it is being used to grease the skids for war with Iran.  Here is a video with a clip that mentions it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

---

by: pers-1756 @ Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 13:51:19 PM CST

Hey now... (0.00 / 0)

...he was probably too busy to write the press release criticizing Hillary's vote to actually go in the chamber and do his job.

~~~~
Believe it or not, I have even more to say...

---

by: sabutai @ Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 14:07:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It wasn't close (0.00 / 0)

He'll miss a lot of votes this year due to the presidential campaign; so will the other candidates.  But his vote in opposition wouldn't have made a difference - the vote was 76 (including HRC) to 22 in favor.  

"Perseverance is a great element of success. If you knock long enough and loud enough at the gate, you are sure to wake up somebody." -Longfellow

---

by: Bean in the 'Burbs @ Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 18:30:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It would have made a difference. (0.00 / 0)

It was an important vote and he was not there.  Is that the same excuse you would have used if he had chosen to be absent for the Iraq War vote?

---

by: pers-1756 @ Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 00:46:15 AM CST

[ Parent ]

So it would have been 76-23 instead? Wow, what a difference (0.00 / 0)

The candidates on the campaign trail who are members of the Senate or the House face this every cycle.  They will all miss a lot of votes.  Save your outrage for missed votes where the outcome would be affected.  

"Perseverance is a great element of success. If you knock long enough and loud enough at the gate, you are sure to wake up somebody." -Longfellow

---

by: Bean in the 'Burbs @ Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 18:12:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

well... (0.00 / 0)

One would think that maybe he would have spoken out against it.  But instead all we are left with is him apologizing about his vote.

Maybe after we are losing lives in Iran in addition to Iraq you will share in my outrage.

---

by: pers-1756 @ Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 23:58:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I think your outrage would be more productively directed (0.00 / 0)

At the 76 who voted in favor, including Clinton.  

"Perseverance is a great element of success. If you knock long enough and loud enough at the gate, you are sure to wake up somebody." -Longfellow

---

by: Bean in the 'Burbs @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 20:21:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]