Why Hillary needs to distract from her record on Iraq (Part 1)

Introduction

I have already provided some answers to this question, but now that Hillary has now actually discussed her Iraq record, I felt I should provide some more.

On "Meet the Press" on January 13, Hillary tried to explain her record on Iraq, and in so doing showed why she needs to distract voters from that record. For now here is her basic position on her Iraq record:

Well, Tim, let's put this in context. You didn't show my entire speech--of course, you don't have time to do that--because I made it very clear that my vote was not a vote for preemptive war. I said that on the floor, I said it consistently after that. It was a vote to put inspectors back in to determine what threat Saddam Hussein did in fact pose...My belief was we did need to pin Saddam down, put inspectors in. But I said I was against preemptive war, I spoke out against it.

So she is saying that she voted for The Authorization For Use of Military Force Against Iraq resolution because she felt that was needed to enable the U.N. inspectors to finish their job AND she was always against a preemptive war.

Let's take a closer look...

Hillary's 2002 speech

The title of this section has a dual meaning. See, Hillary's take on Barack Obama's record on Iraq (his "fairy tale" according to Bill) is that he bases his claim that he has always opposed the Iraq war entirely on a speech he gave in 2002 and that his subsequent actions show that he was not always against the war. However, after reviewing the "Meet the Press" transcript, it sure seems like Hillary is basing her explanation of her record on a single speech she gave in 2002. This post will compare what she told Russert, the contents of her 2002 speech, and her actions in between.

Hillary's 2002 speech was delivered on the Senate floor on October 10, 2002, and it addressed the Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq (referred to hereafter as the Iraq War Resolution or IWR).

Hillary's claim that she opposed a preemptive war

Hillary told Russert that she spoke against a preemptive war in her 2002 speech, and indeed she did:

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.

*******

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.

*******

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.

(emphasis added). Remember that last part. It's more than a little important.

But before we get to that discussion, let's examine the accuracy of Hillary's claim to Russert that not only did she speak out against preemptive war in 2002, but afterwards she consistently said her vote was not for a preemptive war. This blog post by John Riley reminds us of an incident indicating that Hillary was not quite consistent in her opposition to a preemptive war.

This claim, however, is hard to square with the comments Hillary made to some antiwar activists who came to her office on the eve of the invasion in 2003 and videotaped a meeting with her. They wanted her to oppose the invasion. She would not. She said:

"It is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution. That is not my preference. It would be far preferable if we not only had legitimate cooperation from Saddam Hussein and a willingness on his part to disarm and to account for his chemical and biological storehouses but that if we had a much broader alliance and coalition. But we are in a very difficult position and I would love to agree with you but I can’t based on my own understanding and assessment of the situation.”

Are those the words of someone who opposed going forward with a preemptive war, as she now asserts, or of someone who supported it, albeit reluctantly? You can view the video of the meeting at YouTube here.

But wait, there's more. Steve Kornacki wrote a January 14, 2008, article entitled "Hillary’s Iraq Story Is Kind of Fairy Tale, Too." He described the extent of Hillary's convictions against a preemptive war:

In the weeks and days before the war began in March 2003, when it was obvious that Bush would ignore Hillary’s beloved inspectors and launch the war anyway, she was silent.

On the eve of the war, a New York newspaper surveyed the state’s Democratic Congressional delegation. 11 of them said that Bush had failed to make the case for war. Seven of them said that he had. Clinton refused to answer.

You would think that she would have been irate—and frantic to stop a war that she hadn’t voted to authorize. After all, according to her new narrative, she only voted for the resolution so that inspectors could do their work. And here was the President, thumbing his nose at those inspectors and using the authorization vote to plunge the country into war. But she uttered not a peep, and the invasion commenced.

Her disingenuousness on Iraq is doubly galling in light of her effort to portray Barack Obama as a vacillator who is afraid to take stands on politically sensitive subjects.

(emphasis added). But there is more to it than disingenuousness. As will be discussed in a subsequent post, Hillary's position makes no sense because by criticising Obama in this regard, she is ultimately showing that she was afraid of taking a strong stand.


Hillary's claim that the IWR was really about getting inspectors into Iraq

A reading of Hillary's 2002 speech indicates that her stated primary objective was to get the weapons inspectors in Iraq, and now she has done more than indicate that that was her objective. As she told Russert, "And if, of course, you see the vote as I saw it as opposed as how it's been characterized, I thought it was a vote to put inspectors back in, to make it very clear that Saddam Hussein wouldn't be able to go off unchecked." (emphasis added).

Really? She wants to stick with the claim that the IWR was a vote not for war but to make sure the U.N. weapons inspectors would go in and prevent war? I don't see how anyone could claim this and keep a straight face. Here's what the IWR actually authorized Bush to do:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

In other words, this resolution gave the SOLE authority and discretion to declare war to George W. Bush. It completely ceded any possible ability of Congress to take part in any such decision. It removed all possible ability of Congress to check such authority and discretion. Note also that the resolution said nothing about having as an objective restarting and completing the inspections process (and that was not mentioned in any of the "Whereas" findings preceding the actual resolution either). Stated differently, Hillary nows says that a vote for the IWR was really a vote to get inspectors back in Iraq even though there was no language to that effect anywhere in the IWR. And that makes her current argument weak and severely lacking in credibility.

And how in the world anyone with any sense thought that Bush would not use this authority is beyond my comprehension. By October 2002, it was obvious that the neocons in the administration (Cheney, Rumskull, Wolfowitless, Feith, Perle, Bolton, etc.) were in charge and driving all policy decisions, and it was equally clear that they wanted to invade Iraq. So, Hillary was correct in saying in 2002 that the IWR put "awesome responsibility in the hands of our President," but it was at absolute best supremely naive to expect that he would use that power "as a last resort."

Hillary's 2002 speech, her vote on the IWR, and her explanation of her record that she just now has finally given show at the least extreme naivete. I contend they show an abhorrent lack of judgment, and worse. This will be discussed in subsequent posts.