At CFR; December 15, 2003

Excerpts from a fairly long and detailed speech:

Turning to Iraq, yesterday was a good day. I was thrilled that Saddam Hussein had finally been captured. Like many of you, I was glued to the television and the radio as I went about my daily business. We owe a great debt of gratitude to our troops, to the president, to our intelligence services, to all who had a hand in apprehending Saddam. Now he will be brought to justice, and we hope that the prospects for peace and stability in Iraq will improve.

I was especially pleased that the capture was led by the 4th Infantry Division, whom I visited in Kirkuk and had a a briefing from the commander, General Odierno, and during that briefing was given some insights into the efforts to apprehend Saddam. And it's very good news indeed that they have come to fruition.

This General Odierno, let's recall. Moving onwards:

This moment, however, cannot be just about congratulating ourselves and the Iraqi people for this capture. It should be a moment where we step back and consider how now to go forward. What is it we can do today, based on the circumstances of yesterday, that will strengthen our hand and move the Iraqis closer to a time when they can have self-government and create a stable, free, democratic Iraq?

I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote. I have had many disputes and disagreements with the administration over how that authority has been used, but I stand by the vote to provide the authority because I think it was a necessary step in order to maximize the outcome that did occur in the Security Council with the unanimous vote to send in inspectors. And I also knew that our military forces would be successful. But what we did not appreciate fully and what the administration was unprepared for was what would happen the day after.

It has been a continuing theme of my criticism and others that we would be further along, we would have more legitimacy, we would diminish the opposition and resentment that is fueling whatever remains of the insurgency if we had been willing to move to internationalize our presence and further action in Iraq. I believe that today. And in fact, I think that we now have a new opportunity for the administration to do just that.

I suppose you could subject this to some tortured readings but, again, the position seems fairly clear. Clinton voted to give Bush the authority to launch a war, knowing full well what she was doing. She has various disagreements with Bush's conduct of the war, but not with the basic strategic logic underpinning it. In December 2003, she continues to support the war and to support the president's maximalist war aims of "a stable, free, democratic Iraq."

Comments

Hillary's continued evasiveness and cowardice regarding her position on Iraq will destroy her already slim chance at the nomination. At every appearance in the primary states, someone will get up and say, "Please admit you made a mistake" and she'll say, "Bush made a mistake," making herself look like an ass. And then there are the debates...

It's amusing that Republicans, out of a strange combination of hope and fear, persist on believing that they're going to be running against her. They won't be so lucky.

Posted by david mizner | February 11, 2007 12:12 PM

Hillary might just have an unresolved ambivalence here. If I remember correctly, the Clinton administration wanted to remove Saddam Hussein in 1998 but did not because they couldn't get European and Arab support. Hillary still seemed to think that removing Saddam was valid in 2003 but didn't want to buy into the Bush administration's hyper-aggressive foreign policy agenda. Her mistake in 2002 and 2003 was in not realizing that the Iraq invasion was the centerpiece of Bush's foreign policy lunacy rather than something separate. Her current mistake seems to be in acknowledging that the U. S. could not have overthrown Saddam Hussein at any time without sinking into the current quicksand. The Democratic Party defense and foreign policy establishment is stuck in the same rut. However, the point about the hopelessness of the Iraq invasion has been something that war critics have been making all along and we (I opposed the war from the beginning) have been proven correct. This is also a point that the public has come around to. If Hillary wants to become the focus of national leadership over the next eight years, she'll have to come around too.

Posted by Ric Caric | February 11, 2007 12:42 PM

To understand Hillary's position on the second Gulf War, take a look at Bill's position on the first Gulf War: "I would have voted with the majority [i.e., to go to war], but I agreed with some of the concerns of the minority." He wanted to be able to say he supported it if it had gone well, and also wanted to be able to say he opposed it if it hadn't.

Hillary didn't have that luxury. She had to vote for or against the war in the Senate. So she voted for it-- which is really all that matters, because actions speak louder than words. But rhetorically, she was trying to have it both ways just like Bill did.

I will repeat something I said some time ago. Hillary Clinton will not be the Democratic nominee for President, period. She voted for the Iraq war, and continued to support it (or at least to leave her position ambiguous enough that she could later claim she supported it) long after it was clear that it was a terrible idea. At this point, the base is going to demand a candidate who either voted against the war, or did a big mea culpa a la Edwards. It doesn't matter how much money Hillary has-- she won't get votes. (And I should say that she will be getting her just desserts for deliberately killing over 3,000 brave American servicemembers so that she could look "tough" and "hawkish" to the electorate.)

Posted by Dilan Esper | February 11, 2007 12:51 PM

As Molly Ivins wrote a year ago, I will not support Hillary Clinton because of her support of the terrible war and occupation, a support that as far as I can tell continues to this day. I will oppose Hillary Clinton.

Posted by Jennifer | February 11, 2007 1:16 PM

http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/1/2006/1304

January 20, 2006

I Will Not Support Hillary Clinton for President
By Molly Ivins

AUSTIN, Texas --- I'd like to make it clear to the people who run the Democratic Party that I will not support Hillary Clinton for president.

Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation. Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone This is not a Dick Morris election. Sen. Clinton is apparently incapable of taking a clear stand on the war in Iraq, and that alone is enough to disqualify her. Her failure to speak out on Terri Schiavo, not to mention that gross pandering on flag-burning, are just contemptible little dodges.

The recent death of Gene McCarthy reminded me of a lesson I spent a long, long time unlearning, so now I have to re-learn it. It's about political courage and heroes, and when a country is desperate for leadership. There are times when regular politics will not do, and this is one of those times. There are times a country is so tired of bull that only the truth can provide relief.

If no one in conventional-wisdom politics has the courage to speak up and say what needs to be said, then you go out and find some obscure junior senator from Minnesota with the guts to do it. In 1968, Gene McCarthy was the little boy who said out loud, "Look, the emperor isn't wearing any clothes." Bobby Kennedy -- rough, tough Bobby Kennedy -- didn't do it. Just this quiet man trained by Benedictines who liked to quote poetry.

What kind of courage does it take, for mercy's sake? The majority of the American people (55 percent) think the war in Iraq is a mistake and that we should get out. The majority (65 percent) of the American people want single-payer health care and are willing to pay more taxes to get it. The majority (86 percent) of the American people favor raising the minimum wage. The majority of the American people (60 percent) favor repealing Bush's tax cuts, or at least those that go only to the rich. The majority (66 percent) wants to reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending, but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

The majority (77 percent) thinks we should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment. The majority (87 percent) thinks big oil companies are gouging consumers and would support a windfall profits tax. That is the center, you fools. WHO ARE YOU AFRAID OF? ...

Posted by anne | February 11, 2007 1:39 PM

I'm no great fan of Senator Clinton, but let's be fair here. As much as the distinction has gotten lost to history, voting to give the authority to start a war is several degrees different from actually voting for a declaration of war. The way the bill ended up phrased in the Senate, there was no option of voting for coercive inspections or other action through the UN without being stuck voting for war authority at the same time.

It's fair to say that the senators all knew that Bush would go to war, but that argument depends on the premise that they should assume Bush was lying. He was, but since no one would say aloud that he was lying, it would be stupid politics to vote against what he said he wanted. Even today, in the abstract, in a world without the horrible people running the executive branch, I'd vote for coercive inspections and other action through the UN.

I just can't understand why people are so willing to gloss over the degree to which the Bush administration changed the terms after the deal was made.

Posted by Chuck | February 11, 2007 1:53 PM

Chuck: Here's the point. Beyond the interpretive question about what Clinton did in October 2002, there's the record of her statements over the next 18 months. When Bush took the authority Clinton had voted to give him and launched the war, Clinton supported him. For months following the invasion, Clinton continued to support him. Sometime later, Clinton changed her view.

As I say, I don't have a problem with this. Millions of Americans, myself included, changed their mind about the war over time. But she should tell the truth.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | February 11, 2007 1:56 PM

Even today, in the real, even today, I would not vote for a war and occupation that would take thousands of American lives, tens of thousands of American wounded, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, and who only knows how many wounded, and $2 trillion dollars for americans who knows how much for Iraqis. Even today, I would not vote for a needless immoral war and occupation. America, you see, was not threatened by Iraq and that was obvious to any reasonable person then and is as obvious now, even today. Even today....

Posted by anne | February 11, 2007 3:21 PM

Even today, there were Senators who spoke and voted against war in Iraq. Even today, there were those who beyond the Senate who spoke against the needless immoral war and occupation. Even today there are those who have learned. Even today.

Posted by anne | February 11, 2007 3:24 PM

Matt, after reading Anne's comments, maybe you can see why I mistook the point of your post: even when you specifically differentiate between "coercive inspections" and military action, people take this statement as being pro-war.

Anne, the only part of my comment that you're even coming near responding to is the part you repeat so many times: "even today".

To spell it out: I would almost certainly have voted against the resolution as it was. I listened to NPR as they carried an hour of Senator Byrd going all Mr. Smith against the resolution, and I was bawling my eyes out. I never trusted the administration and knew that everything in the way they were parsing their words, trying to quasi-link Iraq and 9/11, and strong-arming the Senate made it clear that they were lying about their intentions.

But that's a very different thing from the idea of allowing the status quo in Iraq. If you don't buy the GOP premise that it's either one or the other - allow an evil dictator to continue starving his people and *possibly* stockpiling WMD (remember we had no way of knowing whether this was true or not before the inspectors returned - before Bush, et al decided to ignore them (and literally pretend that they'd never been allowed in)), you can see that there are many other possible ways of dealing with that situation.

You don't have to support a position now (i.e., voting for the resolution despite being against war), or even in the past, to argue that it makes logical sense to someone (in this case, Senator Clinton) who is working from slightly different premises.

Posted by Chuck | February 11, 2007 4:20 PM

One can make the same case as Matt a bit differently.

War in Iraq represented "Washington consensus", and all "serious" and "responsible" politicians voted for it. The extend of the fiasco, quagmire in Iraq, rather unhappy situation in Afghanistan, very tricky situations with respect to Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon, and our credibility in shreds, require a bold new vision. It is not easy to articulate that vision, but we really need a leader capable of something beyond "more of the same, but with competence and moderation".

Sen. Clinton, so far, was utterly conventional. For a Senator, that's OK, for a President in normal times, that's OK, but in the time of transition, this is not OK.

Posted by piotr | February 11, 2007 5:18 PM

Chuck, what are those "slighly different premises"? Without examinining, it is impossible to tell if they are acceptable or not.

Posted by piotr | February 11, 2007 5:24 PM

Ah, I understand, I really do understand; but there is finally need to understand that coercion was surely war and war was surely occupation; no matter any and all deception by the Administration. Then, there should have been no coercion, there should have no war, no occupation. We are still coercing, however. No sooner than we were done coercing and warring and occupation had begun than the mere mention of leaving was "cutting and running." I understand, but wish to stress what coercion really was, as we both so sadly knew. I understand.

Posted by anne | February 11, 2007 5:29 PM

Expecting something different from Clinton _following the capture of Saddam_ is to show a bizarre lack of awareness of the political situation (to say noting of let's-buy-the-RW-spin revisionism like "Clinton voted to give Bush the authority to launch a war"). See here.

I'm so looking forward to the unfair criticism my preferred candidate, Wesley Clark, is going to receive from fellow Democrats who support other candidates.

Posted by rilkefan | February 11, 2007 6:40 PM

let's-buy-the-RW-spin revisionism like "Clinton voted to give Bush the authority to launch a war").

Well, she was coded in the media as a war supporter for two and half to three years. Apparently her communications staff either didn't recognize that or wasn't able to correct the impression. So she can't hire a competent staff. Gawd knows that hasn't caused any problems in the last five or six years. To what does the loss of an American city amount, after all?

And gawd knows there's no reason to worry about a President who can't communicate clearly to the American public. We're all looking forward to several more years of "I never claimed there was a connection to Al Qaeda," "I never said that we knew there were WMD in Iraq." And there's no reason at all to worry that a crap communications staff might be a significant disadvantage come the general election.

Or maybe, just maybe, she has a good communications staff and she was a war supporter, right up until the point she decided it would be an electoral liability for someone seeking the Presidency.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 11, 2007 7:34 PM

Or maybe you didn't read the speech she made at the time of her vote. And maybe it suits some of the people who dislike her to suddenly decide what the media has said since 9/11 has been controllable (esp. at the level of apparent nuance required to separate support for the troops and the expressed hope of a successful outcome from being "pro-war" - apparent given that even Democrats are refusing to acknowledge it). And maybe it's to be expected that after years of Bush people have internalized the with-us-or-agin-us mentality and refuse to allow HRC the rhetorical space she has needed to be a viable and effective politician.

Posted by rilkefan | February 11, 2007 9:22 PM

And maybe it's to be expected that after years of Bush people have internalized the with-us-or-agin-us mentality and refuse to allow HRC the rhetorical space she has needed to be a viable and effective politician

Obama's viable. Edwards is viable. Are you saying she occupies the same rhetorical space as those two on the war?

Seriously, I think it would have been major news if she'd something like "The war was a mistake, we shouldn't have gone in." Particularly if she said it early. I think the press would have listened to her, and even let it out that she'd said it. Are you suggesting that's not the case?

Certainly they made a big deal of it when Edwards admitted mistake. IIRC, they asked her about her position on the vote at that time, and she said something like, "It's too important to give you a political answer." Ah, bravery, how I cherish it.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 11, 2007 9:42 PM

"And maybe it's to be expected that after years of Bush people have internalized the with-us-or-agin-us mentality and refuse to allow HRC the rhetorical space she has needed to be a viable and effective politician."

She's had all the rhetorical space she ever wanted, at least from Democrats. Unlike the GOP, we've taken her at her word that she is a centrist, not on the left. We've also taken her at her word that she was a war supporter. If the war had gone well, she would have claimed and recieved a lot of credit for that. Now we're asked to give her "rhetorical space". Which means, what? That we assume that her support of the war was always insincere? Democrats who don't like HRC seem to be exactly the kind of people who take her at her words. They just don't like her words very much.

"Sen. Clinton, so far, was utterly conventional. For a Senator, that's OK, for a President in normal times, that's OK, but in the time of transition, this is not OK."

I think your point is good, but saying opposition to the war was out of the mainstream is a bit strange--just barely one year after 9/11, most Democrats in the House voted against authorizing the use of force in Iraq, plus 18 in the Senate. Were these people all nutjob pacifists nobody cared about? If most of the Dem presidential candidates are people who supported the war, it is *not* because there isn't anyone in Washington who opposed it.

Posted by Jeremiah J. | February 12, 2007 1:28 AM

I'm really late to this thread, but thanks, Matt, for the analysis. The key line that prevents this Dec. 2003 speech from being susceptible to a tortured reading supporting Hillary's revisionist view that, by the time March 2003 rolled around, she opposed invading Iraq, is the phrase: "I knew our military forces would be successful." That means she is limiting her disagreement with Bush to, in her words, the policy that was implemented beginning "the day after" the March 20, 2003 Iraq invasion. She is saying in December 2003 that she supported the invasion itself through her vote on the October 2002 resolution, but is correctly adding that the resolution did not deal with the post-invasion period. This is the position we all knew she had from the beginning (or, at least until Obama said on Meet the Press in October 2006 that he had changed his mind and might run for President); and this is the position that she is trying to pretend she never took. I know a lot has been said about this, but I really believe that this is a crucial thing to weigh in assessing Hillary's political character, courage, and judgment.

Posted by leon russell | February 13, 2007 12:03 PM